LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about matters relating to her direct payment. This is because the Council has offered to carry out a reassessment of Mrs X’s needs in order to consider the issues raised further and it is reasonable to expect Mrs X to complete this process before we will consider her complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to support the complainant when he arrived in the UK. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The complaint is late and there is no reason why the complainant could not have contacted us much sooner.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the lack of education. We cannot investigate issues which were or could have been part of a Tribunal Appeal.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about children services reply to his complaint. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to have requested a stage three review panel hearing on time. And it is unlikely we would criticise its decision to refuse a late request.

Summary: Ms D complained about the care and treatment of her late father, Mr F, by Trinity Surgery and a care home commissioned by Norfolk County Council. We have not found fault by Trinity Surgery. There were some faults by the care home and Council relating to document management, care planning, communicating with Ms D and Trinity Surgery, and complaint responses. We have not upheld the other complaints about the care home and Council. We have recommended the Council apologises to Ms D. The Council accepts our recommendation, so we have completed our investigation.

Summary: Ms D complained about the care and treatment of her late father, Mr F, by Trinity Surgery and a care home commissioned by Norfolk County Council. We have not found fault by Trinity Surgery. There were some faults by the care home and Council relating to document management, care planning, communicating with Ms D and Trinity Surgery, and complaint responses. We have not upheld the other complaints about the care home and Council. We have recommended the Council apologises to Ms D. The Council accepts our recommendation, so we have completed our investigation.

Summary: Ms D complained about the care and treatment of her late father, Mr F, by Trinity Surgery and a care home commissioned by Norfolk County Council. We have not found fault by Trinity Surgery. There were some faults by the care home and Council relating to document management, care planning, communicating with Ms D and Trinity Surgery, and complaint responses. We have not upheld the other complaints about the care home and Council. We have recommended the Council apologises to Ms D. The Council accepts our recommendation, so we have completed our investigation.

Summary: There was no fault in how the Council involved and responded to Mr X during a Child in Need plan. The Council’s actions were in line with its guidance. Nor was there any fault in how it responded to Mr X’s complaints about the same matter.

Summary: We uphold a complaint about delay in Y’s Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment and Plan, mainly caused by a shortage of Educational Psychologists. The Council will apologise and make payments to reflect the delay and loss of educational provision. We also uphold a complaint about a failure to consider and put in place alternative education for Y when she became unwell and could not attend school. The Council will make a payment for this as well.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how a Social Worker completed a court report. We have no jurisdiction to investigate the content of the report and it was reasonable for Mr X to raise his concerns about the conduct of the Social Worker as part of the court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s service for the registration of Ms X’s civil partnership. This is because there is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaints about the Council’s report for court or the conduct of a social worker because these matters happened during court proceedings. Social Work England is better placed to consider Mr X’s complaint about an individual social worker’s professional practice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage to Mrs X’s car tyres. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. It is reasonable to expect Mrs X to take her claim to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about missed payments by the Council for nursery fees. The Council has confirmed that rather than paying Miss X, it mistakenly paid the nursery directly. There is not enough remaining injustice to Miss X to warrant our further involvement.

Summary: There was fault in how the Council dealt with assessment and care planning for Mr K who is disabled, as well as assessment and support for his mother Ms B. There was fault in how the Council dealt with direct payments, and with recruitment of personal assistants. It has failed to take action it agreed to do as part of a complaint resolution. Throughout, the Council’s communication has been very poor. The Council has caused Ms B and her family distress, uncertainty, and frustration.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the complainants claim of compensation for damage to his property. This is because the matters raised have been considered in court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not updating the complainant about safeguarding concerns he raised to it about another person. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, or the complainant suffering an injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to consult with a particular school as part of the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide full-time education, suitable alternative education and provision set out in her child, Child Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council was at fault. Child Y’s EHC Plan provision was delayed by two months and it did not provide all the special educational provision between March and July 2023. In addition, the Council communication was poor, which all caused Miss X distress and uncertainty. The Council will apologise, pay Miss X £2,200 for the injustice caused to her and Child Y’s missed provision and put service improvement

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of Council officers regarding the care of the complainant’s children. This is because the complaint concerns matters which have been considered in court, or are closely related to those matters.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to change a case worker. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement.

Mr C complained the Council delayed telling his late father-in-law about the financial contribution he would need to make towards the cost of his care and about the care provided. Mr C said this led to unexpected costs which caused unnecessary upset and anxiety. We have found fault by the Council in the time taken to complete a financial assessment but consider the agreed action of an apology and symbolic payment provides a suitable remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance because the courts are better placed to consider the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to require its contractor to re-dress his road. The Council does not consider the road is out of repair and if Mr X disputes its decision it would be reasonable for him to challenge it at court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with issues in a library. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because some of the issues raised are premature as they have not been yet considered by the Council.