LGO Individual Decisions

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our 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.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to allow a 12-week property disregard when completing his father's financial assessment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: There was fault in the way a social care assessment was conducted in 2023, this led to delay in putting provision in place. Parents missed out on respite and Y missed out on social activities outside the home. The Council will make a symbolic payment to acknowledge the missed provision.

Summary: There was delay by the Council in securing provision in a child in need plan under s.2 Chronically Sick and Disabled Person’s Act (CSDPA). This caused injustice to the child and their parent carers. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment for missed provision. The complaint is upheld.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider her complaint whilst there are ongoing court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the delay.

Summary: We cannot by law investigate this complaint about the actions of a Council social worker and a section 7 report ordered by the court with respect to welfare of the complainant’s children. This is because the issues are subject to legal proceedings in court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to provide the complainant with information. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part, and it is open to the complainant to raise the matter in court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to carry out an Education, Health and Care needs assessment. This is because it would be reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to a tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response in its role as a statutory consultee on a planning application. We do not consider the complainant has suffered a sufficient personal injustice which warrants an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to properly maintain the public highway. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to take action through the courts.

Summary: Mr X complains there was fault in the Council’s care assessment of his mother-in-law, Mrs J. He says this caused family disagreement and financial loss because he and his sister-in-law considered they had no option but to start legal action which was later found to be unnecessary. The Council was at fault, but it did not cause the claimed injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a claim for damages as this caused the complainant insufficient injustice to warrant our further involvement.

Summary: We investigated to see if there were flaws in the approach taken by the Council when a nursing home in its area faced potential closure. We found the Council at fault for not having a clearer procedure to follow in such circumstances. However, we did not consider this fault caused injustice to the residents affected. We therefore completed our investigation when the Council agreed to improve its procedure, as detailed at the end of the statement.

Summary: We did not uphold a complaint about the charge for Mr X’s care because the Council’s financial assessment was in line with guidance on charging for non-residential care.

Summary: Mrs B says the Council delayed making a decision following a review of her son’s education, health and care plan, issued the wrong decision and failed to put in place education for her son. The Council delayed issuing a decision following the review and then issued the wrong decision but there is no fault in the failure to put in place education for Mrs B’s son for the period before the appeal right arose. An apology, payment to Mrs B and a reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council treated her mother’s, Ms Y’s, purchase of a car as a deprivation of assets when completing a financial assessment. The Council is at fault for attaching weight to the V5 certificate which it says shows legal ownership of the vehicle.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council’s delays in carrying out her father’s financial assessment meant he was unable to make an informed decision about his placement. Any injustice is speculative so there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s School Admissions Appeal Panel’s handling of her appeal against the refusal to offer her child a place at her preferred school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault affecting the panel’s decision.

Summary: Mrs X complained a streetlight in an alleyway next to her house shone too brightly into her garden, causing a loss of privacy. We found no fault by the Council and have concluded our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement in Miss X’s child’s case. The law says we cannot consider matters that have been considered in court, and we will not consider matters that should be raised as part of proceedings.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about alleged abuse of Mr X’s child and victimisation of him by social workers. The matters complained of are not separable from matters that have been or could reasonably be raised in court.

Summary: Mrs K complains the Council failed to consult her regarding her adult son’s move to a new placement. She says she did not agree to it, and she now finds it very difficult to visit him. There was fault by the Council. It has agreed a remedy.