LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Ms X complained about errors during the Council’s pre-birth safeguarding assessment processes. The Council was not at fault.

Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his father, Mr P, that the Council did not carry out a timely assessment of Mr P’s care needs following hospital discharge. There was also poor communication with his family about a financial assessment and changes to funding for his care package. The Council was at fault. It has already reimbursed Mr P for the care charges he paid. It has agreed to make separate payments to Mr P and Mrs X to recognise their distress and inconvenience.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has continued to hold cabinet meetings remotely, contrary to a High Court judgement made in April 2021. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council causing Mr X significant injustice. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council decided to close his local recycling centre as the complaint is late.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council handled allegations the complainant had breached the Member Code of Conduct. This is because we have no powers to investigate complaints from councillors about matters relating to their role as a councillor.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about drainage. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant further investigation.

Summary: The Council delayed meeting Ms C’s adult social care needs, and her parents needs as carers, because it was focussed on disputing ordinary residence. The Council is now progressing matters as it should. The Council will apologise and pay Mr & Mrs B £600 to acknowledge the impact on them.

Summary: Mr X is not satisfied with the Council’s investigation and response to his complaint about its children’s services department. He does not consider the Council properly addressed his complaint. The Ombudsman has discontinued his investigation. That is because there is not enough evidence of fault, and it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s investigation.

Summary: Mr E complained the Council failed to consult him when it assessed if his son should have an Education, Health and Care Plan and took too long to correct statements in that plan which were inaccurate or distressing to him. He also complained it had not done enough to monitor education his son has received at home, being provided by the child’s mother. We upheld the first part of the complaint but considered the Council had provided a satisfactory remedy for any injustice caused to Mr E.

Summary: Ms M complains, on behalf of three young adults, the Council gave them misleading advice about applying for social housing. The Council was at fault as it failed to manage their expectations about the likely success of their application given restrictions imposed by local housing providers. It failed to proactively address why they were not being considered for properties and to ensure they understood this. The Council has agreed to make a payment to remedy the distress and frustration this caused them. It has also agreed to review its procedures to be clearer about the likely success

Summary: Ms M complains, on behalf of three young adults, the Council gave them misleading advice about applying for social housing. The Council was at fault as it failed to manage their expectations about the likely success of their application given restrictions imposed by local housing providers. It failed to proactively address why they were not being considered for properties and to ensure they understood this. The Council has agreed to make a payment to remedy the distress and frustration this caused them. It has also agreed to review its procedures to be clearer about the likely success

Summary: It was not fault for the Council not to provide the service Mr X wanted, as its assessment found he was not eligible. The Council accepts and apologises that it did not at first communicate with Mr X as quickly as it could have done, which added to his frustration.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.

Summary: Ms X complains about failure by the Council to take planning enforcement action. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman found fault by the Council on Mr Y’s complaint about its failure to investigate his reports of his neighbours’ antisocial behaviour. It failed to show evidence of its antisocial behaviour officer’s involvement, whether it considered if any of their behaviour might be actionable, and whether it considered any risk to him. It also failed to offer early mediation or show evidence of contacting other bodies such as the police for information. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint which was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner about the Council’s failure to take action against his neighbours over highway encroachment.

Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of a Trust, about the way the Council dealt with a planning application. We will not investigate this complaint because we cannot say with certainty that any significant injustice was caused by the alleged fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a complaint that a councillor has failed to declare a pecuniary interest. This is because there is no evidence of fault with how the complaint was considered and the police are better placed to consider the allegations made.

Summary: We found no fault in how the Council reached its decision to issue a lawful development certificate for land near Mr X’s home.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide his daughter, Z, with appropriate transport to school and respite care between January and July 2021 after it could not provide a suitably trained passenger assistant to carry her medication. We found fault in the Council’s failure to provide appropriate transport for Z and in the way it considered its duty to provide suitable transport. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £600 to recognise the inconvenience and distress caused, and to remind relevant staff of its statutory obligations when providing transport.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the actions of the Council’s designated officer for allegations who managed a safeguarding allegation made against her. Mrs X says this matter caused her mental distress and upset. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: Mr X complains about procedural faults by the Council in its handling of a planning application for a development in his locale. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council and Mr X’s injustice is insufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to take action regarding the poor state of his neighbour’s house and garden, due to disrepair and hoarding. We have not found evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application or the decision to change the housing settlement boundary. This is because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council, the police and his child’s school failed to properly deal with his safeguarding concerns about his child’s welfare. Mr X says the matter has caused him significant distress, financial loss and his child continues to be at risk of significant harm. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s safeguarding concerns.