LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the support provided by Children’s Social Care. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about data recorded about the complainant and his family by the Council in a assessment document. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions and the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider.

Summary: there was fault in the way the Council considered Ms X’s concerns about the suitability of interim accommodation it placed her in when she was homeless. The Council has agreed to provide a personal remedy for the distress and uncertainty this caused and make a service improvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage caused to Mr X’s vehicle by a pothole. Such matters are really negligence claims, and it is reasonable therefore for Mr X to refer the matter to the small claims court.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider his complaint whilst there are ongoing court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a councillor conduct complaint as it does not cause the complainant sufficient injustice to warrant our further involvement.

Summary: The Council was at fault for a delay in deciding Mrs B’s son’s special educational needs support. Its decision – which is yet to be made – is currently five months late and counting. It has agreed to make this decision without further delay, and it will make a symbolic payment to Mrs B to recognise her son’s likely injustice from the delay so far.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the failure to provide Miss C with appropriate care and support when she moved to a care home. She also complained about being unfairly treated by the care home. We have not found fault. The care home acted on advice from medical professionals and Mrs X had no legal right to be make decisions about Miss C’s care. We found no evidence of neglect as alleged by Mrs X.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council declining to give him information about its investigation into an officer regarding a data protection matter, and it not replying to some of his correspondence. The Information Commissioner’s Officer is better placed to consider the matter and there are no good reasons for us to investigate it. It would be reasonable for Mr X to refer the Council’s freedom of information responses to the First Tier Tribunal. We do not investigate council correspondence or complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issue giving

Summary: Ms A complains about the way the Council dealt with her housing application. We have not found any fault in the council’s decision making.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s introduction of traffic restrictions in Mr X’s area through the creation of a Traffic Regulation Order. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the way the Council considered her medical needs. This is because Ms X has the right to ask for a statutory review of the suitability of the property the Council has offered her in discharge of its housing duty, and it is reasonable for her to exercise that right.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to consider her complaint about a social worker whilst there are ongoing proceedings. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision.

Summary: We cannot not investigate this complaint about a delay in health appointments being arranged. That is because the Council is not responsible for the appointments.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider her complaint because she does not have parental responsibility for her grandchildren.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against the development carried out by the complainant’s neighbour. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the school transport arrangements for the complainant’s daughter. There is not enough evidence of fault for us to be able to question the merits of the Council’s decisions. It is reasonable for Mrs X to pursue a further appeal with the Council if she has fresh evidence in support of her case.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council's child protection involvement with her family because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from considering complaints about matters that are being, or have been, considered in court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to accept his complaint because he does not have parental responsibility for the children concerned.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint concerning the Council’s involvement when removing her children from her care. This is because the issues Miss X raises cannot be separated from legal decisions, so her complaint matters lie outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: Mrs C complained the Council failed to provide suitable care support and supported accommodation to Mr X for over 14 months. She said it caused delays and its social workers lied and failed to respond to her. We found the Council caused delays to assess Mr X’s care needs and place him in a suitable accommodation. Its social workers made errors and failed to respond to some reasonable enquiries from Mrs C. The Council agreed apologise to Mrs C and Mr X and may payment to remedy the injustice its faults caused.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to provide her son, who has special educational needs with a suitable education and related matters. We have found the Council to be at fault because it failed to provide alternative education when Mrs X’s son was too ill to attend school and did not properly consider what level of home tuition was suitable. To remedy the missed education and distress, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mrs X and review its practices. We did not investigate parts of Mrs X’s complaint because they either happened too long ago or were matt

Summary: The Council failed to make suitable alternative provision for Mrs B’s son, C, when he was unable to attend school because of anxiety. This caused the family significant distress and C missed out on education. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs B to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council processed a planning application. The Council refused the application. Therefore, the complainant has not suffered a significant personal injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to place a charge on Ms X’s property to pay for her care. The complaint is late.