LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in the process of amending the complainant’s daughters’ Education Health and Care Plan. The aspect of the complaint relating to delay has been upheld and the Ombudsman’s intervention would not lead to a different outcome. The complainant’s appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) places the remaining substantive matters outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: Mr B complains the Council treated him differently during a safeguarding enquiry. He considers the Council racially profiled him. I have not found evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsmen will not investigate this complaint about an avoidably delayed hospital discharge. The Trust and the Council have already accepted there were failings and apologised for them. It is unlikely that an investigation would be able to find evidence of an unremedied injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decisions relating to foster children that were placed with Mrs X. This is because there are ongoing court proceedings that are closely linked to the matters Mrs X is complaining about.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint regarding delays in issuing an Education Health and Care plan as further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. It is reasonable for Mrs X to use her right of appeal to the tribunal.

Summary: There is no evidence the Council was at fault in the way it reached the decision about deprivation of assets, or that it harassed Mrs X as is alleged.

Summary: Ms C complained about the Council’s handling of her safeguarding concerns about her parent’s care home, and the support provided by its Adult Social care team. We found no fault in Council’s safeguarding process. The Council accepted it had failed to ensure a social worker was allocated to their cases and appropriate notes were not kept, which caused Ms C distress and uncertainty. We also found a significant delay in its complaint’s response. The Council will apologise and make payment to acknowledge the injustice Ms C experienced.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s planning decision to grant permission for a neighbour’s fence on previously open land. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning decision-making process to warrant us investigating. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks.

Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his daughter, Mrs Y. He complains about the delays in the education, health and care plan process, poor communication and lack of support. We find the Council was at fault for delays in the process and poor communication. This caused significant distress to Mrs Y and Mr X spent unnecessary time and trouble contacting the Council. The Council has agreed to make several recommendations to address this injustice caused by fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint relating to Mrs X’s family member’s grave plots. Parts of the complaint are matters we already considered and decided in 2019, and others are late with no good reason for the delay in complaining to the Ombudsman.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to purchase a property near the complainant’s home. This is because we are unlikely to find fault and the complainant has not suffered any significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the residence of children. Only a court can decide this matter and it would therefore be reasonable for Miss X’s family to use their right to go to court.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission to change the use of a building from residential to supported accommodation. Mr X said this will reduce the value of his home, will impact on his family and the community, and fears anti-social behaviour from the residents. We do not find the Council at fault.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to apply for an Attachment of Earnings Order to take part of Mr X’s salary directly from his employer. This is because the Council has been to court so we are prohibited from investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council advising the complainant it would seek an attendance order if failed to provide an education plan for his daughter who is home educated. The Council has apologised for writing to Mr X who does not live within its area. It has explained it asked for the information and apologised if he felt threatened by the content of the email. While we understand the complainant’s family found the experience stressful, we do not consider there is a significant personal injustice which justifies an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a developer of land allegedly felling trees on Council owned land. This is because there are bodies better placed to in investigate and remedy the issues subject to the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the lack of suitable disabled parking spaces within a reasonable distance of the Council’s City Hall. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the quality of care the Council’s commissioned care provider, the mews care home provided to her late aunt. We find the Council was at fault. This caused significant distress to Mrs X and her family. The Council has agreed to make several recommendations to address this injustice caused by fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s advice for Department Work and Pensions benefits. We cannot investigate their actions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council responded to a service request and communicated with the complainant. This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint that she tripped on a dangerous pavement which the Council had failed to repair. This is because it is reasonable for Ms B to pursue her compensation claim by taking the Council to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s application to the Land Registry concerning land which Mr X says falls under his ownership. This is because the complaint falls outside our jurisdiction as it is a late complaint and because Mr X has a right of appeal to the courts if he wants to challenge the Council’s position.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged breaches to data protection legislation by the Council. This is because the most appropriate body to consider and decide such matters is the Information Commissioners Office. There is no good reason why we should investigate in these circumstances.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council gave incorrect advice about Carers

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X complaint about the Council not taking direct debit payments for her late parents Mr and Mrs Y’s care alarm system for a year.