LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about signage because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with matters relating to the adoption of a road outside the complainant’s property. This is because we have previously considered a complaint about the Council’s claim that the road was adopted. Other matters raised by the complainant are either made late or have been subject to the commencement of court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a dropped kerb. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. In addition, we could not achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council changed the parking permit scheme where he lives without proper consultation. We find no fault with the way the Council carried out changes to the scheme.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about way the Council conducted a Best Interests Meeting for her son, Mr C, or the way it treated her. This is because

Summary: Mr X complained about City of York Council (the Council) and York and Scarborough Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). Mr X complained about the way the Council and the Trust dealt with his late father, Mr Y’s, discharge from hospital and the Trust’s care of Mr Y while he was in hospital. We will not investigate the complaint because a coroner and a local Safeguarding Adults Board (SAB) are still investigating related issues. Mr X can resubmit his complaint to us for further consideration when the coroner and SAB have finished their investigations.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council issued a penalty charge notice for parking in a restricted area. Mr X can reasonably use his right of appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

Summary: Mr X complained about City of York Council (the Council) and York and Scarborough Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). Mr X complained about the way the Council and the Trust dealt with his late father, Mr Y’s, discharge from hospital and the Trust’s care of Mr Y while he was in hospital. We will not investigate the complaint because a coroner and a local Safeguarding Adults Board (SAB) are still investigating related issues. Mr X can resubmit his complaint to us for further consideration when the coroner and SAB have finished their investigations.

Summary: The Council accepts there were delays in financial assessments and reviews of Ms K’s care, errors in the transport provision, and a failure to carry out a carers’ assessment. It has apologised and reinstated transport. It will reimburse Mr X’s costs for the transport he provided and offer carers’ assessments to Mr and Mrs X. There was no fault in the calculation of Ms K’s contribution towards the cost of her care, however, and no reason why the Council should waive the outstanding contribution.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council failed to properly consider a planning application. Although the Council was at fault, that did not cause the complainant a significant injustice.

Summary: Ms C complained the Council has failed to set up the agreed Direct Payment to pay her for five hours a week of support with regards to her father’s care. We did not find fault with regards to the decision that a direct payment was no longer required to support Mr F with social outings, once he had gone into hospital. However, the Council failed to communicate clearly with Ms C about this. The Council has agreed to apologise for this.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complainant has not suffered significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide extra hedging or screening along the boundary between the road where the complainant lives and communal gardens of Council owned properties. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

Summary: Mr L complains in relation to a number of missed garden waste collections by the Council. He also says the Council’s customer service and complaints process has been poor. We found fault by the Council, which had already fully acknowledged its failings and the unsatisfactory service provided. This caused Mr L an injustice and the Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy this.

Summary: Mrs F complained about the Council’s decision to apply a top up on her mother’s care charge contributions. She also complained about the advice and support she received. We found fault in the way the Council applied its top up charge and the support it provided Mrs F with finding suitable care homes for her mother. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs F, remove its top up charges, and make payment to acknowledge the injustice this caused her.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council as a registered social housing provider because we have no jurisdiction to investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about street numbering. This is because any fault has not caused him a significant personal injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance. This is because the court is better placed to consider the complaint and it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to use his right to approach the court about the matter.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of her disabled son, Mr F’s care between 2020 and 2022 following a safeguarding investigation. There was fault identified by a safeguarding investigation around the care Mr F received at a care home commissioned by the Council. There was then poor communication and delay in putting funding in place when Mr F moved into a temporary care home. The Council agreed to apologise and pay Ms X a total of £600 to remedy the distress and uncertainty caused by the faults. There was no fault in the Council issuing Ms X with an invoice for outstanding c

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about enforcement action the Council took for council tax arrears. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms C’s complaint about lack of care and support from the Council. This is because it is unlikely we would find enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an ombudsman investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to issue final Education Health and Care Plans for Mrs X‘s son following reviews of the Plan in 2019-20 and 2020-21. The fault in the form of delay by the Council is unlikely to have caused sufficient injustice to warrant investigation by us.

X complained the Council failed to take appropriate and timely enforcement action regarding a breach of planning control near his home. He says his outlook is now unsightly and he has spent a significant amount of time and effort progressing the matter with the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council missing some of her bin collections. The matters complained of did not cause Mrs X such a significant personal injustice to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council poorly managed their child, Y’s, transition from children’s services to adult services as a care leaver. They say this caused them and Y distress and affected Y’s health. They also say the Council handled their complaint poorly. The Council is at fault. There were faults during the transition planning process and with complaints handling. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr and Mrs X and Y, make remedy payments in recognition of the uncertainty and distress caused and act to improve its services.