LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: The Council has not been at fault in its assessment of Ms X’s eligible needs and the support offered to meet them.

Summary: Mr B complained that the Council had sent him invoices for dates when a service had not been provided and he said the invoices were confusing and lacked transparency. The Council has already upheld Mr B’s complaint and we agree there was fault. The Council has agreed to pay a symbolic financial remedy and carry out a service improvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Dr X paying council tax on two properties. This is because she was still liable for the council tax on the first property until the tenancy ended. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation.

Summary: The Council is at fault for poor communication and delay in the annual review process, causing distress. It also failed to provide education. The Council has accepted it is at fault and provided a suitable remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council has not taken action to make safe a dangerous building. That is because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with breaches of planning control and advertising consent. This is because the complainant has not suffered significant injustice. The complainant also has a right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council’s social worker acted with bias against the complainant, produced an inaccurate assessment and supported his child’s mother in denying him his parental rights. Investigation would achieve nothing significant and our intervention is not therefore warranted.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council overcharging Miss X for council tax. This is because an investigation would not achieve a different outcome for her.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not enforcing against the owner of a nearby house for accessing their property in vehicles with no dropped kerb and crossover, how it dealt with his contacts and reports, and an officer viewing his online profile page.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to complete a financial assessment and confirm the care contribution before it started his mother’s care and support package. He also complained the Council has refused to cancel the care package despite repeated requests from him and his mother. We find the Council was at fault for its delay in completing the financial assessment. This caused avoidable distress. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and his mother and implement a service improvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to impose contact restrictions on him. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council deciding not to take enforcement action. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for free home to school transport for his child. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to sign a contract for their child, Y’s, school which meant they missed out on four transition half-days. This is because the Council apologised, offered a symbolic payment, and an investigation is unlikely to achieve a different outcome.

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

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about two children and family reports the Council has completed. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider his complaint via its complaints procedure whilst there are ongoing court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that his car was damaged by gravel carried by a Council vehicle. This is because it is reasonable for Mr B to pursue his compensation claim at court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a support worker. This is mainly because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: Mrs X complains about failings and lack of support from the Council’s adult social care services when her late sister, Miss Y, was discharged from hospital into residential care. Mrs X said the care homes where Miss Y stayed were unsuitable and the Council did not provide adequate charging information. Mrs X was left with a large invoice for Miss Y’s care. We found the Council was not at fault in sourcing residential care placements, or in the charging information it gave. The Council accepted it took too long to allocate a social care assessor and apologised.

Summary: The Council delayed completing Mrs X’s child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused Y to miss two and a half terms of Special Educational provision and caused Mrs X frustration, distress and uncertainty. The Council should apologise, make a payment to Mrs X and develop an action plan to address the delays.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council did not provide a council tax refund he is entitled to. This is because the Council has agreed to provide Mr X with appeal rights to resolve the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about her mother being charged for respite care at a care home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: The Council failed to ensure Ms X’s child could access education and delayed in issuing their Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused Ms X’s child to miss out on education including special educational provision. The Council has apologised, made service improvements, refunded private education costs, and offered a symbolic payment. These actions are a suitable remedy for the injustice caused. The Ombudsman cannot add to the outcome already achieved.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint about her son B’s education because there is nothing we could add to the Council’s response and our involvement would not lead to a different outcome. Ms M moved house in May 2024, so events after this are the responsibility of a different council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council decided there is no change of use of a plot of land near the complainant’s home. And it is not expedient to act against the neighbour’s fence. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council made the decisions to justify an investigation.