LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to increase the amount the complainant receives to pay for his social care. This is because the Council has proposed a care review in response to the request. This is reasonably required to consider any changes to a person’s personal budget and care plan. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about housing benefit and Council tax delays, and decision making because the matter has been remedied and disputes have been appealed to a tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker in removing Ms X’s teenage child from her home. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement.

Summary: we uphold Ms M’s complaint that the Council failed to arrange alternative provision for B for one term in summer 2022 and took too long to amend his EHC Plan following the March 2022 annual review meeting. However, the Council’s offer of £2,000 is an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about data protection issues. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider Mr X’s concerns.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision that the setting up of a family trust amounted to a deprivation of assets. The Council has agreed to make a payment to recognise the uncertainty caused by its delay in making the decision. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify us investigating the decision-making process.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a building control matter. This is because we cannot investigate the actions of the private company complained about. Also, there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s actions when drafting her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan. We have discontinued our investigation. This is because the matters complained of are intrinsically linked to the content of the Education, Health and Care Plan. This is appealable to a tribunal and is therefore outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Mr X complained about the Council and the Agency which provided care to his late mother Mrs Y. He said care workers did not stay for the allocated time and invoices were inaccurate. He also complained the response to his complaint was inadequate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Care Home. That is because the Council is completing a safeguarding investigation into the concerns.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s planning process and its decision to grant permission for a new residential property near her house. There is not enough evidence of injustice to Mrs X from any fault in the Council’s planning notification process, nor enough evidence of fault in its planning decision-making process, to warrant investigation. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X seeks from her complaint.

Summary: Mrs B complains about what happened when her father, Mr C, was discharged from hospital after attending with a fractured collarbone, and about arrangements for putting a care package in place. We found the Trust was at fault for the lack of information given to Mr C and his family when he was discharged to ensure he could manage at home. We also found fault by the Council in terms of lack of communication about timescales in arranging a care package. The Trust and Council have agreed to take action to remedy the impact.

Summary: We found fault on Mr J’s complaint about how the Council responded to his reports of his property flooding and to his formal complaint. The Council communicated poorly with him but took steps to improve communication in the future. The Council failed to keep proper records. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the decision to refuse the complainant’s application and appeal for a school place for her son. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Summary: Mr X and Ms Y complained about poor service from the Council’s children’s social care services. The Council upheld their complaints and offered a financial remedy, but Mr X and Ms Y said this was insufficient for the distress caused, the impact on their health and disruption to family life. The Council was at fault. The financial offer made after the stage two investigation was insufficient to remedy the injustice caused. However, it has since increased its financial offer and offered to arrange private therapeutic work for the family. These are appropriate actions. The Council will n

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s Schools Admissions Appeal Panel’s failure to provide his child with a place at School Y. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused him to lose out on a school place.

Summary: The Council’s failure to consider relevant information in an appeal about free school transport was fault. The Council has agreed to fund the transport, apologise, and update its policy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of a planning application and the complaint procedure. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. Further investigation is unlikely to led to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to Mrs X’s concerns about building work taking place next to her property. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr D complained about incorrect advice the Council gave his mother about emergency COVID-19 charging rules. The Council said it would fund a respite placement for his father. It later realised this was wrong advice but did not honour its promise. It also did not stop the placement when his father left the care home. We have decided there is evidence of fault causing distress. But we cannot recommend the Council waives all the fees.

Summary: Mr X has complained about poor care delivered to his daughters by a care provider. The Council is at fault as there were instances of poor care delivered by the care provider which caused distress and avoidable time and trouble to Mr X and his family. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice to Mr X by apologising and making a payment of £750 to him.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council’s social worker delayed providing evidence to a court dealing with his application for a child arrangement order and has not implemented a recent court direction to facilitate contact. The Ombudsman cannot lawfully investigate because the actions are part of court proceedings.

Summary: We have not investigated Mr B’s complaint about how the Council supported him after he made a disclosure of sexual abuse in 2017. His complaint is late, and, as there are no good reasons why he could not have approached the Ombudsman sooner, we cannot investigate it.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council left her mother, Mrs Y, in residential care for too long, resulting in her paying too much for her care. The length of time Mrs Y spent in residential care was due to COVID-19, not fault by the Council. However, the Council failed to assess Mrs Y’s finances properly. It therefore needs to reconsider its decision on the extent to which she deprived herself of capital.

Summary: We will not investigate how the Council’s Monitoring Officer considered a complaint about the conduct of a councillor. It is unlikely an investigation would find fault affected the Monitoring Officer’s decision to take no further action. Any delay in the process has not caused the complainant significant injustice.