LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: The Council was at fault in failing to obtain an occupational therapy assessment during the education health and care needs assessment of the complaint’s son. The Council has agreed to reimburse the complaint for the cost of the assessment she obtained privately.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the removal of some double yellow lines. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because it is a late complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about failure to keep the complainant informed of the progress of an investigation into his reports of obstacles on the highway. There is not enough injustice caused by a failure to keep Mr X updated. And as the Council is following up the obstacle issue, further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Miss X’s complained about the Council’s failure to secure provision in her son’s education, health and care plan during the period March 2020 to March 2021. We have found that the Council failed to show how it considered the provision in place for the young person was suitable, or whether further provision could have been secured. This caused uncertainty for Miss X and her son about whether more could have been done to support him. We have recommended that the Council apologise and make a payment to recognise the impact of this uncertainty.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council completed Mr X’s care needs assessment. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about the Council’s decision not to issue their daughter with a Child in Need plan despite confirming it necessary to make social care provision her. We found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters. So, we are completing our investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a walking and cycling route in his area which includes a proposal to permanently close a road near to him. Mr X said the Council failed to properly consult about the scheme.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s contact with his friend in a care home. This is because the Council have agreed to complete an assessment and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Mr X complained the Council failed to adequately consult with him and other residents around its decision to approve a cycling and walking scheme in his area.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a cycling and walking scheme which he says was based on a flawed consultation.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to adequately consult with him around its decision to approve a cycling and walking scheme in his area. The Council failed to deliver consultation leaflets to Mr X and a number of other residents as part of the consultation. However, this did not cause Mr X a significant injustice. This is because the Council carried out a consultation using various methods and it considered relevant comments and similar concerns to that of Mr X from others before deciding to approve the scheme.

Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her brother-in-law, Mr Z, about the way the Council assessed his need for care and support and its decision that he had no eligible needs. She says he has unmet needs. It has also put her and her husband under extra strain and pressure as Mr Z’s main carers. We found no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained about the actions of the Council’s Children’s Services regarding his son’s Education, Health and Care plan. Mr X says the Council’s actions have caused him financial hardship and caused avoidable distress to himself and his son. We have discontinued our investigation of some of Mr X’s complaints as they are out of jurisdiction and have found fault by the Council in some of Mr X’s remaining complaints. The Council has agreed a remedy to address the injustice identified.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council as trustees of a charity. The Charity Commission is better placed to consider the matter complained of.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about safeguarding children in a sports setting. Investigation is not warranted by any possible injustice to Mr X. And there is no reason to exercise discretion to consider possible injustice to unnamed other persons caused by any fault by the Council.

Summary: The Council acknowledges there were delays when Ms A requested help for her mother Mrs X. The Council has now apologised and taken action to remedy the consequent injustice to Mrs X. It also agrees to make a payment in recognition of the frustration and loss of dignity caused by the delay in responding and increasing Mrs X’s care, and consider ways in which her personal hygiene needs can be better met .

Summary: There was fault by the Council. There was poor communication by officers and the Council said it had refunded an application fee, when it had not. This complaint is upheld. Refunding the fee, and a payment towards Mr X’s time and trouble remedies the injustice caused.

Summary: The Council delayed completing adult social care needs assessments and reviews. This meant family carers felt under pressure to provide support, and the family is uncertain about whether the situation might have been better. Mr C is in a temporary placement, the Council needs to complete relevant assessments to decide on the best way to meet his long-term needs. The Council will complete this work and pay Ms B and Mr C £500 each to acknowledge the impact on them.

Summary: Mrs B complained about lack of support to her family between 2017 and 2021, failure to arrange meetings properly, failure to allocate a social worker from the disabled children’s team, failure to respond to correspondence and delay putting in place recommendations following a complaint. The Council failed to properly consider the impact on Mrs B as a carer during its assessments, failed to arrange some meetings properly, failed to respond to Mrs B’s correspondence and set up direct payments without discussing whether that was an option Mrs B wanted. An apology, payment to Mrs B and tr

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about events which happened 24 years ago. There are no good reasons the late complaint rule should not apply.

Summary: Mr and Mrs B complained that the Council did not deal with their complaint about children’s services in respect of their daughter C, within the statutory timescales. We found that the Council delayed in telling Mr and Mrs B that it was including the complaint in a wider stage two investigation and delayed in progressing that investigation. We considered Mr and Mrs B have been caused some frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to pay them £150.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to properly respond to Mr X’s requests for information as this is a matter for the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council removing cones from the public highway. There is no fault in the Council removing Mr X’s cones, nor in how it has dealt with cones placed by other residents on the highway. Even if the Council were not removing all others’ cones, that would not cause injustice to Mr X warranting our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about safeguarding incidents involving Mr Y when he was a pupil at a special needs school and the Council’s actions in later years. We cannot investigate a complaint on behalf of Mr Y because he used his legal remedy against the Council at court. The complaint is made late. There is no significant injustice remaining which we can or should investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his communication with councillor B and the Council not dealing with his complaint. There is no Council fault and no injustice to Mr X.