LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mr X complained the Council stopped both Mr Y’s social care funding and Staying Put funding. Mr X says this stop in funding has undermined Mr Y’s welfare and the stability of his placement. On the evidence seen, we found fault with the Council delaying completion of a suitable care assessment and financial assessment for Mr Y. The Council agreed to backdate Mr Y’s direct payments to 3 January 2024. The Council also agreed to apologise to Mr Y and pay him £400 for the inconvenience cause. We also found fault with the Council failing to complete satisfactory long-term planning for Mr Y’

Summary: We cannot by law investigate this complaint about the adequacy of the Council’s child protection actions in respect of the complainant’s children, or its role in private custody proceedings. This is because the issued raised have been subject to court action. We have no legal jurisdiction to investigate a complaint where the issues raised are subject to court proceedings.

Summary: Mr D says the Council failed to properly investigate his concerns about noise and anti-social behaviour. We have found evidence of fault by the Council and upheld the complaint. We have completed the investigation because the Council agrees to the provide staff training and pay redress to Mr D.

Summary: There was delay by the Council in telling a family of the cost of care for Mr X in his home. The family were made aware there would be a financial contribution towards the care costs and had previously decided they did not wish to arrange care through the Council because of this. The Council has already offered a remedy of an apology, an offer to carry out a financial reassessment and an offer of a payment plan so no further action will be taken as the injustice has been remedied before the complaint was made to the Ombudsman.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to consult with her preferred school as part of her child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This is because Ms X has appealed the content of the EHC Plan to the SEND Tribunal, and the law says we cannot investigate. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s complaints process because we cannot investigate the substantive complaint, and therefore an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve anything further.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed providing him with replacement waste bins. He also complained the Council discriminated against him because of his disability when he tried to make a complaint about the delay. Mr X says the Council’s actions caused him avoidable inconvenience and distress. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and provide a financial remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an email a Care Provider sent the Council. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a delay by the Council in renewing the complainant’s Freedom Pass. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Penalty Charge Notice because it is reasonable to expect Miss Y to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms C’s complaint about the way she has been treated by the Council. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an ombudsman investigation. We could not provide Ms C with the outcome she wants.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to take planning enforcement action against his neighbour. This is because the injustice Mr X claims stems from the actions of his neighbour, whom he believes has encroached onto his property, rather than any fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to award her a COVID-19 business grant in 2020. This is because the complaint is late and it would have been reasonable for her to complain about it sooner. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council has obtained liability orders for unpaid business rates for the period 2020 to 2023 because there is not enough evidence of fault. If Mrs X believes she does not owe the business rates or that the Council failed to follow the proper process she may wish to apply to the court to set aside the liability or

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because the complainant could have used the statutory process and appealed to the tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a reduction in the complainant’s housing benefit. This is because she could have used her appeal rights and because the Council has increased the benefit award.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control and an application to discharge planning conditions. This is because we are unlikely to find fault with how the application to discharge the planning conditions was dealt with. It is not yet possible to say if the complainant has suffered significant injustice because of any alleged fault with the Council’s enforcement investigation.

Summary: Miss B complained the Council wrongly issued a penalty charge notice for an alleged parking offence. We have ended our investigation as Miss B had a right of appeal to the London Tribunals and it was reasonable for her to use this appeal right.

Summary: Miss B complained the Council pursued enforcement action even though her account is not in arrears. We have not found fault in the actions of the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council has refused to increase safety measures on a road junction. This is because Mrs X’s complaint is late and there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council causing Mrs X significant injustice. The incidents which caused the injustice Mrs X claims are more appropriately matters for the police.

Summary: Mrs Y complained about the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s social care support and its response to her complaint. We have found fault by the Council in failing to review Mr X’s need for support managing his finances, and failing to consider part of Mrs Y’s complaint, but this did not cause any personal injustice. We have not found fault on the other parts of Mrs Y’s complaint.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council wrongly assessed her priority for social housing. There was fault in how the Council decided about Miss X’s housing priority and how it communicated with her. While this did not affect Miss X’s priority, it did cause her avoidable frustration, worry, time and trouble for which the Council agreed to apologise and pay her a financial remedy. The Council also agreed to review how it decides about medical priority.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly assess and meet his care needs since 2017. Mr X also said the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments for his disabilities, did not communicate with him and his representatives properly and failed to consider his complaint about the matters. The Council failed to review Mr X’s care and support in line with the legislation, to meet some of his eligible care needs and to properly consider his complaint about that matter. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X for the frustration and distress caused and pay him £1200.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about additional charges incurred due to the Council failing to set up a direct debit. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide Occupational Therapy (OT) provision in line with her son, F’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan between December 2021 and May 2022. The Council failed to deliver F’s OT provision during this period which was fault. It agreed to pay Miss X £1000 to recognise the impact the loss of OT provision had on F. It also agreed to refund her the cost of the private OT assessment she commissioned during the EHC assessment process and carry out service improvements.