LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about parking provision near her child’s school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a Disabled Facilities Grant. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Summary: Mr X’s main complaint is that the Council failed to properly assess his needs in July 2023 and then failed to respond to his complaint about the assessment. We find that the Council did not follow the correct process as it failed to send a copy of Mr X’s assessment to him and then deleted the assessment. The Council also did not respond to Mr X's complaint about the assessment. However, the Council’s offer of a re-assessment soon after Mr X complained, has mitigated a lot of the injustice Mr X suffered because of the fault.

Summary: The Council failed to maintain oversight of Miss X’s child, Y’s, education while they were out of school. It also failed to review Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan and delayed implementing Education other than at School (EOTAS) provision. This caused Miss X uncertainty over Y’s education and Y to miss out on half a term’s EOTAS provision. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Miss X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care at home. It is unlikely we would add to other investigations already completed or underway.

Summary: Miss X complained that the Council failed to provide appropriate support for her daughter, J. We find that the Council failed to issue a final Education, Health and Care Plan, failed to ensure J received all the provision set out in her Plan, and failed to ensure she received the support it had identified she needed as a child in need. The Council has agreed to apologise, make payments to Miss X and J, and issue a final Plan without further delay. It has also agreed to make service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision a property is suitable for Miss X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to progress a disabled facilities grant application. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of matters involving his child. The law prevents us from investigating anything that is or has been the subject of court proceedings. For matters not related to court proceedings further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mr B complained the Council reclaimed surplus direct payment funds from his son, Mr C’s, direct payment account which left him without respite support. He also complained the Council told the family they could no longer use their respite provider as they did not have a Care Quality Commission (CQC) registration. There was fault by the Council. The Council did not ensure annual reviews were carried out for Mr C’s direct payment account. Because of the fault, Mr B and Mr C suffered distress and uncertainty while the Council investigated matters and carried out a review of Mr C’s direct

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr Y’s case. The Council has upheld Mr X’s complaint that it failed to properly assess Mr Y’s mental capacity and best interests for several years. It has apologised to Mr X for the faults identified, offered a substantial remedy payment and taken action to learn and improve its service. There is nothing more we could meaningfully achieve by investigating this matter further.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about her being unpaid for delivering respite care to a disabled child. It is unlikely we would find the Council had any duty to pay Mrs X.

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. The complainant has also not suffered any significant injustice because of any alleged fault with how the Council publicised the application.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of Council officers at a planning committee meeting. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking, and it is reasonable to expect him to ask the courts to decide whether the Council should pay him for damage to his home.

Summary: Ms X complained that the Council delayed issuing her child’s final Education, Health and Care Plan following an annual review. She also says the Council failed to respond to her request for a Personal Budget in 2024. We find the Council at fault for its delays in the annual review process, and for failing to respond to Ms X’s request for a Personal Budget in this time. This fault resulted in the delay of Ms X’s appeal rights and caused avoidable distress and uncertainty for the family. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X, pay her £250, and remind its staff of their statutory d

Summary: We will not investigate Miss 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 the Council excluded him from its housing register when it decided he no longer had a local connection. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to take sufficient action over noise nuisance from a barking dog. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about council tax arrears. This is because part of the complaint is late and because the case has been heard in court and the debt confirmed.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council wrongly shared personal information. The Information Commissioner’s Office is best placed to consider complaints about how organisations use personal information.

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

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decisions or its assessments about Ms Y’s care and support needs. The matter is being considered by the Court of Protection and the law will not allow us to consider a complaint where court action has already started.

Summary: Mrs T complained about charges the Council made for a community service she received. The Council recognised it was at fault for delaying in considering representations from Mrs T that she could not afford the charges. It offered therefore to write-off those charges. We considered this represented a fair outcome to the complaint, remedying the distress caused to Mrs T by the Council’s fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of a homeless application. It was reasonable for Miss X to challenge the Council’s decision by way of a statutory review and court appeal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about contribution to the costs of adult social care. Although there is an impact on the complainant from a change of policy, it is unlikely we would find that impact is caused by Council fault. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, and it is unlikely we would reach a different outcome.