LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mr X complains the Council was biased against him as it believed his ex-wife’s allegations that he had abused his children. We will not reinvestigate Mr X’s complaint as it has been properly considered through the statutory complaints process. We find the Council is at fault as it did not fully implement the recommendations of the review panel which considered Mr X’s complaint at stage three of the statutory complaints process

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to Ms X’s reports of noise nuisance from neighbours. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council decided not to replace the through lift in his property with a stairlift or sit-down lift. Mr X says the through-lift in place is not fit for purpose and is causing him distress and worry. The Ombudsman does not find fault with how the Council decided not to install a stairlift or sit-down lift.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council delayed in processing invoices for direct payments. That is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a person he says works at the Council. This is because the complaint is about the actions of an individual and is not about the administrative functions of the Council.

Summary: Mr F complains the Council failed to secure the provision in his son’s education, health and care plan from April to November 2020 and about the way it dealt with his education in that period. We have ended our investigation into most of Mr F’s complaints because they are either outside the Ombudsman’s remit or should not be pursued further as no injustice has been caused. We will incorporate one element into Mr F’s separate complaint to the Ombudsman about provision following a SEND Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to backdate the complainant’s housing priority band. This is because part of her complaint is late and there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in the way it reached its decision on her recent complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to provide Occupational Therapy provision. This is because the Council has provided a remedy and we would not obtain a significantly different outcome for Mr X if we investigated.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a broken bollard. This is because the courts are better placed than us to consider the complaint.

Summary: There was a failure to provide suitable full-time alternative education between June 2020 when Y was unable to continue to attend her school and May 2021 when she started a new school. This was fault and caused loss of education as well as distress and inconvenience to the family. The Council will apologise, make a financial payment and service improvements.

Summary: The Council is at fault for delaying paying savings to two children previously in care. The Council has agreed to make payments to the complainant for the time and trouble its delays have caused and to the children for the frustration caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement matter. This is because the Council’s actions have not caused Mr X significant injustice.

Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council did not agree with her request for a house on medical grounds. She said it was essential for her child’s medical needs. We did not find fault with the Council’s actions and we note that the policy has now changed so Mrs B can bid for houses.

Summary: There is evidence of fault in this complaint. There are inconsistencies in two needs assessments completed eight weeks apart. The Council failed to record an increase in care hours as temporary and failed to inform Mrs X of the same. The latter assessment failed to properly consider if/how Mrs X’s health impacted on her care needs.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an incident involving care staff at Ms B’s home. This is because further investigation by the Ombudsman could not make a different finding to that Ms B has already received.

The Council refused to fund adaptations to a specialist bed. Consequently, Ms X does not have a bed that meets her needs.

Summary: A tenant complained about the way the Council handled her application for a transfer to another property. But there is not enough evidence that fault by the Council in this respect has caused the tenant a significant injustice. Therefore, we will not investigate the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to issue a Community Protection warning banning the complainant from using a local community centre/library. This is because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council and achieve the outcome wanted.

cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s maintenance of trees on one of its social housing estates. We have no jurisdiction to investigate the management of housing by social housing landlords.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a Freedom of Information request. This is because the Information Commissioners Office is better placed to investigate.

Summary: Mr X says the admissions appeal panel did not take account of his medical conditions and did not treat him fairly. There was inadequate detail in the clerk’s notes to conclude Mr X’s appeals were conducted properly. The Council agreed to arrange a rehearing of one of Mr X’s appeals with a new appeal panel.

Summary: Mr X says the admissions appeal panel did not take account of his medical conditions and did not treat him fairly. There was inadequate detail in the clerk’s notes to conclude Mr X’s appeals were conducted properly. However, the identified fault did not cause Mr X significant injustice to warrant further pursuit of this complaint by, or a remedy from, the Ombudsman.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his homelessness applications and discharged it duties. The Council’s delays and failures to properly advise Mr X amount to fault. This fault has caused Mr X an injustice.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the way the Council responded to the complainant’s complaints about his neighbour who is a Council tenant. This is because we cannot investigate a council when it is acting as a landlord.

Summary: The Council was at fault for the way it dealt with Mr X’s housing application. The Council delayed in referring Mr X to an Occupational Therapist, delayed in reviewing Mr X’s medical priority and request for an additional bedroom and was at fault for the way it reached its decision on Mr X’s medical priority. As a result, it took the Council much longer to provide Mr X with a decision on his housing application and he cannot be sure the Council came to the correct decision about his medical priority. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr