LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mr C complained that about the actions of the Council in respect of his son, Mr D’s contribution to his care charges. In particular it failed to meet with Mr C to discuss the payment of household costs and the amount of other disability-related expenditure. We found the Council at fault for not meeting with Mr C sooner and not making more effort to explore the financial situation between Mr C and Mr D. The Council has now met with Mr C and revised the outstanding bill. It has also agreed to pay Mr C £300.

Summary: Mr B complained about how the Council handled his late mother’s care costs and its decision to include her share of a property when calculating her contribution towards the costs resulting in him receiving a larger than expected bill. We found no fault on the Council’s part.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a report written by a council officer. This is because the complaint raises issues connected to a court order. So, we have no remit to investigate.

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

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to meet the care and support needs of his brother, Mr Y. The Council was at fault in how it assessed Mr Y’s needs, recorded the support it would provide, kept the support under review, and kept Mr X updated. This resulted in avoidable distress to both Mr X and Mr Y, and time and trouble for Mr X, for which the Council agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy. It also agreed to discuss Mr Y’s support needs with him, review relevant procedures, and issue reminders to its staff.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council did not deal with a Disabled Facilities Grant properly. The Council is at fault because it did not consider the duties it owed to Mr X properly. The Council has offered to apologise, make service improvements, update a Child and Family Assessment, consider any evidence of adaption costs including whether any duty was owed under Section 17 of the Children's Act 1989 and Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and pay Mr X £300 for time and trouble. The Council should also pay Mr X £500 for distress and provide a report.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to provide information Ms X has requested as Ms X can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office about this.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to reimburse her the agreed amount she paid for her mother’s, Mrs C’s care in 2014. This is because the complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion and investigate now.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about matters involved in Court proceedings. There are other bodies better placed to consider his data accuracy and officers’ behaviour complaints.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s provision of education and support to Mrs X’s child. She has appealed to the Tribunal.

Summary: Mrs X’s complaint about failings in the education, health and care needs assessment and plan process that led her son to be out of education between 2014 and 2017 is late and there is no good reason to continue to investigate it.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about misleading information in both policy and process. The complaint concerns a school admission and Mr X has a right to appeal against the refusal of a place it would be reasonable to use.

Summary: Ms C complained that she does not receive enough support from the Council to meet her needs. We did not find fault with the way in which the Council made decisions about Ms C’s support needs.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care the complainant’s husband received and the Council’s response to her complaint. We would not be able to add anything significant to matters already investigated.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to give Mr X information about his child’s education. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider the complaint. Court action would also prevent us from investigating matters that are not separable from that action.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with the complainants concerns about the care of her children. This is because it is reasonable for her to raise the matters in upcoming court proceedings.

Summary: The care provider was within its right to terminate its services, and it did so after following the correct process. There can be now worthwhile outcome from any further investigation by this office.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about the Council issuing fixed penalty notices for school non-attendance. This is because it does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. It is reasonable to expect them to have defended any claim made against them in the Magistrates Court.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to apply a discretionary disregard to his mother’s Mrs D’s property. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an assessment carried out by the Council. This is because we could achieve nothing significant by doing so.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker. The matters complained of are not separable from the conduct of court proceedings.

Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council failed to make appropriate reasonable adjustments for her son when sitting the 11 plus test. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision on what reasonable adjustments it should make for Mrs X’s son. The Council is at fault in how it communicated with Mrs X and it delayed in dealing with her complaint which caused distress, frustration and avoidable time and trouble to Mrs X. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising to Mrs X and making a payment of £200 to acknowledge the distress caused to her.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alternative education provision and a Council officer contacting Mrs X’s child’s doctor. These matters are not separable from the differing views about the content of the child’s Education Health and Care Plan, which is for the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal.

Summary: Mr X complained about abuse suffered while in care and the Council’s failure to act in his best interests during that time. Mr X also complained about the way the Council responded to his complaint. As a result, Mr X feels as though he is being blamed for the issues he experienced and the Council has failed to listen to him. We have not found fault with the way the Council reached its decision not to investigate Mr X’s complaint or responded to his questions. We will not investigate the substantive complaint of abuse due to the time passed.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to deal properly with the family’s request for a discretionary 12-week property disregard for her mother-in-law. The Council failed to explain the reasons for not granting a discretionary 12-week property disregard. This creates doubt over whether it made the right decision. To remove that doubt, the Council needs to reconsider its decision.