LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Ms Y complained about the way the Council dealt with her child, Z’s Education Health and Care plan, special educational needs provision, social care assessments and social care provision. We have found the following faults by the Council: failure to respond to Ms Y’s concerns about section A of Z’s Education Health and Care plan; failure to put Z’s social care support in place; and a failure to deliver all Z’s special educational needs provision in the year 2020/2021. We have also found these faults caused Ms Y and Z injustice. We have not found fault on the other parts of Ms Y’s comp

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has done nothing to resolve Mr X’s reports of noise nuisance and that it has no empathy towards him. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about information sent to Miss X when she complained to the Council. This is because the Council has said it will contact Miss X about her complaint. It is reasonable for Miss X to complete the Council’s own complaints process. An investigation at this time would not achieve anything more.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not provide her with COVID-19 funding, causing financial loss and distress. We found no fault in the Council’s decision making but we found fault because its published policy was not clear. We recommended the Council provide Ms X with an apology and £100 for distress and uncertainty.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about an education team referral to the child protection team. The referral is more than 12 months ago and the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider her complaints about an inaccurate document.

Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it decided Ms Y’s care needs, nor for reducing the hours of support she received from her care provider. The Council was at fault for delaying in providing Ms Y with an advocate, but this did not cause any injustice.

Summary: Ms C complained about the care home commissioned by the Council. She complained about the way it acted in response to her mother’s deteriorating health. We found fault with regards to the care home’s actions, especially with the way it communicated with the family. The Council has agreed to apologise for this and pay a financial remedy for the distress Ms C experienced.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council considered a request for an auditory learning device. The complainant has lodged an appeal at the Tribunal therefore we have no jurisdiction to investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in releasing records under a Subject Access Request. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is best placed to consider complaints about information handling.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to make an application to the family court for an interim care order for his child because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from considering complaints about matters that are subject to court proceedings.

Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s decision not to provide Mr X with formal support, despite assessing he had eligible care needs. The Council should have assessed Mr X’s daughter as a potential young carer while she lived with him. The Council’s decision to close the case before it had completed all agreed actions to help support Mr X was fault, which caused uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and reassess Mr X, his daughter and anyone else that provides him support.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council completed a Children’s Social Care assessment. That is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We uphold Ms X’s complaint that the Council failed to consider his complaint within its children statutory complaints’ procedure. The Council has agreed to do so without further delay.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to start a safeguarding investigation. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage to Miss X’s car by a waste collection vehicle. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The issue at the heart of the complaint is if the Council was negligent. This is not something we can establish and it is reasonable for Miss X to use the legal remedy available to her.

Summary: the Council accepted it had not supported Ms M and B as it should with transition from school to college, and two transport payments were late. The Council apologised and made changes to address the problems. This is a satisfactory outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not telling Mrs X charges were accruing for her mother’s care. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and significant injustice. In addition, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council’s bailiffs should not have clamped his car for a parking debt, as the car was on a Hire Purchase Agreement. We have not investigated this further, as the question of how a Hire Purchase Agreement affects a bailiff’s ability to clamp a car is a complex legal area better to be determined by the Courts. However we have found fault with the Council for not being more proactive in determining ownership of the vehicle by contacting the finance company. The Council has accepted it was at fault. This fault caused no injustice to Mr X as his car was promptly unclampe

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council calculated Ms X’s housing benefit. This is because the alleged faults have not caused Ms X any significant injustice to justify an investigation.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to refer her child Y for a dyspraxia assessment. She said that has affected Y’s educational opportunities. The Council has agreed to pay Ms X £200 to remedy the injustice caused. We are satisfied with the Council’s proposed actions therefore we will not investigate this complaint further.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint that her car was damaged by a pothole which the Council failed to repair. This is because it is reasonable for Miss B to pursue her compensation claim by taking the Council to court.

Summary: The Council was at fault for delay reviewing Mr X’s care plan but I do not consider this fault caused Mr X an injustice. The Council’s delay progressing Mr X’s need for a Disabled Facilities Grant is fault. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Mr X £3,000 in recognition of the injustice caused.

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council chose his mother, Ms Y’s, care home and reviewed its suitability. There was no fault in the way the Council chose the care home. The Council was at fault for delay in reviewing Ms Y’s care and support plan. This did not cause Ms Y an injustice as she was settled at the care home and it was meeting her needs. However it caused Mr X frustration and meant he went to time and trouble to chase the review. The Council has already apologised to Mr X. In addition, it has agreed to pay him £100 to acknowledge the frustration and time and trouble he was cau

Summary: Mr X complained the Council’s children’s services gave misleading information to it about a prospective tenant. Mr X says the tenant has damaged the property, failed to pay rent and harassed both staff and other tenants. We do not find fault with the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council reviewed restrictions it placed on the complainants contact. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how it dealt with the matter. There is also insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council considered its duties under the Equality Act 2010. Complaints about data protection should be raised with the Information Commissioner.