LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, about the misallocation of a council tax payment and its consequences. This is because we do not consider the complainant suffered a significant injustice as a result.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. This is because complaints about data matters such as this are best considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

We uphold complaints about delay in Y’s Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment and Plan, mainly caused by a shortage of Educational Psychologists. We also uphold complaints about poor communication by Children’s Social Care. The Council will write an apology and make payments to reflect the delay, loss of special educational provision and distress caused by poor communication. The Council will provide us with a written report of the progress it has made on reducing the backlog of cases.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council responded after the complainant reported fly-tipping which was damaging her fence. This is because the Council has provided a satisfactory response and the complainant can make a claim on the Council’s insurance.

Summary: Mrs C complained that the Council failed to provide the support for her daughter D, detailed in her Education, Health and Care Plan. We found fault with the Council’s actions. The Council has already made significant payments to Mrs C to recognise the lost provision and some of the private support Mrs C has provided in the interim. The Council has agreed to apologise, to increase the payments, to consider reimbursing any costs Mrs C incurred for Speech and Language Therapy and to provide an update on progress with its service improvements.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s communication about her direct payments and a lack of services to her in relation to her care. We did not find fault with the Council’s actions or how it has tried to support her in the past few years.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his concerns relating to a pipe which runs under this property. This is because we cannot determine the Council’s responsibility for the pipe or its liability for any damage and its delay in issuing its final decision not to carry out remedial works did not cause Mr X significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax payments as the matter has been remedied.

Summary: We found fault by a care provider with regards to its failure to properly assess Mrs K’s ability to make key decisions about her care. We also found fault by the care provider as it failed to notify Mrs K’s family when she suffered a fall and did not seek their input about what should happen next. The care provider agreed to apologise to Mrs K’s son, Mr J, and pay a financial remedy in recognition of the distress these events caused him. The care provider will also take action to prevent similar problems occurring in future.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage caused by potholes to Mr X’s vehicle. It is reasonable for Mr X to refer the matter to the courts.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to consider his complaints through its corporate complaints process rather than the children’s statutory process. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s report of asbestos debris on a public footpath. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council refused to consider her complaint about historical allegations of abuse. We shall not investigate the complaint as the events are too old.

Summary: Miss D complained about the lack of mental health and social care provided to her son, Mr B, when he was discharged from hospital. She said this led to a lack of joint working between the Council, the Trust and the Integrated Care Board (ICB). She said they did not make reasonable adjustments when communicating with Mr B. Miss D also complained about the way the ICB handled her complaint. We found fault in the way they organisations considered and provided support to meet Mr B’s holistic mental health and social care needs. They did not properly consider their duty to make reasonable

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s complaint about the actions of an officer. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by an investigation.

Summary: The Council failed to provide education for Y when she was unable to attend school, and it delayed issuing an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. The Council has agreed to make payments to Y and Mrs X and to take action to prevent similar failings in future.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to arrange transport for Mr X’s child to attend specialist provision. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in discharging planning conditions and progressing a section 106 agreement. Also, the complainant says the Council refused to meet him and discuss safety issues after a building fire. We cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking. We cannot determine whether the Council is liable for the complainant’s financial losses, such matters are for insurers or the courts to consider.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about travel arrangements for Miss X’s contact with her child. This is not separable from matters that have been subject to court action.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to return personal belongings. That is because we could not add anything further to the Council’s investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s financial assessment leading to her son, Mr Y, being charged the maximum contribution for his care costs. The Council has accepted it was at fault in the way it completed Mr Y’s financial assessment and has already taken steps to rectify this. The Council has now also agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X as it took too long to respond to her complaint. The Council will also complete the further training for staff on Disability-Related Expenditure and issue a reminder on the importance of responding to complaints within published timescale

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision not to disregard the value of her, mother, Mrs Y’s home in the financial assessment after Mrs Y moved into a care home. The Council was not at fault. It considered relevant law, guidance and evidence from Mrs X in deciding not to disregard the value of Mrs Y’s property.

Summary: Mrs D complained the Council failed to properly consider Miss X’s disability related expenditure for her care cost contributions since Autumn 2020 and caused delays in responding to her requests. The Council agreed some expenditure should have been included, and it caused delays in responding to Mrs D’s requests. It agreed to apologise to Miss X and Mrs D, credit Miss X’s account with the reduced contribution amount to September 2020 and make payment to Mrs D to acknowledge the distress this caused.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not follow the correct process to become Mr Y’s deputy, causing distress. We discontinued our investigation because the complaint is out of time, there is not enough evidence of fault, any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement and, there are other bodies better placed to consider the complaint.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council made an erroneous decision about deprivation of assets when she transferred hers, and her husband’s property, to her son. Mrs X says this has caused her husband to incur higher care costs. We found the Council had not considered the full factors in its deprivation of assets decision. We also found fault with the delays in the Council considering the full relevant factors and the distress and inconvenience this caused. The Council agreed to our recommendation to complete a review of its decision, apologise to Mrs X and apply a credit of £500 to her husband’