LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council handled and investigated his concerns about the use of a car park next to his property, owned by Mr F. The Council was not at fault. It has investigated Mr X’s reports of anti-social behaviour and breaches of planning conditions appropriately and was not at fault when Mr F removed a gate to the car park during 2021. There was some fault in how the Council handled Mr X’s complaint however it has already apologised for any injustice that caused.

Summary: Ms B complained on behalf of her mother, Mrs X, that the Council failed to send deferred payment agreement forms after she moved into residential care and failed to advise her that she could claim Attendance Allowance. We found the Council delayed in sending the deferred payment agreement form to Mrs X and failed to arrange an appointment to discuss the scheme in more detail after her placement became permanent. However, it has provided a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council has delayed in providing lighting to a rear alley and is treating him as an unreasonable complainant. The Council has explained the action it will take to resolve the matter. It is not treating Mr X as an unreasonable complainant.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his neighbour’s planning application. This is because the complaint is late, the decision does not cause Mr X significant injustice and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker relating to a child’s care. This is because the law prevents us from investigating matters which have been decided in court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault and the complainant has not been caused significant injustice by any delays.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s actions and decisions in its role as an appointee for this late brother, Mr Y’s, finances who lived in a nursing home. There was no fault in the Council’s decisions around Mr Y’s finances which were made with his best interests in mind. The Council was at fault for failing to consider whether to apply to the Court of Protection to become Mr Y’s deputy but that did not cause Mr X an injustice. The Council agreed to remind relevant officers of when to consider applying to the Court of Protection, in line with its policy.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about allegations made by his carer. This is because further investigation by the Ombudsman could not make a finding of the kind Mr B wants. Claims of defamation and libel are properly for the courts to consider and it would be reasonable for Mr B to ask the court to consider his claim.

Summary: There is no evidence the Council was at fault in the way it conducted the financial assessment once Mrs X’s increase in income was known. The care plan should have reflected more accurately the extent of some of her needs: the Council amended that and allowed the disability-related expenditure accordingly.