LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mrs B’s complaint about support she received as a foster carer. It is unlikely we could add to the Council’s own complaint investigation, or the remedial action it proposes.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to continue with a low traffic neighbourhood scheme. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate X’s complaint about Children Services’ actions. It is unlikely we could achieve more and there are other bodies better placed to consider a data protection complaint and social worker’s practice complaint.

Summary: Mr X says the Council delayed pursuing an alleged debt, wrongly pursued the debt when he had provided evidence of how he spent the money, wrote to him at the wrong address and should not have instructed bailiffs when it knew he was vulnerable. The Council was not at fault for pursuing the debt and considered Mr X’s vulnerability when referring the case to bailiffs. The Council delayed seeking repayment of the money and wrote to Mr X at the wrong address. An apology, payment to Mr Y, agreeing a payment plan and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: Ms X says the Council’s Local Authority Designated Officer failed to conduct the multi-agency meetings according to the Statutory Disclosure Guidelines. Ms X says this led to an incorrect disclosure to the Disclosure Barring Service. Ms X also says the Council failed to deal with her complaint. We have found fault in the Council’s complaint handling and recommend the Council apologise and carry out service improvements.

Summary: Ms X complains Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (NUTCC) failed to provide enough support for her late mother after she went to live with Ms X in March 2020. She also complains North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (NTMBC) failed to respond to her request for support in meeting her mother’s needs when her mother wanted to move back to her own home. NUTCC accepts it should have taken responsibility for meeting Mrs Y’s needs while she was staying with her daughter. NTMBC accepts it delayed in taking action in 2021 and for the confusion it caused and has apologised. NUTCC also delay

Summary: Ms X complains Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (NUTCC) failed to provide enough support for her late mother after she went to live with Ms X in March 2020. She also complains North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (NTMBC) failed to respond to her request for support in meeting her mother’s needs when her mother wanted to move back to her own home. NUTCC accepts it should have taken responsibility for meeting Mrs Y’s needs while she was staying with her daughter. NTMBC accepts it delayed in taking action in 2021 and for the confusion it caused and has apologised. NUTCC also delay

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to compensate him for damage to his vehicle. If Mr X believes the Council is liable for the damage it would be reasonable for him to make a claim against it at court.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about a child protection plan which was considered in court proceedings because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been considered in court. We have no discretion to do so.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about safeguarding a vulnerable adult because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. We could not achieve a remedy for the person affected because they have died, and the injustice to their representative is not sufficient to warrant our involvement. The representative has a more appropriate route to obtain information from the Council about the data it holds. The complaint is a late complaint as the representative knew about the issues more than 12 months ago.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a social housing landlord allowing soil to build up against Mrs X’s home. We have no jurisdiction to investigate the management of estate land by social housing landlords.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about information the Council passed to Mr X’s employer as the substantive injustice caused to Mr X arose from the action of Mr X’s employer, over whom we have no jurisdiction. In addition, Mr X’s complaint is essentially best dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that his property was damaged by a Council-owned tree which fell during a storm. This is because it is reasonable for Mr B to pursue his compensation claim by taking the Council to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the council’s response to damage cause to the complainant’s property by a tree. This is because it would be reasonable for him to pursue the matter in court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to Ms X’s request for an assessment of her child’s special educational needs. Investigation would be unlikely to lead to the outcome Ms X is seeking. Ms X had a right of appeal against the Council’s decision it would have been reasonable to use, and any delay by the Council in issuing its decision would have been too short to cause significant injustice even if Ms X had exercised her right of appeal.

Summary: the Council’s policy of capping adoption allowance at two thirds of core fostering allowance does not appear to reflect statutory guidance. The Council has followed this policy for at least ten years and was unable to explain now why it decided not follow the guidance. This is fault. However, the Council has decided to review the policy.

Summary: The Council reviewed the amount of Mrs X’s Direct Payment budget to enable her to purchase more overnight stays for her son M after she appealed its initial decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to escalate Mr B’s complaint about its failure to safeguard his son. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about children services actions as the Court is now considering the child’s care.

Summary: Mr X complained about a Council’s planning decision for development on his neighbour’s land. Which he said affected his residential amenity and loss of bats.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council treated Mr and Mrs Y when they took Mr Z back to their home during the Covid19 pandemic. This is because further investigation by the Ombudsman could not add to the Council’s investigation and we cannot investigate matters that have been to court.

Summary: The Council was not at fault in the provision of care to Mrs X. The extra care service could no longer meet her needs which required 24-hour care in a residential setting.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss X’s complaint about the bill for her Council-supplied heating and hot water. Miss X can be reasonably expected to take court action.

Summary: Mr B complained the Council did not carry out the statutory children’s complaint procedure correctly. Mr B said this caused him emotional distress. We found fault with the Council for delays in its complaint procedure. This caused Mr B injustice. The Council will make a financial payment to remedy this injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s neighbour’s extension. This is because both Mr X and his neighbour are Council tenants so this is a complaint about the management of social housing. The law does not allow us to investigate these complaints.