LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about failure to provide free reablement care because there is not enough evidence of fault. The Council carried out a proper assessment of needs and explained the care was chargeable before the care started. The Council missed opportunities to explain why free care was not available in this case. But that is not significant enough to justify investigation and would not alter the outcome; the complainant received care which they must pay for.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council investigated reports of smoke nuisance. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council carried out Child Protection proceedings for his child, placed restrictions on how he should contact the Council, and considered his request for reasonable adjustments for his disability. He said this caused him avoidable distress and affected the outcome of Child Protection proceedings. We have ended our investigation.

Summary: Mrs K complained, as the executor of Mr X’s estate, about the Council’s handling of her concerns relating to historical housing benefit overpayments. We found her concerns about the accuracy of the overpayments are late and appeal rights have expired. However, the Council was at fault for how it responded to her reasonable concerns. The Council has apologised but should also make a small symbolic payment to acknowledge time and trouble she experienced as a result.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s introduction of a road closure which restricted access to businesses by cars from outside a village. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to enforce parking restrictions against local residents outside his home without consultation. This is because, there is insufficient evidence of the complainant suffering a significant enough injustice to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We have decided not to investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Ms X’s housing register application. The Council has upheld the complaint and agreed to apologise to Ms X for an initial delay and failure to respond to her communications. It will also make a payment to remedy the frustration caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has failed to properly maintain a public highway. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to take the matter to court.

Summary: We cannot by law investigate this complaint about the Council’s trading standards investigation into alleged criminal offences. any action taken by or on behalf of any local policing body in connection with the investigation or prevention of crime.

Summary: Mr and Mrs B complained the Council misrepresented their family in a single assessment and it included factually incorrect data. They also complained the quality of the support the Council provided in practical sessions was poor and the conduct of an officer in two telephone conversations was unreasonable. We do not find the Council was at fault.

Summary: We found fault in a previous investigation because the Council failed to consider Ms X’s complaint about a personal budget for her child, via the statutory complaints procedure for children’s social care services. The Council agreed to consider the complaint via the statutory procedure, but then failed to do so. Therefore, we opened this investigation to consider further fault causing injustice to Ms X. There was fault by the Council which further delayed Ms X in receiving a response to her complaint via the statutory procedure. The Council agreed to pay a financial remedy to recognis

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about whether the Council has provided suitable education to Y. We cannot investigate this as the Tribunal is deciding what is a suitable education for Y.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to Mr X’s contact concerning highway matters. This is because past events fall outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time and with regards to more recent issues there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Mr X to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council managed an application for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). She also complained the Council failed to assess or review her needs as a disabled parent to a disabled child, over at least two years. We have found the Council at fault for not properly considering the health needs of the whole household when assessing the DFG application. We have also found the Council at fault for not considering the full range of purposes for which a DFG can be awarded in its decision. We have not found the Council failed to review Mrs X’s carer needs. We have fou

Summary: Miss B complained that the Council, in respect of her daughter C, delayed in producing an amended Education, Health and Care Plan following an Annual Review, finding an alternative placement for her or putting in place alternative education when she was unable to attend school. We found fault with the Council’s actions. It has agreed to pay Miss B £2000 for the benefit of C and £400 for herself and to improve its procedures for the future.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s school to home transport service. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to result in a different outcome.

Summary: Miss X complained about the quality of work carried out under a disabled facilities grant which she says has left her without adequate shower facilities. There was no fault in the way the Council has responded to the concerns Miss X raised about the quality of the works. However, the Council commissioned contractor failed to update the construction phase health and safety plan to include that food should not be consumed on the premises. This was fault. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Ms X £200 to acknowledge the uncertainty this caused Miss X over whether an allergic react

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s Education Welfare Service. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Also, we have no powers to investigate complaints about schools. Mr X’s concerns about data protection and the accuracy of information are best dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Mrs X says the Council has failed to respond to her request for her records. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs X to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office as the specialist information rights agency.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not allowing the installation of slip resistant flooring to the general areas of Miss X’s property as part of her disabled facilities grant works. This is because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about direct payments as there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the schools the Council has considered as possible placements for Ms X’s child and what it has told her about this. The matters complained of are not separable from those which carry a right of appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. It would be reasonable for Ms X to use this right if she is dissatisfied with any school placement named by the Council.

Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of the late Mrs Y about the care she received and the way the Council dealt with safeguarding concerns. She says this caused Mrs Y and her family much distress and they would like the Council to learn from this case. We find the Council at fault in both the care provided and the safeguarding process. We recommended it apologise, refund 50% of Mrs Y’s care costs and take action to avoid similar problems in future. It has agreed to take these actions.

Summary: The Council’s complaint responses should have explained the circumstances of Mrs Y’s fall in a care home it commissioned. This was fault causing avoidable distress. The Council will apologise for its poor complaint responses. There was no fault in placing Mrs Y in a care home in a different area because the evidence shows her family agreed.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her neighbour’s planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault affecting its decision.