LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: The complaint is about the way the Council’s adult social care and finance teams dealt with Mr Y’s case when he moved into a care home after being in hospital. Provisionally, the Council acted without fault and in line with the Mental Capacity Act, charging rules, guidance and our Principles of Good Administrative Practice when dealing with Mr Y’s case. So we do not uphold the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a safeguarding concern. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault that has caused an injustice to the complainant. Investigation would also not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care respite provision, because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating further. The Council communicated it was sourcing a respite placement and that it could not fund the complainants preferred location, placement X. There was no delay by the Council in sourcing respite. The complainant made an informed decision to make a private arrangement with placement X.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about adult social care charges and the Council’s response to his Freedom of Information request. We could not add to the Council’s investigation and the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider a complaint about the Council’s handling of his information request.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a parking scheme the Council introduced. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and we could not achieve the outcomes the complainant wants.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council implemented an unlawful policy to temporarily provide 50% of the speech and language therapy needed in Education Health and Care Plans. We found fault by the Council because it implemented an unlawful policy and did not meet its statutory duty to provide the required provision. This caused Ms X’s child, Y, an injustice because they missed provision. It also caused Ms X avoidable frustration, distress and time and trouble in pursuing an end to the policy and complaining. The Council agreed to make Ms X payments in recognition of Y’s missed provision and the

Summary: Mrs Y complained the Council implemented an unlawful policy to temporarily provide 50% of the speech and language provision in Education Health and Care Plans. We found fault by the Council because it implemented an unlawful policy and did not meet its statutory duties. This caused Mrs Y avoidable time and trouble in pursuing an end to the policy and complaining. The Council agreed to make Mrs Y a symbolic payment in recognition of the injustice caused to her.

Summary: Mrs K complained about the support the Council provided her before it ended a fostering placement of a child in her care, and it failed to consider her views. She also said it made untrue accusations against her. As a result, Mrs K said she experienced distress and had a loss of income. We found no fault by the Council. It had put support in place for Mrs K and considered her and professionals’ views before it made its decisions. It based its views on the information it received and found child X was being caused harm due to their disagreement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of matters relating to a town centre redevelopment project and its response to Mr X’s complaint about it. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault sufficient to warrant an investigation or that Mr X has suffered any significant personal injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about children services actions. We cannot investigate the same issues a Court is considering and the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider his complaint about records accuracy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement with the complainant’s family and the living arrangements of their child. This is because we cannot consider complaints linked to court proceedings or achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council withdrew the Disability Related Expense for his gym membership. I found no fault with how the Council reached its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the accuracy of medical records and GP services. This is because the Council is not responsible for the matter complained about.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a claim for testamentary expenses which the Council has rejected. It is reasonable for Mrs X or the Council to seek a remedy in the courts which are better placed to determine a point of law.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to respond fully to a complaint about the actions of its officers in the course of child protection action. This is because it is unlikely we could add anything significant to the response the Council has made.

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

Summary: There was fault by the Council. An increase in care to 15 hours was agreed without the usual approval from a manager. This was poor communication which was fault. It raised Ms X’s expectations and caused her avoidable frustration and distress. The Council has now agreed the 15 hours and it will also apologise for the avoidable distress.

Summary: Mrs B complained about the Council’s handling of its claim that her property encroached on to a public footpath and her complaints about this matter. We found the Council at fault in how its officers dealt with Mrs B’s case and how it considered her first complaint about this matter. The Council had agreed to make a payment to Mrs B in recognition of the injustice caused to her.

Mr B complained a care home allowed his mother’s husband to take her out unsupervised ignoring a best interest decision and putting her at risk. The Council arranged Mrs C’s placement at the care home. We have discontinued our investigation because there are ongoing court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Ms X’s access rights to her property as this is a matter for the courts.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council ending special guardianship allowance payments. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that fault on the Council’s part has delayed the complainant’s admission to an appropriate school. This is because we could not achieve anything significant by doing so.

Summary: We found fault with the Care Home who did not keep accurate or up-to-date records. We also found fault with the Integrated Care Board who do not keep a register of patients receiving s117 aftercare in its area. We found no fault with the actions of the Council or the Trust. The identified faults caused avoidable distress and frustration to Mrs Q. We recommended an apology and service improvements to address the injustice.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions concerning Mr X’s child. This is because the matter complained of are not separable from matters that were or could have been raised in court.