LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide alternative education provision for her son, Y, when he could not attend school. The Council is at fault as it did not consider whether it had a duty to provide alternative provision for Y. The Council is also at fault as it did not keep Y’s part time attendance at school under review. The faults by the Council caused uncertainty to Mrs X and caused Y to miss five weeks of education provision. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising to Mrs X and making a symbolic payment of £500 to her for distress and a symbolic pay

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, about assessments made by the Council in response to child protection referrals it received. This is because the complaint is late, there are other agencies better placed to deal with much of its substance, and we cannot achieve most of the outcomes the complainant is seeking.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP) application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a report produced by the Council in 2022. This is because the complaint has been made late and there are no good reasons to investigate.

Summary: Miss X complained about the content of her daughter Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan, about how the Council reviewed the Plan, provided education and refused her request for a reassessment of Y’s needs. We found the Council delayed in completing the annual review of Y’s EHC Plan, and did not tell Miss X of her appeal rights against its decision not to reassess Y’s needs. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss X and pay her £400 to recognise the frustration this caused her.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action to seek the installation of an access path from a nearby residential development on to recreational land. Even if there has been Council fault, the outcome does not cause Mr X a significant personal injustice warranting an investigation and there are insufficient public interest grounds for us to investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about an alleged breach of data protection and failure to take enforcement action against her neighbour for parking outside her property. It is reasonable for her to complain to the Information Commissioner. Also, we cannot require the Council to pay her the significant sum of money which she is seeking as compensation.

Summary: Mrs B complains the Council has not provided occupational therapy for her son (“Y”) as outlined in his Education Health and Care Plan (“EHCP”). Mrs B says this has had a negative impact on her son’s progress with his education. The Ombudsman finds fault in the Council not ensuring Y receives the support outlined in his EHCP.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker. The complaint is not separable from matters that are subject to court action.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to grant retrospective planning permission for his neighbours extension. He also complained about the Council’s response when he reported noise and disruption from the building works. He said this affected his amenity and caused him distress. We did not find fault with the Council.

Summary: Mrs C complained the Council wrongly kept restrictions for her contact with the Council in place. She said it failed to consider her health conditions and its restrictions breached her Human Rights. As a result, she said she experienced distress. We found no fault by the Council on the substantial matters of the complaint as it acted in line with its Policy. It apologised for delays in responding to Mrs C’s complaint, which was enough remedy the distress this caused her.

Summary: Miss X complained about the way the Council handled her housing application. She said she missed out on a suitable property. We did not find fault with the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide him with housing and unfairly decided to remove him from the housing register. Mr X said the Council also failed to make reasonable adjustments for his disabilities. There was no fault in how the Council tried to provide Mr X with housing or in how it made reasonable adjustments for his needs. There was fault in how the Council decided to remove Mr X from the housing register. The Council agreed to review its decision in line with its own policy and tell Mr X of the result.

Summary: Ms B complains the Council initiated a safeguarding investigation into unfounded allegations of financial abuse against a service user, Mr Y. She says the Council suspended her direct payments and her bank accounts were frozen, leaving her destitute. The Ombudsman does not find fault in how the Council conducted the safeguarding investigation or stopped direct payments.

Summary: We found staff from the Nursing Home failed to take Mrs U to the toilet when she asked. The Nursing Home also did not keep full and accurate records. By not taking Mrs U to the toilet when she asked staff were not adhering to her care plan and this affected her human right to be treated with dignity. Poor record keeping hindered our investigation and means we cannot provide Mrs U’s daughter, Ms M, with a clear answer to her complaint. We also found the Council did not update its access system and sent a male carer which was not in Mrs U’s care plan. We are satisfied with the steps it

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the complainant’s former employment with the Council. This is because the law prevents us from investigating employment related complaints. We will not investigate the complaint about council tax and council tax reduction because the Council has proposed a fair remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council did not help the complainant when she was facing homelessness in 2019. This is because it is a late complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to investigate a complaint about the conduct of parish councillors. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We have not seen any evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the complaint. Also, further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: A parent complained that the Council had unfairly denied his daughter a place at his preferred junior school despite the long time she had been on its waiting list, and that the independent admission appeal panel had wrongly refused his appeal for the school. But we do not have grounds to investigate these matters because there is no sign of fault by the Council or panel which caused the parent a significant injustice.

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to give Mr B the opportunity to verbally present his views to the panel considering his travel assistance application for his grandson. The Council has agreed to reconvene the panel and consider the case again, with Mr B present if he wishes.

Summary: Mr X complains about noise nuisance from a factory near his home. The Ombudsman did not find fault in the way the Council considered Mr X’s reports of alleged noise nuisance.

Summary: there was some fault by the Council in relation to the matters complained about in the form of a failure to update written care plans and delays in the complaints handling process. The Council will take the agreed action to recognise the injustice these caused and to ensure that such faults do not recur

Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to review her son’s Education, Health and Care plan for three years, failed to put provision in place and failed to consult schools when requested. There was some delay and administrative fault by the Council but this did not affect Ms X’s son’s education. Ms X and the Council disagreed about the type of education to be provided which was a matter for the SEND Tribunal to resolve. An apology and modest remedy payment were recommended but declined by Ms X.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about information given or used in Court proceedings. And there are other bodies better placed to consider his professionalism and data protection complaints.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s planning application. This is because Mr X had appeal rights to the Planning Inspectorate which we would reasonably have expected him to have used.