LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mr X complains the Council incorrectly deducted an amount equivalent to Child Benefit from his Special Guardianship Allowance. Mr X also says in addition the Council changed the amount paid to him in 2021. Mr X says this has caused him financial loss. We have found fault in the actions of the Council for deducting the amount of child benefit received from the Special Guardianship Allowance. The Council has agreed to issue an apology and repay the amount deducted back to September 2017.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has failed to properly oversee the actions of a company it owns, causing financial loss which indirectly impacts residents and council taxpayers. This is because the law does not allow us to investigate complaints about matters which affect ‘all or most’ of the people in a council’s area.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a lack of information about the cost of her mother’s care because the Council has offered a remedy for the uncertainty caused and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: The Council was not at fault for how its hardship service handled Miss X’s request for financial support. Neither its correspondence with her nor its referral to its children’s social care service were so obviously unreasonable that they amounted to maladministration.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about a report the Council wrote for court proceedings. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We are prohibited from considering matters that have been to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered the complainant’s application for a new blue badge. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The Council awarded the blue badge following an appeal. We consider further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not naming the complainant’s son’s preferred college in his Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP) in accordance with a tribunal decision. This is because there is no evidence the tribunal made such an order and we have no legal jurisdiction to decide what should have been ordered as part of those legal proceedings. Further, the naming of an educational placement in an EHCP carries a right of appeal to the same tribunal which we consider the complainant could exercise.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council has responded to his concerns about a care home. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X complaint about the invoices the Council sent her regarding her son’s care and support charges and the Council’s failure to provide a breakdown of the charges. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to provide transport to and from her adult son’s day centre. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, there is another body better placed to consider her complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care fees. The Council has accepted fault and said what it will do to acknowledge the impact on the complainant. We are satisfied with the Council’s actions to put things right.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to consider it now.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council's decision to refuse free home to school transport for her child. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the matter to justify an investigation.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how a safeguarding concern was dealt with. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault causing a significant injustice to justify our involvement. The Information Commissioner is better placed to consider the complaints concerns about data protection matters.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about children services’ actions. We have upheld Ms X’s complaint as the Council has now agreed to follow the Children Act statutory complaints’ procedure.

Summary: Ms B complains the Council did not communicate with herself and her brothers, who have Lasting Power of Attorney for their father, Mr Y, about changes to his care arrangements in January 2023. We have found the Council at fault for failing to keep Mr Y’s family informed of changes to his care plan and charges. The Council has agreed to apologise to the family, make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused and complete service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a safeguarding investigation the Council carried out. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We found fault with the care and support provided to Mr Y by the Council as it failed to properly assess his needs in the community. This caused Mr Y’s daughter, Mrs X, significant frustration and distress. The Council will apologise to Mrs X and pay her a financial remedy. The Council will also take remedial action to prevent similar problems occurring for other people.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s trading standards decision not to take specific further action. It is unlikely we would find its actions have caused Mr X a significant injustice. And it is reasonable to expect him to contact the Information Commissioner’s Office about a Freedom of Information request.

Summary: We will not investigate this safeguarding complaint. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the school named in her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. Ms X had a right of appeal to a tribunal and it was reasonable for her to use it.

Summary: The Council’s decision to change Mrs X’s care agency despite the recommendation of a senior mental health nurse about consistency of care had a detrimental effect on her stability. The Council should review the way in which it responds to changing needs and consider how it exercises discretion over care choices to avoid the risk of giving the impression it has a blanket policy. It agrees to offer a proportionate amount to Mrs X and Ms A in recognition of the considerable anxiety they suffered during this time.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the school transport arrangements for the complainant’s child. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council for us to be able to question its decisions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with her request for a Care Act assessment. The Council has already apologised for delays in completing the assessment; that remedies any injustice caused.