LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council agreed to support Mr X throughs its Welfare Fund. That is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a historic court report and a more recent assessment. We cannot investigate the use of the report in court proceedings. Any subsequent processing of inaccurate data in a new assessment since court proceedings ended would be a matter where the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed than us to resolve the matter.

Summary: Mrs D complained about the way the Council, the Trust and Bromley Healthcare dealt with her late brother Mr S’s discharge from hospital, wheelchair provision and social care. We have not upheld the complaints about the Council and Bromley Healthcare. Most complaints about the Trust are also not upheld. However, we found the Trust was at fault in not making psychological support available to Mr S. The Trust accepts our recommendation, so we have completed our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about children service’s actions. It is unlikely we could achieve more than the Council’s response to his complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council charging the late Mrs C for care in 2016. This is because Mr D could have come to us sooner. It would be reasonable for Mrs C’s executor to defend the Council’s recovery of the debt in court if they believe she was not responsible for it.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the way the Council dealt with her application for a school place. 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 by the Council. It is also reasonable for Mrs X to use her right of appeal to an Independent Appeal Panel.

exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the transfer of council tax credit to another account instead of refunding it as requested by Mr X. This complaint 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.

Summary: the complaint concerns the processing of a planning application and consideration of environmental health issues from the development. The Council delayed uploading information to its public website, failed to properly consider the visual impact the development would have, failed to investigate some of the issues raised by Mrs B properly and failed to properly advise Mrs B. There was no fault in how the Council considered the noise issues relating to the development or in the information the Council provided in response to the solicitor’s property search. An apology, payment to Mrs B

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to continue the complainant’s daughter’s child protection plan. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: Miss X complains about the way the Council handled her housing application. The Council was not at fault for the way it dealt with her application or for deciding to make a direct offer rather than increase her banding. There were faults in its communication with Miss X but these did not cause a significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about recovery action taken by the Council in respect of a business rates debt as there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an adoption process. It is unlikely we would find fault and there are other bodies better suited to consider parts of their complaint.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s actions in relation to child protection matters. The Council was at fault for not considering the allegations of abuse which were made against Mr X before it decided the next appropriate steps to take. The Council has already apologised to Mr X however, the Council has agreed it will also remind staff to properly consider allegations of abuse before it decides on what actions to take.

Summary: We found no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision to refuse Mrs X’s application for a dropped kerb. However, there was significant avoidable delay by the Council in dealing with Mrs X’s, unsuccessful, appeals against its refusal and her post decision correspondence. We found the Council’s apologies and its offer to refund Mrs X’s £100 application fee suitably addressed the frustration caused by its delays.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a report written for court proceedings. This is because the complaint relates to an ongoing court case. So, we have no remit to investigate.

Summary: We uphold Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to consider his complaint within its children statutory complaints’ procedure. The Council has agreed to do so without further delay.

Summary: There is no fault by the Council in the way it dealt with Mr X’s request for an urgent needs assessment for his father. There is evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint about this.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council preventing use of an unauthorised vehicle crossing. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to ensure her child, C, received some of the provision specified in his Education, Health, and Care Plan. We found the Council was at fault when it failed to deliver some of the provision in C’s Plan. The Council also failed to appoint a Speech and Language Therapist and an Occupational Therapist in reasonable time. This caused delay in ensuring some of the provision was delivered. Ms X and C were caused the injustice of distress and frustration. Ms X was also put to the time and trouble of complaining. the Council has agreed to our recommended remed

Summary: Ms X complains the Council has not dealt with her housing properly. The Council was at fault because it gave conflicting information about how Ms X could recover costs for electricity top-ups and didn’t take into account information about her circumstances. Ms X is out of pocket and suffered distress. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X the value of her missed electricity top-ups, £100 for her time and trouble and £250 for avoidable distress.

Summary: Ms P complains on behalf of her son (Young Person Z) who has special educational needs. The Council maintains an Education and Health Care Plan for Young Person Z. Ms P alleges the Council has failed to provide a suitable education placement for Young Person Z and has offered him inadequate education in the meantime. She also says the Council has not maintained good contact with her and that an officer of the Council caused Young Person Z distress by telling him he may be breaking the law for not engaging in home tuition. Ms P is also dissatisfied with the way the Council has managed

Summary: Mr and Mrs Y complain about the Council’s involvement in their concerns about a school. We find the Council did not manage Mr and Mrs Y’s expectations, failed to keep records of its decisions, and sometimes delayed in corresponding with Mr and Mrs Y. The apology and service improvements already undertaken by the Council are appropriate remedies and we do not recommend anything further.

Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it dealt with Ms B’s concerns about her grandson’s welfare. It considered what she said and took the action it considered necessary to establish whether there was a risk to him.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the complainant’s planning applications. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to use, or have used, the rights of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, we cannot investigate any parts of the complaint where that alternative remedy has already been used, and we cannot determine the legality of a pre-commencement condition.