LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mr X complained his school admissions appeal panel hearing was flawed because it failed to take relevant information into account and it failed to apply the admissions criteria correctly. The Council failed to properly record the reasons for the panel’s decisions at both stage of the process which means it is not possible to determine whether there were flaws in the decision-making process. The Council agreed to offer Mr X a fresh appeal with a new panel and clerk to remedy the uncertainty this has caused Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Ms X’s dropped kerb or her reports of residents in her area driving over kerbs to access their properties. This is because there is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council or injustice caused to Ms X sufficient to warrant an investigation and because Ms X’s complaint about the installation of her dropped kerb is late and so falls outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: The Council is at fault as it delayed in complying with our agreed actions following the investigation of Mrs X and Ms Y’s previous complaint about the care of Mr Z. The Council is also at fault as it issued an apology to Ms Y which referred to Mr Z by the wrong name. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms Y for the distress caused and has issued the payment agreed as a remedy for the previous complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s contact with the Council concerning his local councillors. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We found fault by the Practice and a care home acting on behalf of the Council with regards to how they managed Mrs H’s medication. We also found the care home failed to maintain appropriate hygiene standards at times. Although this fault did not have a significant impact on Mrs H’s care, it caused her son, Mr G, considerable confusion and distress. The Council and Practice will apologise to Mr G and take action to ensure similar problems do not occur in future.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to carry out repairs to a public footpath. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. If Mr X wishes to challenge the Council’s decision it would be reasonable for him to take the matter to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council sending Mr X a bill for council tax, for charging him to replace smoke alarms and removing rubbish, and for forcing him to demolish a property. This is because the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application for the complainant’s neighbour. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision.

Summary: The Trust entered into by Mrs X did not amount to a deprivation of assets, so the Council was entitled to take the value of her property into account in her financial assessment.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that two councillors did not breach the code of conduct. The complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to the complainant’s concerns about a tree. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to follow its complaints procedure. The complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The Council has offered the complainant £100 in recognition of the failure. I consider this is an appropriate remedy.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of their application for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) between 2019 and 2022 which the Council’s case panel refused. There was no fault in the Council’s decision to refuse the DFG or for the time it took to take the case to panel. There was some fault in how the Council initially communicated timescales to Mr and Mrs X which did not cause them a significant injustice. There was also fault in how the Council handled Mr and Mrs X’s complaint however it has already provided a suitable remedy for any injustice that caused.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to maintain a hedge that backs onto his property. Mr X said the Council also misled him about its responsibilities. Mr X says this has caused him considerable upset and distress. We do not find fault with the Council’s approach to determining liability for hedge maintenance. We find fault with the Council for failing to maintain the hedge, for failing to assess Mr X’s claim of damage, and for providing him with incorrect information. We recommend the Council apologise to Mr X, make a payment to reflect the uncertainty caused, and assess his claim of

Summary: Ms B complained about the way the Council handled a credit on her direct payment account. It did not credit a payment she made to the account and then instructed a debt collection agency who visited her home. She further complained about the way the Council responded after the visit and handled her complaint. She said the events caused her stress and worry. There was fault for which the Council will apologise and make a payment to remedy the injustice caused.

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 with the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action. It is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response in relation to the service issues raised by the complainant.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council did not tell Mr P that his direct payment account was in arrears, and arrears were building up over years. Mr X says this caused Mr P unnecessary distress. We find the Council at fault, and this fault caused Mr P and Mr X injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise, make payments to Mr P and Mr X, and improve its service so this does not happen to anyone else in future.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s administration of his mother Mrs X’s financial or care assessments. There is not sufficient personal injustice caused to Mr X or Mrs X by the matters to warrant us investigating. An investigation cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants of the Council providing telephone call transcripts. We will not investigate a council’s complaint process where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of Mr X’s objections to a Traffic Regulation Order. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of matters relating to an HMO conversion next to Ms X’s home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: The complainants, previous foster carers, complained about the way the Council dealt with an allegation from a foster child. The Council has already upheld some aspects of the complaint. We have considered whether the injustice caused by the faults has been properly identified and remedied. We have recommended additional remedial actions which the Council has agreed to take. We are therefore closing the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint, made on behalf of Mrs X, about the Council-commissioned care provider losing and not reimbursing her for lost possessions and clothes.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council is at fault in refusing his appeal for a school place for his son. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Summary: The Council is at fault at it failed to make reasonable adjustments to help Mr Z to complete his housing application and the care workers were late to Mr Z’s scheduled care calls which will have caused distress to him. The injustice to Mr Z cannot be remedied. The care provider is also at fault as it did not follow its procedure when Mr Z could not be contacted. This caused distress and uncertainty to Ms Y which the Council has agreed to remedy by apologising and making a payment of £250 to her.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Disability Related Expenditure. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.