LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about pothole damage claims as these are matters for the courts and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council failing to provide information to her about school admissions. She wanted a place at an Academy and we cannot investigate their admissions process.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X complaint about the accuracy of a child protection document. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed and it is unlikely we would find fault in a decision to carry out a child protection investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a complaint about the conduct of councillors. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. The complainant has also not suffered any significant injustice because of the alleged fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council blocking Miss X’s complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about child protection. The principal matters complained of are not separable from matters that were or could reasonably have been raised during court proceedings. Any separable matters relating to data disclosure are ones the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed than us to consider.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about financial assessment for adult social care. There is not enough evidence of fault causing a significant injustice to justify the Ombudsman investigating. The Council completed the financial assessment in accordance with its policy, law, and guidance. The Council gave unclear information to the complainant, for which it has apologised.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Blue Badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B and Mr C’s complaint about the Council allegedly not taking the appropriate action when Mr C’s son sustained two injuries while in the care of his mother and her partner. This is because we could not add anything significant to the investigation the Council has carried out.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s consideration of his complaint about a child protection matter under the statutory complaint procedure. Mr X said he suffered distress and there was a harmful impact on both his mental health and his relationship with his son. We found the Council properly investigated Mr X’s complaint but there was avoidable delay. During our investigation, the Council apologised to Mr X, offered a symbolic payment and made service improvements. We consider this action provides a suitable remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to Mr X’s concerns relating to drainage problems in the road by his property. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to that which has now been carried out by the Council or lead to a significantly different outcome.

Summary: Mr D complains the Council’s financial assessment of his mother, Mrs D regarding care charges was incorrect because it did not take account of her disability related expenses, high outgoings, or her wellbeing. We have not found fault by the Council. .

Summary: Miss C complained the Council, in providing a remedy for her children’s services complaint, failed to properly consider the lack of support and the impact that had on her. The Council has put in place comprehensive procedural changes with further changes planned. An additional financial remedy and some further actions are required.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to paint a section of double yellow line regulations which Mr X requested for highway safety reasons. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mr & Mrs F complain about the way the Council's Local Authority Designated Officer considered allegations made about them as foster carers. I have ended my investigation into the Council until the outcome of a complaint against Authority 2 is known.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint alleging the Council sent a parking fine wrongly to the complainant’s home and then referred the matter to bailiffs. This is because the complainant has a right of appeal to court.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to finalise an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) for her daughter, Y, within statutory time limits. She also complained about poor communication. We find the Council at fault for missing deadlines and for inadequate communication. We recommend the Council apologises, makes a payment to recognise the avoidable uncertainty and time and trouble, and takes action to avoid recurrence.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to assess Mr X’s child’s special educational needs. There is a right of appeal to a tribunal it would be reasonable to use.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s concerns about the Council’s handling of his complaint about a penalty charge notice. This is because the issues he raises fall outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to arrange for another care agency to provide care to Miss X’s, for sending invoices to an incorrect address, and about an assessment completed in 2017. This is because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome. In addition, Miss X’s complaint about the assessment completed in 2017 is late.

Summary: The Council acknowledges Mrs X received poor care and treatment by the commissioned care provider. Mrs X suffered severe dehydration, often expressed pain which was not acted on and was not treated with dignity. The Council will now offer a sum in recognition of the harm caused to Mrs X and distress caused to her family. It has already taken steps to improve the quality of the care at the home.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to the complainant’s daughter’s special educational needs. This is because the substantive matters fall outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary: Mr D complained about the standard of care his son receives in a care home arranged by the Council; the Council’s decision not to move his son; and its delay in responding to his complaint. We found there was delay which caused Mr D distress and time and trouble. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy this.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council handled Ms X’s personal injury claim. This is because we have no remit to consider matters in connection with injury claims as ultimately these are decided in court.

Summary: We uphold Mr 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.