LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of his son, Mr Y, that the Council wrongly reduced his care package and did not include his privately arranged weekend care as a disability-related expense. We found fault in the Council’s decision-making process. The Council also delayed issuing an appeal decision. This is fault. This caused Mr Y to pay more for his care and caused undue distress. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and Mr Y, offset any monies against the debt on Mr Y’s client account and pay the recommended financial remedy. It should also review Mr Y’s care plan and supported hours.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Miss X’s representations against a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because it would have been reasonable to expect Miss X to wait to hear from the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court and then make a late witness statement or statutory declaration.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that she missed school for several years as a child because of safeguarding failings by the Council. This is because the historical failings she complains of happened many years ago and therefore her complaint is late. I have seen no reason why Mrs X could not have come to us sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions while Miss X’s child was out of school, including delays in finalising their Education, Health, and Care Plan. The Council has upheld Miss X’s complaint and proposed a suitable financial remedy for Miss X’s injustice. There are no wider public interest issues to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a refused drop kerb application because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a children’s services decision to require him to attend a face-to-face identify check and its handling of his complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault and it is unlikely we could add to the investigation already completed by the Council or achieve a different outcome.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council refusing to renew the building lease of a business she owned. This is because it is not in our jurisdiction to do so as the matter is being considered by the Courts.

Summary: Miss B complained that the Council had failed to provide suitable temporary accommodation for her and her family since August 2024. We found fault with the Council. We have asked it to apologise to Miss B and pay her £2,750.

Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to provide her son with education and special educational needs provision and failed to keep her up-to-date. The Council had made educational provision available but failed to keep Mrs B up-to-date and be clear about its position on the school assigned to her son. That caused Mrs B uncertainty and distress. An apology, payment to Mrs B and introduction of a process to track reviews of EHC Plans is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s delay in carrying out an occupational health assessment for essential moving and handling equipment. This meant he was unable to attend a day centre. We found the Council to be at fault. To remedy the injustice to Mr X and his representative, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment. It will also take action to improve its service.

Summary: The Council significantly delayed issuing Mrs X’s child’s Education, Health and Care Plan and failed to consider whether it owed her child an alternative provision duty when they were missing school. It also failed to respond proactively enough to Mrs X’s reports that the school was no longer arranging all the provision in her child’s Plan. To recognise the uncertainty, frustration and distress caused by the Council’s actions, the Council has agreed to apologise, pay Mrs X £950 and take action to improve its services.

Summary: Miss X complained that the Council housed her and her three young children in unsuitable bed and breakfast and hostel accommodation when she was homeless. We find the Council at fault for housing Miss X in unsuitable accommodation, its delay in assessing her application for social housing, and failing to make and communicate a homelessness decision. This caused Miss X significant distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to reinstate a sign to prevent children from playing ball games in the green space near his home. This is because it would not lead to a different outcome and the injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council failed to take action to deal with anti-social behaviour and noise nuisance from an overcrowded property next door, which she believes is unlicensed. We have not found fault with the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that an officer of the Council made defamatory comments about Miss X. This is because the injustice complained of is not significant enough to warrant an investigation. The Council has also apologised to Miss X and reminded staff to be more measured in their communications. We consider this to be a sufficient remedy to this complaint.

Summary: Ms C complained about the Council’s failure to properly assess her needs, its communications with her and its failure to fully respond to her complaint. She also said the care agency did not meet her needs and she complained about the care worker’s communications with her. We found fault in the Council’s failure to respond to the complaint and the care agency’s actions when Ms C had a fall. The Council has agreed to apologise, to pay a financial remedy and to implement a service improvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. It was reasonable for Miss X to submit a Witness Statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre explaining she did not receive the notice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a moving traffic penalty charge notice as it is reasonable to expect the complainant to have followed the statutory appeal process available to her to challenge it.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Penalty Charge Notices. It is reasonable to expect Miss X to use the process set out in law to challenge them.

Summary: There was fault by the Council when it failed to ensure Mr X’s flat was suitable before he moved there, to explain to him how it would deal with his reports of antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance, to consider properly his homeless application or his requests for interim accommodation, and when it took too long to arrange an occupational therapist’s assessment. The Council also did not handle Mr X’s complaints to it properly or have proper regard for his reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act. This caused Mr X distress, inconvenience, and frustration. The Council should make

Summary: Mr complained about the Council’s failure to provide him with suitable temporary accommodation when he became homeless and related matters. We found the Council to be at fault because it failed to carry out a suitability review, did not update his Personal Housing Plan and provide other support. The Council has already accepted it acted with fault and made a payment to Mr X to acknowledge his frustration and uncertainty. In addition to this, we decided, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr X’s temporary accommodation was unsuitable. To remedy the injustice to Mr X, the Council has

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council reduced its street cleaning services. This is because the matters complained about affect all or most of the Council’s residents, and the law says we cannot investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a dropped kerb in 2021. This is because it is a late complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint that the Council wrongly decided she no longer qualifies to remain on the Council’s housing register. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed to safeguard him, did not assess his social care needs properly, and did not implement the reasonable adjustments he needed under the Equality Act. There was no fault in how the Council considered its safeguarding duties and how it assessed Mr X’s care needs. There was fault when the Council failed to implement Mr X’s reasonable adjustments and this caused Mr X distress and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X.