LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about financial assessment for adult social care charges, because there is no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Mr X’s safeguarding concerns about his children. That is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: The Council was not at fault in how it decided what support to give to Mr X’s children after a court issued a Family Assistance Order. It followed its procedures and when the concerns about Mr X’s children were reduced, it ended its involvement. There was fault in the process the Council used in deciding to close the case, including how it communicated the closure to Mr X. There was no injustice to Mr X from the Council using the wrong process, and it has apologised for not updating him when the case was closed, so it has already remedied his injustice.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to provide support for his mental health during a child protection investigation. This meant he could not fully engage with the process, which caused distress and confusion. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for failing to use the mechanisms in place to identify Mr X’s needs and assess whether he needed reasonable adjustments. The Council has agreed to pay a financial remedy and has implemented service improvements.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s council tax reduction policy as its provisions can only be challenged by judicial review. Miss X can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal in respect of the Council’s decision on council tax liability and the amount it has awarded her in terms of discretionary relief.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decisions regarding the fitness of Mr X’s former partner to care for their children. The matters complained of are not separable from those that have been or could be raised during court proceedings concerning the care of the children.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to determine a council tax request as the matter has been remedied and there is a right of appeal to a tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the amount of council tax support he receives because the decision can be appealed to a Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: The Council failed to properly consider Mrs X’s application for a blue badge and failed to offer her the opportunity to appeal its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council will not let the complainant keep a bin store permanently locked. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care Mrs Y received from her Care Provider. This is because it is unlikely an investigation could add anything to the response the complainant has already received.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not properly deal with her application for its holiday activities and food programme. She also complained the Council did not effectively deal with her complaint about this matter. Ms X says the Council’s actions caused avoidable distress and led to the loss of opportunity for her children to take part in the activities. We found fault by the Council and the Council agreed to make a payment to recognise the injustice identified.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision not to appoint him as Relevant Person’s Representative for his mother’s Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisation. We have ended the investigation as the appointed Relevant Person’s Representative has approached the Court of Protection and Mr X is party to the proceedings. The Court is best placed to address Mr X’s concerns and make decisions in his mother’s best interests.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s involvement with her son, Mr Y’s, family. There was no fault in how the Council considered and incorporated Mr Y’s views in its assessment of his children’s needs or investigated his safeguarding concerns. The assessments were not biased against Mr Y.

Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his wife about the actions of Comfort Call, the care agency commissioned by the Council. The Council was at fault for the delay in telling him about the concerns carers raised, carers changing last minute and often arriving late. This resulted in avoidable distress and uncertainty for Mr X and his wife. The Council agreed to pay Mr X and his wife £150 each for the injustice its faults have caused them.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a building control matter. This is because it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s application for a test and trace support payment. There is not enough injustice to Mr X for the Ombudsman to devote time and public money to investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a neighbour’s CCTV installation and the effect on Mr and Mrs X’s privacy. We have no jurisdiction to investigate complaints about social housing tenants and the Council has had no direct involvement with the dispute.