LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to issue Mr X with a Community Protection Notice (“CPN”). This is because Mr X has used his right of appeal to court.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel for us to be able to question its decision.

Summary: Mrs C complained that the Council had significantly reduced her care and support hours without adequate justification, which was causing her and her husband significant distress and inconvenience. We found some fault in the second assessment in October 2024. But we also found that Mrs C has not taken up offers of reablement care to provide more evidence of her care and support needs. The Council has agreed to offer Mrs C a period of reablement care followed by a review of the assessment from October 2024.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council responded to safeguarding concerns Miss B raised about family members. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council decided the complainant’s planning application. He appealed to the Planning Inspector against the Council’s refusal. This complaint is therefore outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the accuracy of an assessment completed by the Council. This is because we could not achieve significantly more than the Council has already agreed to remedy the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about drainage because the courts and insurers are better placed to consider the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a safeguarding referral. This is because the complaint is made late, and I see no good reason to exercise discretion and consider it now. Also, the courts are better placed to consider Mr X’s claim for damages.

Summary: Ms D complains about the time the Council has taken to deal with a Disabled Facilities Grant application. Ms D says the Council’s delay has impacted the whole family physically and mentally. We found the Council is at fault due to the time it has taken. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms D, make a recognition payment, provide her with a plan and timescale going forward, and make service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that his car was damaged by a pothole. This is because it is reasonable for Mr B to take the Council to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax liability as there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her complaints. It would be disproportionate to investigate the Council’s complaint handling in isolation when we are investigating the substantive issue of her complaint separately.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s bias in its decision to refuse his planning application. This is because any injustice suffered is not separable from the decision itself which can be appealed to the Planning Inspectorate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to take reasonable steps to inform the complainant of the death of his children’s mother, or to ensure that he was subsequently involved in matters relating to his children’s welfare. This is because we would not add anything significant to the investigation which has already been carried out.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s deregistration as a foster carer. This is because another body is better placed than the Ombudsman to do so.

Summary: Mr F complained that the Council had barred him and his wife from its markets. We found no fault.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s inspection of private rented property for disrepair in 2022. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mrs X could not have complained to us sooner.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide a suitable education or follow proper process to review her son’s Education Health and Care Plan after they moved to the Council’s area. The Council offered suitable interim educational provision for Y pending a reassessment of his EHC Plan. However, the Council’s failure to complete the reassessment of Y’s needs and issue a final EHC Plan is fault. This fault has caused Mrs X and Y an injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council breached his personal data. This is because it can be better dealt with by the Information Commissioner's Office.

Summary: Mr X complained about the treatment and care provided to his late mother, Mrs Y, by the Trust, Council and Practice, after Mrs Y was diagnosed with pneumonia. We found no fault by the Trust in its decision to discharge Mrs Y, although we found fault in its lack of communication with Mr X about this. The Trust provided an appropriate apology to Mr X and has taken reasonable steps to prevent recurrence. We found fault by the Council, in that the care home did not follow up a call to the Practice. We found the care home appropriately apologised and took reasonable steps to improve servic

Summary: Mrs F complained about the way the Council dealt with her request for a disabled facilities grant. We found fault in the way the OT service dealt with the DFG referral in 2022. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the distress and time and trouble this caused.

Summary: Mrs B complained about decisions the Council made in respect of social care services for her children. She also complained that the Council had not responded to her complaints since 2021. We found the Council delayed in responding to Mrs B’s complaints at stage one, but Mrs B did not take up the Council’s offer of a stage two investigation in May 2022 if she remained unhappy.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about financial support provided for a child Mrs X cares for. A special guardianship order was decided by a court and Mrs X was legally represented. Financial support could reasonably have been raised during the court process and we cannot act in an auxiliary or supplementary role.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about home to school transport. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. It is also reasonable for the complainant to use the Council’s own school transport appeals process.

Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council responded to concerns for the welfare of children living at the same home as Mr X. It had reasons for these concerns, and it acted to safeguard the children in line with statutory guidelines.