LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Ms X, complains the Council failed to put the support she needed in place when she moved to Hackney in 2022 and, despite accepting its failings, it has failed to resolve them leaving her out-of-pocket. The Council accepts it did not deal with Ms X’s transfer to its area and that this left her paying for care it should have provided. It has offered to pay her £1,668 for the care it did not provide between 13 November 2022 and 5 January 2023. The Council’s offer does not go far enough to remedy the injustice to Ms X. It also needs to pay her for the care it should have provided in Octob

Summary: Miss X complains the Council has failed to provide the support agreed during the Special Guardianship Order process and has unreasonably rejected her application to the housing register. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for how it managed the Special Guardianship process, for failing to provide support, and for how it considered Miss X’s application to the housing register. The Council has agreed to pay Miss X a financial remedy, implement support and carry out service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s delay in providing him with information about access to advocacy services. This is because the Council has apologised for the oversight, explained what happened and provided Mr B with the information he requested. We could achieve no more.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed considering a complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint by arranging a stage three panel to be held within one month. It will also apologise to the complainant and offer to make a payment to them to remedy the time and trouble they have been too.

Summary: Ms X and Ms Y complained about how the Council dealt with their disabled facilities grant application. There were faults by the Council for its delays with their disabled facilities grant application and for its poor communication with them. This caused injustice to Ms X and Ms Y. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed in providing replacement equipment for his son Mr G’s specialist bed, and delayed in completing adaptations in the bathroom of their house agreed under a disabled facilities grant. The Council delayed in completing the adaptations, and in providing the replacement equipment. The Council will make a symbolic payment to recognise the injustice caused to Mr G and Mr X, and complete the outstanding adaptations.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly advised him about cancelling his resident’s parking permit and applying for a new permit. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show the Council’s actions caused Mr X significant injustice.

Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council reviewed its decision on her housing application and its refusal to award a medical priority. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reviewed Ms X’s housing needs banding or in the decision not to award medical priority.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about access to information. The Information Commissioner is best placed to consider complaints about how organisations respond to information requests.

Summary: There was fault by the Council. There has been delay in carrying out a review of Mr X’s housing application banding. There was also delay in dealing with Mr X’s homelessness application and an incorrect sentence in a decision notice. Carrying out the review remedies the injustice to Mr X, along with an apology and a payment.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about children services’ actions. It is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s decision to refuse to accept a late request for a Children Act complaints procedure stage three.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s property licence applications as there is insufficient remaining injustice caused to him from any Council fault, to justify our further involvement.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of planning application and enforcement matters for a neighbouring property.

Summary: Ms B complained about the Council’s delay in carrying out assessments of her mother’s needs for care and support and her finances which meant that the Council failed to pay her mother’s care home fees. On the evidence we have seen, there was fault. The Council has agreed to apologise, refund Mrs C and carry out a service improvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Miss X’s housing application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed reviewing her son’s Education, Health and Care plan. The Council was at fault. This meant W missed out on some special educational provision and Ms X experienced frustration and went to avoidable time and trouble. The Council will pay Ms X £2200 to remedy the injustice she and W experienced.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to take a child into care. That is because we are satisfied with the actions the Council has agreed to take.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to removing fly-tipping and graffiti in Mr X’s area. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not maintaining the streetlights on the private road where he lives, or how it responded to his enquiries and complaint. We cannot resolve the dispute at the core of the complaint, which is one of legal liability, so investigation would not lead to any different outcome. It is not unreasonable for Mr X and the residents’ management company to take the matter to court. We do not investigate councils’ correspondence or complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint.

Summary: Mr X complaints the Council wrongly charged his mother for a telecare service, and it failed to properly conduct financial assessments. We found the Council was at fault for charges on its telecare service and it failed to clearly explain what charges were likely for his mother’s care at the outset. However, we found no evidence of fault in the way the financial assessments were carried out. We recommended a remedy for the error the council made with charges.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the way he was treated by a member of the Council’s staff. This is because further investigation could not add to the Council’s response or make a different finding.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s child protection involvement with her family because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been considered in court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms C’s complaint about lack of communication between her and the Council regarding Mrs E’s financial contribution. This is because it is unlikely we would find enough evidence of fault to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council actions before it obtained a Liability Order. That is because the matter has been considered by the Court and is outside of our jurisdiction.