LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a social worker allocated to her granddaughter’s case. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider her complaint because she does not have parental responsibility for her granddaughter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alledged failure by the Council to take action in response to the complainant’s concerns about her children being a risk of harm. This is because the issues raised relate to matters which occurred nearly three years ago. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons why she should exercise discretion and investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to provide appropriate services for the complainant’s family. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a data breach. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is the appropriate body to consider the complaint.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide her child, Y, with the special educational provision set out in his Education, Health and Care Plan. The

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with child protection matters. This is because the complainant is not a suitable representative for the child involved.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about a school’s decision to restrict his contact. We cannot investigate complaints about the internal management of schools.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to provide her with information without the written consent of a person with parental responsibility for the child the complaint concerns.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision her daughter does not qualify for free home to school transport. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of care arrangements because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant it, nor of the Council causing significant enough injustice to meet the tests in our Assessment Code, and we could not achieve a significantly different result so long after the original events.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not providing him with the care and support he feels he needs. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s safeguarding processes as there is not enough evidence of fault.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council issued multiple Education, Health and Care plans that named unsuitable placements and provisions, which meant her child was unable to attend education. The Ombudsman has found fault with the Council for its delay during the Education, Health and Care plan process, and for not communicating its decisions to Mrs X, however this did not cause significant injustice to Mrs X. We do not find fault with the Council for how it considered its alternative provision duty. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and carry out service improvements.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Nursing Home cared for his mother, Mrs Y, and her belongings. We will not investigate this complaint because the organisation has already admitted fault in several areas of Mrs Y’s care. It has apologised, made service improvements, and trained its staff to ensure the faults do not happen again. It has also accepted it has lost one of her rings. Further investigation by the Ombudsmen would not achieve anything more.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage to the complainant’s property which he says occurred due to the Council’s failure to maintain public drains. This is because the Council deny legal responsibility and the complainant could reasonably take court action to achieve his desired outcome. The courts are best placed to consider and decide such matters.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaints about the Council’s actions during court proceedings because the issues complained about have been considered by a court and the law says we cannot investigate. We did not investigate part of Miss X’s complaint because it is too closely related to the matters considered by a court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the road next to the complainants’ home causes flooding on their property. It is reasonable to expect them to pursue a court remedy.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council shared information about another child in a school admissions appeal bundle relating to her child. We will not investigate this complaint as the Information Commissioner’s Officer is better placed to do so.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council ignoring his concerns about his child while they remain in their mother’s care. There was no fault in the Council’s handling nor has it ignored Mr X’s views and concerns.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council introducing double yellow lines near the complainant’s house. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council decided to introduce the lines, and it is reasonable to expect the complainant to use, or have used, the alternative remedies available to him.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in issuing an Education Health and Care Plan and not offering alternative educational provision for Mrs X’s child. The matters complained of are not separable from matters subject to an appeal to a Tribunal, and a legal ruling prevents us considering whether alternative educational provision should have been made for the child.

Summary: There is evidence of a poor standard of care by the Council’s commissioned care provider, and a safeguarding investigation upheld Mr A’s complaints about neglect which affected his brother Mr X. The Council has waived the fees for the period of care and offered a sum in recognition of the time and trouble Mr A went to in making the complaint. It agrees to offer a greater sum to recognise the distress caused by the poor standard of care, and evidence the action taken to ensure service improvements at its commissioned provider.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to close a nearby footpath and how it dealt with her complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making processes to warrant an investigation. Even if there has been fault, the matters complained of cause insufficient significant personal injustice to justify an investigation, and investigation would not lead to a different outcome. We do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issues which gave rise to the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s alleged removal of two children known to Mrs X from their family home. This is because this is a matter for the courts.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his mother, Ms Y’s, care package. Mr X said the Council removed services from Ms Y’s care plan. He said the package is no longer flexible to meet her needs. Mr X said this impacted Ms Y’s health. There was fault in the way the Council delayed completing the support plan. This fault frustrated Ms Y. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment and remind staff of the importance of promptly reviewing and issuing support plans.