LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed considering a complaint at stage two of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint by issuing its stage two response without further delay. It will also apologise and offer to make a payment to the complainant to remedy the time and trouble they have been to.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed considering a complaint at stage two of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint by issuing its stage two response without further delay. It will also apologise and offer to make a payment to the complainant to remedy the time and trouble they have been to.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered the need for a Mental Health Act assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault with how it decided not to complete an assessment.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax enforcement because the matter has been remedied.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council refused an adaptation to his property. There is not enough evidence of fault to merit further investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the arranging and managing of her care package which is funded by Sheffield City Council and NHS South Yorkshire ICB. This is because further

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the arranging and managing of her care package which is funded by Sheffield City Council and NHS South Yorkshire ICB. This is because further

Summary: Ms X complained the Council pursued historic council tax debts without providing a clear explanation or following correct procedures. She said the Council seeking to recover a debt after a long period affected her wellbeing and financial circumstances. We have found the Council at fault for administrative errors which contributed to the delay and led to the avoidable involvement of enforcement agents. This caused Ms X avoidable uncertainty and distress. We have made recommendations for the Council to remedy Ms X’s unaddressed injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to carry out additional work to fix issues, he said were caused by building works the Council completed under a Disabled Facilities Grant. This is because

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to award Mr X’s housing priority on the grounds of overcrowding. This is because there is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council’s children’s services. This is because the law prevents us from investigating what happened in court proceedings. There is insufficient evidence of fault regarding safeguarding decisions made by the Council and further investigation into other matters would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a Right to Buy application because it is late and we see no good reason to exercise discretion and consider it now.

Summary: Mr X complained about mistakes the Council made calculating his council tax reduction claim in 2020. The errors the Council accepted it made caused Mr X avoidable distress and worry. While the Council has already apologised, it also agreed to pay Mr X a financial remedy and review how it informs people of their appeal rights.

Miss X says the Council has failed to respond to her concerns about a data breach and her request for information. We will not investigate. This is because this complaint does not meet the tests set out in our Assessment Code on which complaints we should investigate. It is reasonable for Miss X to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office as it is better placed to investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to agree the disabled facilities grant Mr X requested. While it carried out two assessments that were not adequate, its third assessment was not fault as it properly considered his child’s needs. As the third assessment did not result in a better offer, the lack of thoroughness in the previous two did not cause any injustice to Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax liability and Council tax discount because there was a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal and the matter has been remedied.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel for us to be able to question its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about Council Tax reduction payments. It is reasonable to expect Miss X to use the Council’s internal appeal and after that, appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing Mr X’s request his child be taught out of year group. If Mr X wanted to challenge the Council’s decision, then it was reasonable for him to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability).

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a child protection case because we could not achieve a worthwhile outcome, given the lapse of time since the events complained about.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to find a setting for her daughter, Y, to sit her GCSE exams. Mrs X said she had to arrange for the exams to take place outside of her local area, in busy settings which would impact Y. Y’s tutor then arranged the exams in a local setting. Mrs X said she spent a lot of time arranging the exams and this impacted her, and Y’s, mental health. There was fault in the way the Council did not arrange for Y to sit the exams in a suitable location with suitable adjustments. This fault distressed Mrs X and Y. The Council will apologise, make a financial payme

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Social Worker who was involved in child protection proceedings. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: Mrs Y complains about how the Council dealt with her mother’s National Health Service(NHS) joint package of health and social care and her care charges. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Mrs X and Mrs Y. The Council has agreed to remedy the outstanding injustice caused to Mrs Y.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to act impartially following a safeguarding referral relating to the complainant’s children. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not properly explain what he would have to pay for care he received following discharge from hospital. We found there were some missed opportunities and the Council made errors when initially completing the financial assessment. We recommended an apology and a modest payment to Mr X to reflect the impact these issues had. We found overall Mr X was advised there would be care charges and the care costs were payable.