LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to meet her son Y’s special educational needs. This is because her complaint about the lack of educational provision and support falls outside our jurisdiction and the Council has properly considered whether to make other arrangements for him while he is out of school. There is no evidence to show any delay in completing Y’s annual review caused Mrs X or Y significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care provided to the late Mr B. This is because we could not add to the Care Provider’s response or make a different finding of the kind Mrs C wants. We could not now provide a remedy for any injustice caused by fault which might be uncovered during an investigation as sadly Mr B has passed away.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage to a car while travelling on the public highway. This is because the courts are best placed to consider the complaint.

Summary: Miss B complained that the Council’s Admissions Appeal Panel failed to properly consider the medical evidence she provided in support of her application for a place for her daughter at her preferred school, gave her misleading advice about it and failed to explain why it discounted it. We have not found fault with the Panel’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a dropped kerb. This is because the Council has provided a fair remedy and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a building control matter. This is because the injustice Mrs X claims stems from the actions of her builder rather than any fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly declined his application for a toll bridge fee exemption. He said the Council did not consider his application as someone with a mental health disability in the same way as it would consider an application from a person with a physical disability. Mr X said he felt the Council discriminated against him as a result. We found fault by the Council. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X, provide a financial remedy and provide us with evidence of its service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about children services actions. Some parts we have no power to investigate. There are other bodies better placed for other parts. And we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s decision to make child protection enquiries.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about being forced to go on a programme he did not agree to going on. This is because further investigation could not add to the Council’s response or make a different finding of the kind Mr B wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to repossess the complainant’s allotment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: The complaint is that the Council based a decision to refuse a request for urgent medical priority on inadequate evidence. The Ombudsman has seen the surveys the decision considered. Our decision is there was no fault. The surveys provide a basis for the Council’s decision. So we cannot question its merits.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has charged council tax for a period when the complainant did not live in the property. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to carry out recommendations made at Tribunal, which led to Y being placed in a mainstream school that could not meet her needs for a full school year. He said this caused him significant inconvenience and negatively affected Y’s education. The Council was at fault when it failed to name a specialist school in Y’s EHC Plan within the deadlines set by the Tribunal. This caused Mr X and Y an injustice. The Council has agreed to issue an apology and a £800 financial award to be used for Y’s educational benefit.

Summary: Mr B complained on behalf of Miss X and Mr Y that the Council failed to notify them of their right to appeal a housing allocation decision and failed to deal with reports of mould. Mr B said this impacted on the physical and mental health of Miss X, Mr Y, and their children, and denied them a right to appeal the Council’s allocation decision. We find the Council at fault. This fault caused Miss X and Mr Y injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Miss X and Mr Y, and improve its service to avoid something similar happening in future. We have not investigated pa

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, concerning the assessment of and decisions about the complainant’s care needs. This is because we consider the investigation carried out by the local NHS Trust, acting on the Council’s behalf, has properly addressed the complaint, so that further investigation by the Ombudsman would not be proportionate.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to deliver on its promise to pay him £100 when contact with his grandson was cancelled without any notice. The Council has agreed to honour its promise and also make a payment to recognise Mr X’s unnecessary time, trouble and frustration.

Summary: There was fault by the Council as it did not respond to an official complaint. The Council’s apology remedies the injustice to Miss X. There is no fault in the Council’s response to Miss X’s Council Tax arrears, as it has written off charges and stopped recovery action when made aware of her vulnerability.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement with the complainant and her daughter because we cannot achieve anything significant by doing so.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s response to her reports of noise nuisance by a neighbour. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: The Ombudsmen will not investigate Miss B’s complaint that her mother, Mrs C, was taken into hospital against her wishes, that there was a delay in finding a care provider, and that records do not reflect what really happened. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would add to the responses Miss B has already received from the Council and the Trust.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about contact with children. Contact with the children in this complaint was decided by a court and any breach of a court order or change in the contact arrangements would be for another court to decide.

complaint about the Council’s decision to place her children in to care and related matters. This is because the issues Mrs X raises are not separable from the matters decided in the family court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about events that occurred over 20 years ago. This is because it is a late complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs D’s complaint about care and medication given to her late father, Mr E, shortly before he died. This is because further investigation could not provide Mrs D with a different outcome to that she has already received or make a finding of the kind she wants.

Summary: Mr and Mrs C complain the Council failed to properly carry out the recommendations proposed at the final stage of the statutory children’s complaints procedure. Mr and Mrs C say the Council has not offered a satisfactory financial remedy for their quantifiable costs and they have suffered additional distress, time and trouble. We have found fault by the Council through delay in the complaint process and in its implementation of the recommendations. We consider the agreed actions of an apology, additional payment and other action provides a suitable remedy.