LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We stopped investigating a complaint about the Council’s social care charging policy because it is reasonable for Mr X to wait for the Council to review the policy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council’s Monitoring Officer dealt with a code of conduct complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to install ramped access to Miss X’s property. That is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs Y’s neglectful treatment in a care home before her death. The Council has already made an offer of a financial remedy for the distress Mrs X and her sister experienced. We could not achieve a different outcome as the Ombudsman’s role is not to award compensation, and it is open to Mrs X to apply to the courts if she wishes to pursue a higher figure.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council’s Deputy Monitoring Officer dealt with a code of conduct complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint that she tripped and suffered injuries due to the Council’s failure to repair a pavement defect. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs B to pursue her compensation claim at court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged damage to Mr X’s bin by a carer. It is reasonable for Mr X to instead raise the issue with the Council’s insurers, and then refer it to the small claims court if the Council does not agree to compensate him.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council investigated and responded to safeguarding allegations made against her in her role working with adults with care and support needs. We have ended our investigation as it is for the provider Mrs X works for to investigate and decide what action to take. We cannot achieve a meaningful or different outcome by investigating further.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care provided to the late Mrs C. This is because we could not add to the Care Provider’s responses even if we investigated. Mrs B can ask the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to consider whether she should have access to the information she says she wants but has not received from the late Mrs C’s Care Provider, and it would be reasonable for her to do so.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to force the complainant’s neighbour to cut back their hedge. The complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The complainant has been dealt with by a Housing Association which is not in our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the reduction in a special guardianship allowance paid to him as there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant this.

Summary: Mr and Mrs B say the Council failed to provide appropriate advice and support about funding and care options in 2020, failed to carry out a continuing healthcare assessment, failed to review the case, delayed identifying a suitable home when Mrs B was in hospital, delayed responding to the complaint and failed to identify any lessons from the complaint. The Council failed to carry out a continuing healthcare assessment and failed to explain what action it had taken to address the issues identified. Procedural changes and training already taken or planned, alongside an apology and paym

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of various matters surrounding the care needs of, and care home placement for, his mother. The complaint was closed because we did not find fault by the Council in the matters raised by Mr X.

Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of her son, Mr Y, about care and support charges from the Council. She said the Council sent two years’ worth of invoices to Mr Y, who did not know he had to contribute to the cost of his care as no one from the Council spoke to him about it. The Ombudsman found fault causing injustice because the Council failed to maintain a proper oversight of Mr Y’s care and support and failed to carry out adequate financial reviews.

Summary: Mr X complained that the Council did not provide him with sufficient information and support when he was making an online application for a place for his child at his preferred primary school. I found no evidence of fault by the Council and no fault in the way the Independent Appeal Panel considered his infant class size appeal.

Summary: Mr B and Mr C complain about the care their late mother Mrs D received from a Council-funded care home, from district nurses and from a mental health outreach team. They also complain the Council delayed re-assessing her needs. We found the Home failed to properly manage Mrs D’s leg condition and her continence needs. The Home and Council delayed too long in arranging to re‑assess Mrs D’s care needs. Mrs D is likely to have suffered preventable harm and distress due to these faults. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B and Mr C for the distress they have suffered, and to work w

Summary: We have found in the Council’s actions as the Council failed to provide Ms B with the review report it had promised to deliver. There were also delays in the process and there was poor communication during and after the review. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms B, have a meeting with Ms B and pay a financial remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about poor quality of care in a care home before Mrs Y’s death. The Council has carried out a Serious Incident Practice Review and it will share its report with Mrs X when it is completed. It is unlikely our involvement would add to the Council’s investigation or lead to a different outcome at this time.