LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the quality of care commissioned by the Council. That is because we could not add to the Council’s investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council completed a financial assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her complaint about a parish councillor, the actions of the parish councillor and the parish council’s decision to evict her from her allotment. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. We cannot investigate the actions of parish councils or councillors.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council not providing her with direct payments, under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983, to enable her to buy herbal supplements/remedies. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handed Miss X’s report of her broken door. This is because we could not achieve anything significantly more.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about how a school handled an allegation. This is because we have no powers to investigate complaints about the school’s actions in relation to this matter. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Local Authority Designated Officer process. This is because it has not yet been addressed through the Council’s complaints procedure.

Summary: Ms D complained the Council ignored her requests to discuss her mother’s (Ms M’s) return home after being told she needed to be in a care home. This caused Ms D and her mother emotional distress and potential financial distress for Ms M. The Council is at fault for poor communication and failing to proactively manage Ms M’s assessment. This has caused Ms M and Ms D distress. I have recommended a package of remedies.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about poor care by his late mother’s care provider. He says they ignored medication instructions which led to medication being administered incorrectly. This is because an investigation would not lead to any further findings or outcomes. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We have upheld Mrs X’s complaint about a lack of advice about the costs of adult social care. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mrs X to remedy the uncertainty caused. It will also remind relevant staff about the importance of providing appropriate information about charging for adult social care.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about adult social care, because the care package is arranged and funded by the NHS.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council failing to make adjustments for Mr X’s disability in conducting a school admission appeal hearing. This is because Mr X has started court action against the Council regarding these matters and a legal bar thus now permanently prevents us investigating them.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax liability because there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of two separate planning enforcement issues. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show its actions caused Mr X significant injustice. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an alleged data breach as he has already complained to us about this, and we will not investigate his complaint that the Council damaged his car as it would be reasonable for him to take the matter to court.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s response to a service request. The Council has already upheld Ms X’s complaint, apologised and taken steps to rectify its service delivery. Because these actions are appropriate and there are no wider public interest issues, it is not proportionate for us to investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to make alternative educational provision for the complainant’s daughter while she has been unable to attend school. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council failing to carry out refuse collection on his street. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint that her dog suffered injuries due to the Council’s failure to maintain a playing field. This is because it is reasonable for Ms B to pursue her compensation claim by taking the Council to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about trading standards because it is late with no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate it now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council are liable for the costs of damage caused to an unattended motor vehicle. This is because the courts are better suited to decide liability for damaged property and it would be reasonable for Miss X to pursue any claim through the Council’s insurers or the courts if necessary.

Summary: We do not uphold Mr X’s complaint about the way Durham County Council and County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust discharged his mother, Mrs Y, from hospital on three occasions. We have not found fault with the way Mrs Y was discharged or the reablement care she received at home.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to arrange suitable support for him when he left hospital in April 2024, leaving him without the support he needed. The Council delayed in identifying the need to reassess Mr X’s needs, review his financial assessment with him, and review his risk management plan. These delays caused avoidable distress to Mr X, but he was left without the support he needed because he was not prepared to pay for it. The Council needs to apologise for the distress it caused and take action to improve its services.

Summary: We do not uphold Mr X’s complaint about the way Durham County Council and County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust discharged his mother, Mrs Y, from hospital on three occasions. We have not found fault with the way Mrs Y was discharged or the reablement care she received at home.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to take action against a social housing landlord over an energy performance certificate. It was reasonable for Ms X to complain to the Housing Ombudsman about any breaches of her tenancy conditions by the landlord.

Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to provide her son (X) with a full-time education, provision in his Education, Health, and Care plan, and alternative provision since Autumn 2021. We found part of Mrs B’s complaint was late, and there was no fault in the process the Council followed to reach its views around X’s education. It therefore made decisions it was entitled to make. Mrs B also had appeal rights to the SEND Tribunal available to her throughout, which she should have exercised.