LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: There was fault by the Council. Ms X could no longer stay in her property and the Council failed to consider interim accommodation, and its homelessness duties properly. It did not complete a medical assessment soon enough, and it did not deal with Ms X’s complaint properly. This caused Ms X distress and uncertainty, but it is unlikely that she missed out on suitable accommodation. The Council has agreed to apologise for the impact on Ms X and make a symbolic payment to recognise the distress and uncertainty it caused her.

Summary: We upheld Miss X’s complaint about delays in the children’s statutory complaints process. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by apologising, paying Miss X a symbolic financial remedy, and completing stage two of the children’s statutory complaints process.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about personal alarm equipment the Council provided to Ms X not working.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to inform Mrs X about changes to the ‘right to buy’ discount. It is reasonable to expect Mrs X to take court action.

Summary: We have upheld Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to consider her complaints under the statutory procedure for children’s social care. The Council has now agreed to investigate Miss X’s complaint under the statutory procedure. This provides a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

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

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council investigated reports of dog fouling at his property. This is because further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

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

Summary: Mrs A complains about the care and treatment of her mother, Mrs B. She also complains about how long North East and North Cumbria Integrated Care Board (the ICB) took to respond to her complaint. We found the ICB took too long to respond to Mrs A’s complaint which caused her unnecessary distress. We recommended and the ICB agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy this injustice. We also found a doctor from St Albans Medical Group changed Mrs B’s medical records after her death. Staff from Wardley Gate Care Centre disposed of used medication in a way which caused Mrs A

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a bus lane penalty as the complainant had the right to appeal it to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to decline her application to extend her dropped kerb. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to justify further investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council conducted an anti-social behaviour review. That is because the complaint is late.

Summary: We will use our discretion not to investigate this complaint that the Council has not offered the complainant another property to stop her becoming homeless. This is because the complainant could have used her appeal rights.

Summary: Mr X complained about the actions of the Council in relation to child protection involvement with his family. We ended our investigation because since Mr X complained to us, stage 2 of the children’s statutory complaints procedure had been completed. Mr X was satisfied with the stage 2 outcome and there was nothing worthwhile we could achieve by pursuing this matter further.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. This is because this is a complaint about negligence which is a legal matter for the courts to consider and decide.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a dropped kerb because the courts are better placed to consider the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with the complainant’s planning application. This is because the complainant has the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about a social worker’s reports which have been considered in court proceedings 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 this complaint about the Council’s actions following the death of a citizen. The Council was required to arrange a funeral, which it did. The Council acted to seek the next of kin. While we appreciate the distress for the next of kin, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation. It is unlikely we could add to the Council’s investigation or achieve a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about care charges for her late relative, Ms Y’s residential care. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions on the status of an access road which runs behind the complainant’s home. We have seen no reason to investigate the parts of the complaint which are late. We cannot investigate information or statements made in connection with court action. And it is reasonable to expect the complainant to approach the Information Commissioner if he believes the Council is withholding information which he is entitled to receive.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council refused his application for a dropped kerb. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault affecting the decision.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to provide information about care charges when he moved to supported living accommodation. The Council has already waived the care fees for the period before it provided costs information in their entirety and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: There was no fault in how the Council considered its general section 19 duty, to provide alternative education provision for Mrs X’s son when he stopped going to school. Nor was there any fault in the time it took in issuing a decision it would not make an Education, Health, and Care Plan for Mrs X’s son. However, the Council was at fault in how it dealt with Mrs X’s complaint about these matters and that caused her an injustice. The Council have agreed to my recommendation on a remedy for this injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to complete an assessment of a complaint about the conduct of a councillor. We consider that further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.