LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of a planning application. The complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The complainant has not yet suffered sufficient personal injustice to warrant our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council adopting a child protection plan, nor a social worker’s actions. Other bodies are better placed, and we are unlikely to find fault in the Council adopting a child protection conferences recommendations.

Summary: The Council’s failure to enforce its own policies about permitted memorials and use of grave space was fault. The Council also failed to properly respond to all parts of the complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise, meet part of the outstanding costs for the relocation of Mr X’s wife’s grave, and take action to improve its services.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to increase Mr X’s council tax payments and to decline an application for free school meals. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault and so we cannot question the merits of the panel’s decision.

Summary: We have not found fault with the way the Council calculated the costs of a residential placement or the advice that the social worker gave at the time. The Council has already upheld the complaint that there was a significant delay in completing the financial assessment and this was fault. This delay caused an injustice to Mr D as it meant that he was not provided with the financial assessment and an accurate forecast of the costs at the time when he was making decisions about where his mother should live. The Council has agreed to review the invoice for the care home fees.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to pay Mr X £425 for a rent deposit on a property. This is because the Council has now agreed to make the payment.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to consider parental alienation during its handling of Mr X’s son’s case. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of her child’s (Child Y) special educational needs. The Council took too long to issue Child Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan, respond to requests for a personal budget and complaints. The Council agrees to apologise, make a payment and meet with Mrs X to discuss and agree Child Y’s personal budget without delay. The Council will also review its systems for monitoring complaint responses.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to provide section 19 alternative provision, failed to secure the special educational needs provisions set out in her child’s EHC plan, and delayed in completing an annual review. It is likely we would find fault with the Council if we were to investigate, so we invited the Council to remedy the injustice caused by the likely faults. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed completing her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan review and did not provide alternative provision while he was out of school, resulting in missed education. We found the Council at fault. We recommended the Council provide an apology, pay £4400 for missed education; pay £500 for distress and uncertainty and; act to prevent recurrence.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to cancel a ‘staying put’ agreement. That is because Mr X has not exhausted the Council’s complaint procedure.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council told him it would not charge for his mother’s residential care charges and then reversed its position 18 months later. Mr also X complained when the Council told him about his mother’s residential care charges he had already disbursed the capital from the sale of his mother’s property. We found fault with the Council for the delays in telling Mr X about the care charges and its decision about deprivation of assets. The Council agreed to our recommendation to remove the full care charges from 18 February 2017 to 9 October 2017 and reduces the care charges by

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the financial remedy offered by the Council is not enough. That is because further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council arranged home care for and made safeguarding enquiries about his late father, Mr Y. The Council did not correctly explain the outcome of its enquiries to Mr Y’s family. This resulted in confusion for Mr Y’s family for which we said the Council should apologise, but Mr X did not want an apology.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to charge support at home care charges for his father three years after his father passed away. We do not find fault with the Council charging for the care Mr X’s father received. But Mr X has provided evidence of a decision by the NHS Local Decision Panel providing funding which the Council was unaware of. We found fault with delays by the Council. The Council agreed to remove charges covered by the NHS Local Decision Panel funding time period, apologise to Mr X and reduce the balance owed by £150

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to accept her complaint about its actions in relation to her partner’s child. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s response and an investigation by this office could not add to the response previously provided by the Council.

Summary: Mr E complained about the Council’s initial refusal of a concessionary bus pass for his daughter to travel to school, and delay in hearing an appeal which was upheld. We find no fault in the decision to refuse the bus pass, but we do fault the Council for poor customer service which contributed to the delay in the appeal and put Mr E to some unnecessary time and trouble. The Council has accepted this finding and agreed action set out at the end of this statement to remedy Mr E’s injustice.

Summary: Mr X complained about charges for his mother’s residential care. Mr X also complained failings by the Council’s care provider led to his mother catching COVID-19 and passing away. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council charged for the residential care. We could also never conclude fault by the Council’s care provider led to Mr X’s mother catching COVID-19. It is therefore unlikely we could add to the response Mr X has already received.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a safeguarding referral. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decisions regarding housing benefit for tenants as they can be appealed to a tribunal.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council dealt with safeguarding reports she made about her brother’s care. She also complained the Council did not recognise her role as her brother’s Deputy. We found there was no fault in the way safeguarding matters were investigated, but there was a failure to follow up on actions agreed to reduce risk. We did not find that the Council bullied or intimidated Mrs X or disregarded her role as Deputy.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to Mr X’s concerns about his ex-partner’s care of their children. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The matters complained of are not separable from matters that have been subject to court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council allowed a utility provider to damage his drainage pipe and has refused to attend mediation to discuss a resolution. This is because the matter concerns a dispute over liability for property damage and it would be reasonable for Mr X to take the matter to court.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed in issuing a final Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) for her son, Y, and delayed in meeting the provision set out in the EHCP. Mrs X also complained about the Council’s communication throughout the process. We find the Council to be at fault for delays and poor communication. We recommend the Council apologise to Mrs X and Y, pay £500 and act to prevent recurrence.