LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charging for adult social care. The Council followed the correct process to assess needs and ability to pay, explain about charging for care, and charge for care it arranged. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would find evidence of fault or lead to a different outcome.

Summary: The Council was at fault in how it dealt with Ms X’s complaint about its adoption service. This caused her frustration and meant she had to pursue her complaint through the wrong procedure unnecessarily. To remedy this injustice, the Council will apologise to Ms X, pay her £250 and begin a stage two investigation under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. It will also issue staff reminders to prevent the fault happening again.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council refused to pay the weekly fee for his mother’s care which it had previously agreed to with the Care Home so his mother (Mrs Y) is at risk of losing her placement. Mr X also complained that the Council failed to consider how Mrs Y’s wellbeing would be affected when it decided to move her to a new Care Home. The Council did not formally agree to a weekly figure with the Care Home so it was not at fault for this. The Council also considered Mrs Y’s wellbeing when deciding to move her to a new Home in line with the relevant guidance and without fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Council’s planning enforcement. There is not a good reason for the delay in Mr X bringing the matter to the Ombudsman.

Summary: Ms X complained that a delay in carrying out a financial assessment meant that her mother was not aware she would be charged for care in her home. And that no free reablement care was received after two hospital stays. There is no evidence of fault. The delay in the financial assessment was not the fault of the Council and there is no evidence Ms X’s mother was eligible for reablement care.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control and a retrospective planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. The complainant has also not suffered significant injustice.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to consider or make reasonable adjustments when she asked it for homelessness support. Ms X also said the Council communicated poorly and failed to offer any advice or help with her housing circumstances. We have found the Council at fault for failing to have regard for its duty to consider and make reasonable adjustments in Ms X’s case. We have also found the Council at fault for its communication and for how it managed Ms X’s homelessness approach. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay a financial remedy in recognition of her avoidabl

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council has breached its duties under the Highways Act 1980, by not maintaining Mr Y’s road. Mr Y has an alternative legal remedy to apply to the Magistrates Court for an order, requiring the Council to carry out the work, and it would be reasonable to expect him to use this alternative legal remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to consider taking child protection action if her partner returned to live in the family home. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about her relative's care. This is because the complaint is late and

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to his concerns about pavement littering on the road where he lives. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s investigation of his noise complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating. It would be reasonable for Mr X to provide to the Council for its consideration new information he has about a different noise type he says he is experiencing.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to disclose the background of a tenant it recommended to a private sector landlord. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner.

Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council handled her homelessness after she received an eviction notice in 2024. The Council was at fault. It failed to take steps to alleviate her risk of homelessness and delayed moving her to interim accommodation. This meant Miss X remained in a property at risk of eviction and homelessness for longer than necessary. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to Miss X to recognise the distress and uncertainty this caused.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions involving Miss X while she was using a library facility. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome we can achieve by investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to install bollards on the grass verge close to her dropped kerb and to tarmac the footway in front of her property. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Ms C complained about the Council’s poor communication and delay to arrange support at a day centre for her daughter (Ms X) as set out in her care and support plan. The Council accepted it was at fault and apologised. We found the Council’s apology was not enough to remedy the injustice this caused Ms C and Ms X. The Council will make symbolic payments to acknowledge the injustice it faults caused.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the conduct of a review panel that considered the permanent exclusion of Mrs X’s child from a school. This is because the school is an academy and we have no legal power to investigate the conduct of review panels for academy school.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: On behalf of Mr X, Mrs B complained the Council poorly handled Mr X’s homelessness application. Mrs B says this caused Mr X distress. We find the Council at fault for a delay in opening a new application for Mr X. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mr X and remind its staff of when the Council should carry out homelessness assessments.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to backdate retail relief to the complainant’s business rates. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council has considered the matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the school transport offered to Mrs X’s child. This is because it is reasonable for her to use the Council’s appeals process.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about being issued a Fixed Penalty Notice for littering. This is because Mr X can raise a defence against the issuing of the notice in court.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council provided unsuitable bed and breakfast accommodation when she was homeless and failed to move her to suitable accommodation once her baby was born. The Council was at fault and Ms X and her baby remained in bed and breakfast accommodation for 25 weeks longer than the legislation allows. The Council will apologise to Ms X and pay her £2,750 to recognise the frustration and distress she was caused.