LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about damage caused to his steps by Council contractors. This is because this is a complaint about negligence which is a legal matter for the courts to consider and decide.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of a planning application and associated enforcement matters relating to a development next to the complainants’ home. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault causing injustice to the complainants, and the Council has apologised for the delay in responding to their complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a credit on Mr X’s council tax demand notice for the financial year 2021/22. This is because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mr Y complains the Council has failed to deal properly with disabled adaptations to Mr X’s home, leaving him without access to adequate bathroom facilities for too long and putting him at risk of harm. The Council has delayed in providing equipment for Mr X’s bathroom, causing avoidable distress. It needs to apologise, pay financial redress and take action to provide the equipment.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care fees because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons why Mr B could not have complained to us sooner. In addition, we cannot achieve the remedy Mr B wants which is for the Council to write off the debt, only a court could decide that.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the assessment of care needs and charging. This is because the complaint is late with no good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate it now.

Summary: Mr and Mrs H complain about the Council breaching their confidentiality during a child protection investigation. And in wrongly telling them Mr H was not allowed home for a lengthy period. The Ombudsman finds fault in how the Council dealt with the issue of Mr H going home. It did not assess the risks. Instead it told Mr H he could not go home, without explaining this was voluntary. We also uphold a complaint that the Council did not consider whether it needed to complete a separate assessment for each of the children. We have found the fault with the instruction to not return home cr

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that a councillor sent Mr X a disrespectful email. This is because there is insufficient injustice caused to Mr X to warrant our involvement and we cannot achieve the outcome he wants.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council has failed to provide her son, Y, with suitable education while he was unable to attend school and he has missed education. Mrs X also complained the communication with the Council was difficult. Mrs X says she suffered distress and has had to give up working to care for Y, putting financial pressure on the family. The Council did not provide a suitable education for Y, communication was difficult and Mrs X has been put to time and trouble to complain.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the support the Council provided Mr X. That is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement with the complainant’s family. This is because we cannot consider matters linked to ongoing court proceedings. There is nothing we can add to the Council’s response which explained court proceedings need to conclude before it can consider the complaint.

Summary: Mr X complained about highways works the Council carried out to widen the road outside his property. He stated they have had a detrimental effect on his and his family’s health. On the evidence seen so far, there was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council fixed the amount of Special Guardianship allowance she received for her two grandchildren, and did not include yearly or age related increases, which is against statutory guidance. The Council is currently remedying the matter with plans to implement a new policy. But there is wider injustice to others due to this fault, and the Council has agreed with our recommendations to provide Mrs X with an apology and to backdate payments to other Special Guardians similarly affected by this issue.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s response to his requests for a litter pick alongside a road in his locale and its failure to refund solicitor costs he incurred in pursuing the matter. We will not investigate the complaint because it was Mr X’s decision to use solicitors and his personal injustice in relation to road cleansing is limited.

Summary: The statutory complaints process found the Council’s assessment of Miss X and her child was inaccurate. The Council had not suitably remedied the injustice this caused. It has agreed to pay Miss X and her child £350 and take action to improve its services.

Summary: We did not uphold a complaint about delay in amending Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan. There was fault in complaint handling – delay and a failure to give an adequate explanation about concerns about naming School A for which the Council will apologise.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council charging Mr B for his care. This is because we could not add to the Council’s response of make a different finding of the kind Mr B Wants.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about children services involvement in her children’s removal from her care. There are no good reasons why the late complaint rule should not apply.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a delay by the Council in registering the complainant for council tax. This is because the Council has provided a fair remedy and there is not enough remaining injustice to require an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council’s Police, Fire and Crime Panel considered a complaint about the Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would find fault in how the Panel considered the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about individual Council officers not being held to account for failings in an upheld complaint. Investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome or achieve the remedy Mr X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of planning and enforcement issues at a site near the complainant’s home. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault causing significant injustice to the complainant, and the Council has apologised for the delayed complaint responses.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council gave incorrect advice and incorrectly assessed her father’s contribution towards care charges, causing distress and financial loss. We found the Council gave incorrect advice but we found no fault in its decision making on care charges. We recommended the Council pay Mrs X £300 for distress and act to prevent recurrence.

Summary: There was delay by the Council. It took 23 weeks longer than it should have done to issue an Education, Health and Care plan after it was directed to do so by a tribunal. The Council was also at fault as it delayed getting specialist reports during the assessment of a child, Y’s, needs. A financial payment to the Y’s family remedies any injustice from the delay in identifying and providing education, which Miss X says has caused Y significant distress.