LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council pruned the complainant’s hedge without telling him in advance. This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

Summary: Mr Y complained that his father was assaulted by a carer and that the organisations did not do enough to safeguard him. We did not find fault with the Council, the care agency or the care home in relation to investigations and safeguarding enquiries they undertook. We found there was fault by the Council in relation to the time it took to complete a care needs assessment, but the Council’s actions remedied any injustice. We did not find fault with the care provided by the Home or the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council is avoiding its responsibility to do work to trees outside his mother Mrs X’s property and has delayed doing the works. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its decision-making process when determining the priority of the works and their timing to warrant an investigation. There is no different outcome an investigation would achieve.

Summary: Mr Y complained about the Council’s handling of maintenance issues at a green and clubhouse used by his organisation. He also says it failed to respond properly to his correspondence about this matter including his complaint. We have found fault by the Council on both matters. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused because of the fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to cut an area of grass on at least three occasions. This is because the matter has not caused Mr X a significant personal injustice which would merit an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council wrongly took a gate from outside Mr X’s home as it is unlikely we can achieve any meaningful outcome for Mr X and ultimately he has the right to seek a remedy in court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about street cleaning carried out by the Council. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about future care costs. That is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about failure to clean the lane behind Mr X’s home. The Council has now cleaned the lane. We cannot reasonably achieve more.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to allocate her granddaughter a new social worker. That is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement. We will also not investigate her complaint the Council used inaccurate information about her in its reports for court. That is because matters considered by the court are outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: Mr X and Miss Y complained that despite granting conditional approval for a vehicle crossing the Council has since rejected their application. The Council’s failure to ensure the information available on its website regarding vehicle crossings is accurate and up to date regarding its processes is fault. This fault has caused Mr X and Miss Y an injustice for which the Council has apologised.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to issue Mr X with an anti-social behaviour warning letter. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complains about how the Council dealt with her son’s education provision. She says her son did not receive full time education after his school closed. We find fault with how the Council dealt with P’s education provision and for the delay in holding P’s annual review. We have made recommendations for the Council to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to issue Miss X a written warning not to feed wildlife. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr B’s complaint about his concerns regarding his adult learning courses. This is because the law prohibits us from investigating education provision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a care provider making false accusations about Mr X regarding inappropriate behaviour towards female care staff. This is because further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mr X complains about how the Council conducted a social work assessment and managed a child protection plan in respect of his children. We have discontinued our investigation. The Council has already accepted that it was wrong, and has offered Mr X a remedy in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance.

Summary: Mrs A complains the Council has not dealt properly with her refuse collection. The Council is at fault because it did not consider an alternative proposal made by Mrs A. This did not cause Mrs A any injustice.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s issue of a penalty charge notice. This is because Mr X has used his right of appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

Summary: Miss X complains about the care her grandmother, Mrs Y, received at Greenacres Care Centre, where the Council placed her for respite care. The Council accepts there were examples of poor care and poor communication with Mrs Y’s family. It needs to apologise to her family and make a symbolic payment to Mrs Y for the avoidable distress caused to her.

Summary: Ms X complains about a lack of care and support provided to her late sister, Ms Y. Ms X says this enabled Ms Y to ingest items she should not have had access to, and that a serious incident report did not answer some of her questions about what happened. We found that Ms X’s questions about Ms Y’s medication could have been answered in more detail, and that not doing so prolonged Ms X’s distress. Livewell Southwest has agreed to apologise to Ms X for this. Livewell Southwest and the Council have taken reasonable steps to remedy the other failings they have already identified.

Summary: The complainant (Ms X) said the Council failed to provide suitable education for her daughter (B) following her permanent exclusion from the school. She said the lack of full-time education for 18 months affected B’s academic and personal development and had detrimental impact on the whole family. We found fault with the Council’s school consultations, the lack of full-time education for B and with the Council’s Annual Review processes. The Council accepted our recommendations.

Summary: The complainant (Ms X), who is also her daughter’s (A) representative, says the Council’s delay in supporting A through an Education and Health Care Plan (EHCP) affected her school attendance and General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) grades. There was a delay in issuing A’s EHCP, which is fault. However, the fault did not cause A any injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to reject Mr X’s application for a dropped kerb extension. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to take action to deal with breaches of planning control and the Building Regulations relating to a property he later purchased. This is because we cannot say the injustice Mr X claims is the result of any fault by the Council.