LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to ensure Y received suitable education while out of school, resulting in missed education and distress to Y and his family. We found the Council at fault. We recommended it provide an apology to Mrs X, pay £300 for distress, pay £7200 for missed education and act to prevent recurrence.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about support provided to his child in a preschool setting.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council refused to allow the complainant to ask a question at a meeting and failed to make a reasonable adjustment in line with the Equality Act 2010. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing a significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council requesting documentation Mrs C’s representatives say does not exist. This is because we cannot interpret law and it would be reasonable for Mrs C’s representatives to challenge the Council’s decision to include her property in her financial assessment in a court.

Summary: The complainant (Miss X) said the Council failed to investigate her complaint as brought out of time. We find fault with the Council in the way it made its decision refusing to consider Miss X’s complaint. This caused Miss X injustice. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss X and review its decision, applying criteria from the relevant guidance. The Council has now provided staff training and re-visited Children Services complaints which were rejected as out of time in the last six months.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about coach and bus parking in Mr X’s road. This is because there is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr C complained about the home to school travel arrangements made by the Council for his son to get to school. He said the Council had not considered the safety of the route between his home and bus stops his son must use for the journey. We upheld the complaint, finding several flaws in how the Council dealt with this matter; most significantly in denying Mr C a right of appeal. He therefore suffered a missed opportunity to appeal and was put to unnecessary time and trouble. The Council accepts these findings and has agreed action to remedy this injustice.

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council managed the finances related to his son, Mr Y’s, social care needs. There was no fault in how the Council assessed Mr Y’s contribution to his care or managed his direct payment. There was fault in how the Council explained a change in 2019 and how it failed to respond to Mr X’s stage two complaint. This caused Mr X avoidable frustration, for which the Council agreed to apologise.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to remove road signs which Mr X says misdirect additional traffic through the village where he lives. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed considering her complaint at stage three of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. She says the delay has caused frustration and distress. The Council was at fault when it did not hold the stage three panel within the statutory timescales. The Council has agreed to hold the panel hearing within 30 working days and pay Mrs X £100 to acknowledge the frustration caused by the delay.

Summary: The Council acknowledged it failed to properly explain the financial assessment process to Ms X. It remedied the situation by completing a new financial assessment and cancelling an outstanding invoice in full. As there is no outstanding injustice to Ms X the complaint will be closed.

Summary: The Council accepts it failed to facilitate indirect letterbox contact between Mr X and his grandchildren, who are in care. The Council has apologised to Mr X for this. It has also agreed to pay Mr X £1000, tell the children the reason for the delays, and act to improve its services.

Summary: The Council gave wrong advice to Mr X about the debt owed by the late Mrs A for her residential care, and as a result he acted to his detriment in distributing her estate. The Council is now seeking to recover the debt through the Courts and the substantive matter is therefore for the Court to decide; however, the Council acknowledges that its error led to injustice to Mr X and will make a suitable payment to recognise the distress caused and the time and trouble he has been put to in pursuing the complaint.

Summary: We cannot investigate the aspects of Miss X’s complaint which are linked to Court proceedings. It is reasonable to expect her to complain to the Council once those proceedings have finished on issues which can be separated from the Court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the Council refusing to remove a tree which overhangs her property. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: The Council acknowledges more carers than expected visited Ms Y during reablement services but says this was due to access issues. Given the lack of records about such instances I am unable to come to a definitive finding about this. I find the Council at fault for the omission of this information in its records.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council refused to assess his parent carer needs and did not do so in its children and family assessment. We cannot investigate arguments or evidence which were properly for the court in care proceedings. Mr X complains late about events before court. There is no ongoing issue because Mr X has not cared for the children in the last 12 months.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s updated policy on access to its household recycling centres. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s opposition to Mr X’s daughter’s partner living at the same address as her children. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. Arrangements for the residence of children and contact with them are decided by a court, and there is ongoing court action in this case.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about poor care by a domiciliary care agency and the Council’s subsequent investigation. There is not a good reason the complainant did not contact us sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to agree a residential care home placement for the complainant’s father. This is because an Ombudsman investigation would not be the appropriate way for her to get the outcome she wants.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s implementation of parking restrictions on his road. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault affecting its decision. If Mr X wishes to challenge the restrictions it would be reasonable for him to take the matter to court.

Ms X complained Worcestershire County Council (the Council) took too long to put in place a direct payment for her care. She said this caused her distress and meant she did not receive appropriate care.

Summary: Mr B complains the Council did not provide services outlined in his son, Y’s, EHCP after he transferred from another local authority. He says the Council placed Y in an unsuitable school and delayed in reviewing the EHCP, which had a significant negative impact on his son’s education and development. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault for delay in completing a reassessment, not providing the services set out in Y’s existing EHCP and not considering Mr B’s complaint in line with its complaint procedure.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about what happened to Mr X’s father whilst in the Council’s care. This is because this is a late complaint and there are no good reasons to investigate now.