LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed in completing an Education, Health and Care plan for her son, and left him in an unsuitable education setting which did not meet his educational needs. We found the Council at fault. We recommended it apologise to Miss X, pay her £3,300 for loss of education and special educational needs provision, £500 for distress, £250 for time and trouble and act to prevent recurrence.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the conduct of a social worker. The matters complained of are not separable from matters which form part of a court process.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel, and so we cannot question the merits of its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about children services actions. It is unlikely we could add to the Council’s resolution.

Summary: Miss X complained about the support the Council provided after she became homeless in March 2020. There was fault in how the Council made a final offer of accommodation to Miss X and how it refused to process a homelessness application from her after her circumstances changed. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss X, make another offer of accommodation and pay her a financial remedy. It also agreed to remind its housing staff about the correct approach to its offers policy and repeat homelessness applications.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s request for information. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate as this is a matter best dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council’s Monitoring Officer dealt with a complaint about the conduct of a councillor. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the complainant was not properly looked after when she was placed in care as a child, and that she has been given none of her records for this time period. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There are insufficient grounds to exercise discretion to consider this late complaint now, and the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider the complainant’s concerns about her subject access request.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not making Mr X the named business ratepayer for a property and therefore not paying him some COVID-19-related business grants. This is mainly because the evidence suggests the Council properly reached its decision on the main point at issue.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the care her late mother, Mrs C, received from her Care Provider or the Council’s safeguarding investigation into concerns she raised about the care. This is because

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council not providing financial assistance to her granddaughter while at university. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

Summary: We found no fault in how the Council decided not to take enforcement action after it found no material change of use had taken place on land near Mr X’s home.