LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care provided to Ms B by her care company. This is because

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s delay in contacting him about a family support assessment it carried out on his son, despite sharing custody with his son's mother. We find the Council was at fault for delay in contacting him and in their complaint handling. This caused him significant stress. We make several recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the safety of children when visiting a parent. The matter complained of is not separable from matters that form part of court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s introduction of a Traffic Regulation order to change the traffic layout in a town centre. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council charging Mr X for care and support and for not making the reasonable adjustments requested. This is because we have previously considered the complaint and the complaint about reasonable adjustments is late.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about events surrounding Mr X’s death from COVID-19. Part of the complaint is late. It is unlikely we could reach a clear enough view there was fault by, or on behalf of, the Council that would have significantly changed what happened. We cannot achieve what Ms X wants about assigning responsibility for Mr X’s death.

Summary: Ms V complains on behalf of her deceased mother. She complains that neglectful care provision and lack of safeguarding led to the Council not acting in her mother’s best interests. She had lost a lot of weight and nobody took any action. The Ombudsman’s decision is there was some fault in the actions of a care provider providing care on behalf of the Council. It did not do all it could have done to respond to concerns about Ms V’s mother’s eating. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

Summary: Mr X complained about the respite care his wife, Mrs X received while temporarily residing in a Care Home. Mrs X was admitted to hospital with faecal impaction the day after her return from the Care Home. There was no evidence of fault in the care provided by the Care Home.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council’s Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) determined allegations made about his professional practice. Because Mr X issued legal proceedings, we discontinued our investigation.

Summary: The Council was at fault for unfairly alleging that Ms X prevented staff members from leaving her home during a visit, and for requiring that she sign a ‘safety plan’ which implied the same. It has agreed to correct its records, apologise to Ms X and make a small, symbolic payment to recognise her injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we would not be able to make a finding about what happened to Mr B in December 2018.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about fees the Council invoiced Mr X’s property development company for. That is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charges for care. This is because there is no evidence of fault and injustice to justify an investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about a court order being breached as it lies outside our jurisdiction. We cannot consider matters that have been subject to court proceedings and it is for the courts to decide whether an order has been breached. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a data breach because it is a matter for the Information Commissioner’s Office to consider.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to make a public path modification order. Miss X submitted an objection and the order has been referred to the Planning Inspectorate for a decision. The Planning Inspectorate is the proper authority to consider challenges to highway orders.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a disabled persons’ travel pass. This is because the Council will do a further assessment.

Summary: the Council accepted the findings and recommendations of an independent complaint investigation and agreed to revisit evidence collected during a child protection investigation. Mr F has since obtained further evidence himself which the Council has agreed to consider. Mr F has asked the Council to correct the information it holds and made a further complaint about delays in the process. He has also asked for compensation. The Council is still considering his complaints, so it is not appropriate for the Ombudsman to investigate now.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about child protection action and the welfare of children in care. This is because the complaint concerns matters which have been decided in court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not re-instating contact with Miss X’s child ten years ago. Miss X was aware in 2019 that letters had not been passed on and that the Council had then told her it would not do so. She could have approached us sooner about the administrative matter, and she had a right to go to court about the decision in 2019 it would have been reasonable to use.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to help with letterbox contact between Mr X’s adopted child and their sibling. This is because an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s failure to undertake reviews for his late aunt, Ms C. This is because further investigation could not add to the Council’s response. We

Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to safeguard Child Z and take on board his concerns for Child Z. Mr X complains this has resulted in Child Z remaining at risk. The Ombudsman finds no fault with the Council for how it considered the concerns raised about Child Z. This is because the Council has been able to evidence reasonable decision-making, and it is therefore not a decision the Ombudsman can question.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed giving her access to her care files. She also complained the Council did not follow correct safeguarding processes and delayed removing her from her family’s care when she was experiencing abuse. She complained this matter caused her significant emotional harm and distress. There was fault when the Council significantly delayed providing Miss X with her care files. The Council has agreed to provide Miss X with an apology and £150 in recognition of the time and trouble she was put to by its actions. The Council should also remind its staff of the i

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to properly oversee a development which resulted in significant damage to a local landmark. This is because the complaint is late and the Council was not responsible for the decisions or actions which caused the damage.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed in arranging an Educational Psychologist report for his son’s Education, Health and Care plan assessment. The Council was at fault for a significant delay which caused Mr X avoidable frustration. The Council has already apologised to Mr X but will also pay him £200 in recognition of the injustice the delay caused.