LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mr X complained about the outcome of an assessment the Council carried out to decide what adaptations to make to his home for his Disabled child, B. The Council was at fault for delay in arranging the assessment. The delay caused Mr X avoidable frustration, for which the Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment. It will also consider what steps it needs to take to reduce the wait time for an assessment. There was no fault in the assessment itself or the Council’s conclusions from it.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about pothole damage as this is ultimately a matter for the courts and the complaint is also made late.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s policy on empty home council tax charges. This is because we cannot criticise the Council’s policy or achieve the outcome the complainant seeks.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Discretionary Hardship Payment because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to his reports of overgrown foliage by a road, which he says reduces visibility and is causing a danger for drivers and pedestrians. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complained about delays and poor communication in the Council’s handling of her Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) application and request for additional funding for exceptional circumstances. She said the delays caused her and her family considerable inconvenience and distress. The Council was at fault. The Council has already accepted fault in how it handled Mrs X’s case but not provided a suitable remedy. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Mrs X £500 in recognition of the impact of the delays and poor communication on the family and the distress caused.

Summary: Miss X complained that she has been unable to access a neurodevelopmental assessment for her child. Miss X said it has had an impact on her child’s education, and caused her stress and upset. We do not find the Council at fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with his Council tax payment as there is no evidence of fault and the matter is out of time. The matter has also been remedied.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council will not reduce the complainant’s council tax to reflect that she is in dispute with the police or a complaint that the Council did not let her defend the case in court. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the court decided she must pay the council tax.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult safeguarding because we could not add to a Safeguarding Adults Review or reach a different outcome, and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr B wants of holding individuals to account.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council managed a child’s education provision while a tribunal considered appeals about the child’s education. This is because the matter complained about is not separable from the appeals, and the courts have ruled we cannot say what education should be provided in circumstances such as this.

Summary: A woman complained about the Council’s decision to end its homelessness duty in her case and its refusal to accept another homelessness application. But we will not investigate these matters because the woman had statutory review and potential court appeal rights she could have used to challenge the Council’s decision, and there is no sign of fault on its part regarding the application issue.

Summary: The complainant alleged that the Council delayed in completing her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan and failed to provide alternative education when her son was out of school because of medical needs. We find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to the recommended ways to remedy the injustice caused. We have therefore completed our investigation and are closing the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council has not properly investigated the conduct of councillors who failed to provide promised support with her daughter’s school problem. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Ombudsman has already investigated the education complaint and remedied the injustice to Ms X and her daughter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about potholes and damage to Mr X’s car. This is because the complaint falls outside our jurisdiction as Mr X can take the Council to court if he believes it is responsible for the damage.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application, or the subsequent enforcement case, involving a porch at a property next to the complainant. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence to conclude that fault by the Council has affected the outcome or caused the complainant an injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to pay Mr X a COVID-19-related business grant. The complaint is late.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s recovery of council tax arrears from Mr X. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Miss Y complained the Council failed to help her arrange a new school place for her daughter or make any alternative provision while she has been unable to attend school. We have found fault by the Council in failing to respond to Miss Y’s requests for support and take appropriate action to ensure her daughter was provided with a suitable education. This fault has caused injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising to Miss Y, making payments to reflect the impact on her daughter of the loss of education and Miss Y’s distress, time and trouble, and several service im

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council has been at fault in its response to the complainant’s child’s special educational needs. This is because they have used their right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability), and this places the matter outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to use his right of appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the quality of Mr Y’s care in a care home. Ms X can complain to us after the results of an inquest are known, as we could not currently come to sound conclusions about what injustice any fault caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in sharing confidential information. This is because the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider such matters.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charges added to Miss X’s council tax account as there is insufficient evidence of Council fault causing a significant injustice to Miss X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue Miss X’s daughter with an Education Health and Care Plan. This is because it is reasonable for Miss X to appeal to the SEND Tribunal.