LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: X complained the Council failed to provide the OT provision specified in their child’s EHC plan or reimburse the transport costs for their child attending school between September 2022 and July 2023. X also complained the Council has failed to properly assess their child’s care needs or their own needs as a carer and has not provided adequate support. The Council’s failure to ensure Y received the full OT provision set out in their EHC Plan is fault. As is the Council’s delay and error in completing the annual review in 2023 and in issuing a final EHC Plan. This fault has caused X and

Summary: Miss Y complains about the Council’s actions in relation to a package of home care it commissioned in 2022. The Council upheld some parts of the complaint and Miss Y has received a remedy which we consider to be appropriate. We do not find fault in the other parts of Miss Y’s complaint for the reasons explained in this statement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to replace the flooring at an outdoor gym. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to include a property abroad in her mother, Mrs Y’s, financial assessment.

Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council decided to place Mr X on its restricted persons register. It followed its procedures and took actions available to it in line with its policy. Any other fault in the Council’s application of its policy did not cause Mr X any injustice.

Summary: There was a delay in issuing Y’s final Education, Health and Care plan and a failure to arrange suitable alternative provision while he was unable to attend school due to ill-health. This caused Y a loss of education and social development and caused his mother, Ms X, avoidable distress, time and trouble and uncertainty.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about actions related to

Summary: Mr D wants the Council to take enforcement action for breaches of planning control at a nearby site. The Ombudsman has completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint. The Council has acted in line with procedures.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage caused to the complainant’s fence by the Council. This is because we

Summary: A man complained that when he made a previous complaint to the Ombudsman, the Council provided inaccurate information about its reasons for housing him. But we will not investigate this matter because the complaint has been made late.

Summary: The Council failed to ensure the care home had necessary equipment in place before Ms X moved in. It also failed to ensure Ms X had access to an advocate. It offered her options to enable her to move but the evidence shows she declined. The Council has now agreed to apologise for the failings identified, actively pursue a referral for advocacy and consider options for door widening if Ms X remains in her current placement.

Summary: We will not investigate this housing benefit complaint because there are appeal rights the complainant can and has used.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about repayment arrangements for a Housing Benefit debt. The substantive matter is now resolved. Investigation could not achieve significantly more.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to pay compensation in relation to a housing benefit overpayment the complainant successfully challenged at the tribunal. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has assessed a child’s Special Educational Needs. This is because the complainant has appealed to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal which places the matters raised outside of our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s request for information. This is because this matter is best dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of matters relating to problems she has had with her neighbours. We will not investigate the complaint because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to antisocial behaviour. The substantive issues relate to the Council’s role as a social landlord and the complaint would be better dealt with by the Housing Ombudsman as both Mrs X and the neighbour in question are Council tenants.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not properly apply its social housing allocation policy or respond to her communications in good time. There was no fault in how the Council applied its allocation policy. However, there was fault in how the Council communicated with Mrs X which caused avoidable distress. The Council agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy to Mrs X and review relevant processes.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to consider her complaint until an investigation by the Office of the Public Guardian had concluded. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mr B complained the Council failed to properly consider its homeless duty and his housing allocation applications. Mr B said this has prevented him applying for housing near to his family, affected his mental and physical health and caused him delay, distress and anxiety. We do not find fault with how the Council considered Mr B’s homeless application. However, we do find fault with how the Council considered Mr B’s housing applications. This caused Mr B uncertainty. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Mr X’s housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mrs D complained the Council’s care provider failed to provide domiciliary care for her mother as agreed and to a suitable standard during a two-week period in late 2020. We found the care was provided as agreed in most care appointments. However, its carers arrived late on some occasions, and the total amount of care she received was of less duration than agreed. The Council agreed apologise to Mrs X and Mrs D, and reduce the outstanding care costs with £200 to acknowledge the limited loss of care support Mrs X experienced and the limited distress this caused her and Mrs D.

Summary: Mrs Y complained about her mother, Mrs X’s, social care and the Council’s safeguarding investigation. There was no fault in Mrs X’s care or how the Council carried out its safeguarding investigation. There was fault in how the Care Provider, acting for the Council, increased the top-up fees charged to Mrs X’s husband. The Council should apologise, refund the extra fees charged, review similar cases and review its policies.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to take action to remove abandoned vehicles parked outside his home. We have found the Council to be at fault because it took too long to progress the case. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr X and take action to improve the Council’s service.