LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision on the designation of changing areas in its leisure facilities. It is unlikely we would find fault and there is no evidence of significant injustice. In any case we could not achieve the outcome Mrs X is asking for.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to make age-related increases to the financial support paid to the complainant in respect of a young person in his care. This is because the complaint is late and there are no grounds to investigate it now.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council has not dealt properly with her son Y’s Special Educational Needs. The Council has not completed annual reviews for her son’s Education Health and Care Plan. Miss X suffered avoidable distress and her son missed special educational needs provision. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Miss X £200 for distress, pay Miss X £6,000 for missed provision and review its processes.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to reassess her suitability to care for her grandchildren and for failing to pay for her travel expenses to visit her grandchildren. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, one complaint element is premature as it has not completed the Council’s complaints procedure.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on Mr X’s homeless application. It was reasonable for him to ask for a statutory review of the decision and the Council advised him of this right.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about alleged defamation by social workers and the prevention of an adoption by Mrs X and her family. The matters complained of involve the opinions recorded by social workers, and regardless of their accuracy, they are likely to have been closely connected with the court action in which Mrs X contested the Council’s decision that the adoption they had planned should not go ahead.

this complaint about the Council forcing Ms X to sign a party wall agreement or that it has failed to complete works to her building leaving her with substantial costs. Her complaints about the agreement and also improvement and prohibition orders served on her as a landlord took place in 2021, which is outside the12-month period for receiving complaints. Her complaint about completion of the agreed works is a private legal matter and she would need to challenge the Council in the courts for any incomplete work which has caused her expense.

Summary: Ms F complained her child did not receive a full-time education for two academic years. We partially upheld the complaint, finding the Council did not respond properly when learning of the child’s absences from school in September 2022. As a result there was some loss of education provision and distress caused to Ms F. The Council has accepted this finding and agreed action, set out at the end of this statement, to remedy that injustice and improve its service.

Summary: Mr X says the Council is using exemptions under information rights laws to prevent public scrutiny in the complaints process. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Information Commissioner is best placed to investigate. Further, there is no fault in the Council not considering Mr X’s matters via its complaints process.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a failure to act on reports of anti-social behaviour. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We consider further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: The investigation into this complaint is discontinued as the action taken by the Council to resume sessions at a leisure centre has remedied the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council has treated Mr B for the past 30 years. This is because we could not add to previous responses Mr B has received from the Council.

Summary: Mr B complained how the Council dealt with his reports of dust pollution, out of hours work and noise at a development near to where he lives. He also says the Council failed to deal with his communication efficiently between departments. We do not find the Council was at fault.

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to deal with Mr X’s complaints of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour in his supported accommodation. It was also at fault for failing to respond to his complaint at stage two of its process. The Council was not at fault in how it dealt with issues of disrepair and the quality of support provided or for ending his housing benefit. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Mr X £150, and act to improve its services.

Summary: We have not investigated any part of this complaint. This is because it is late, concerns matters which carry appeal rights which it was reasonable for the complainant to use, matters which can only be decided by a court, or matters which fall to a different organisation to investigation. The complainant has also raised new matters which did not form part of his complaint to the Council.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the amount due for a Penalty Charge Notice because the complainant appealed to the tribunal. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in removing Miss X’s child and placing the child with another person. The matters complained of are not separable from matters that have been or could reasonably have been raised during court proceedings.

Summary: Ms X and her daughter Ms Y complained the Council's investigation into how it cared for Ms Y as a Looked After Child and communicated with Ms X was not sufficiently comprehensive. The Council was at fault for not considering Ms X and Ms Y’s complaint using the children’s statutory complaints procedure, but this did not cause them an injustice because the Council's investigation was thorough and identified significant failings which it has appropriately remedied. It has agreed to remind staff of the correct process for considering complaints that come under the remit of the children’s

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of an officer involved in the Council’s case against Mr X which resulted in the issuing of a Community Protection Notice. This is because Mr X had appeal rights to the Magistrates’ Court against the Notice so placing the complaint outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue a blue badge. That is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s Children’s Services team and its involvement with her family. 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, and it is unlikely an investigation would add anything to the Council’s response.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to deal properly with the charges for his father’s care, resulting in him receiving a bill for over £4,000 which he cannot afford to pay. The Council accepts it took too long to collect the charges. When it did, the charges were higher than it had said they would be, adding to Mr X’s confusion. The Council has agreed to waive £200 of the outstanding charges.

Summary: There was fault by the Council. The Council arranged home care for Mrs Y, but did not send her invoices for over 18 months due to a system failure. This meant that she received a large backdated invoice. The Council’s apology, waiving part of the bill and affordable payment plan remedies the injustice to Mrs Y. The Council will also review its procedures to ensure the fault does not recur.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s childrens services involvement with her family because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been considered and decided in court proceedings, such as this. We have no discretion to do so.

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mrs B and Miss C’s complaint about the Council’s removal of Mrs B’s granddaughter from her care and its subsequent refusal to place her with Miss C (the child’s aunt). We can neither tell the Council where to place a child nor decide on disciplinary action for social workers, so we cannot achieve the outcomes they want.