LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about safeguarding adults. This is because we are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken to investigate, accept fault, and apologise for the impact of its fault. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would add anything further.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to a safeguarding referral concerning the complainant’s family, and the content of a child and family assessment report. Our intervention would not lead to a different outcome and is not therefore warranted.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s wording in an adult social care document. The Council has apologised to the complainant for her upset and made some changes. There is not enough injustice to justify an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a dropped kerb installation. Mr X has started proceedings in the courts, and the law does not allow us to investigate this matter.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a resilience and social skills intervention delivered to his child. We do not have jurisdiction to investigate complaints about what happens in schools.

to the Council on behalf of her child, Mr Y, that the Council delayed putting in place speech and language therapy provision. We found the Council was at fault for the time taken to put in place the provision. This meant Mr Y missed speech and language provision he should have received. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the missed speech and language provision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council-commissioned Care Provider having arranged for Mrs Y to receive a vaccination. We could not achieve a meaningful outcome by doing so.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms Y’s complaint about the Council ending the main housing duty as it was reasonable to expect Ms Y to have requested a review of the decision within the required timescale. We will not investigate Ms Y’s complaint about the delay in making an offer of permanent accommodation as there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in the process of reviewing and amending the complainant’s child’s Education Health and Care plan. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part, and thit would be reasonable for the complainant to use her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability).

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a Penalty Charge Notice because Mr X has used his right of appeal to London Tribunals. We will not investigate his concerns about the Council’s failure to accept the Tribunal’s decision as there is not enough evidence of fault and the issue does not cause him significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to include therapies in his child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because Mr X has the right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and it would be reasonable for him to do so.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about bullying in supported living accommodation because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about information included in a report. This is because the complaint has been made late and the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider the issues raised.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Ms X’s council tax account. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to restrict its contact with Mr X. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s support for tenants living in her property because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable. Further, it is reasonable for Ms X to take court action in relation to any rent arrears or to obtain vacant possession.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of her homelessness application. She says the Council wrongly advised her to stay in the property even after the expiry of a valid eviction notice. She also says the Council failed to offer her temporary accommodation promptly which led to her getting into rent arrears after her landlord raised the rent and made the property unaffordable. We found the Council was at fault for not offering interim accommodation when Ms S became homeless. The Council agreed to apologise, pay her legal costs and pay her a remedy for the stress she experienced.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to end its interim accommodation duty. We cannot determine suitability of interim accommodation and it is a matter which the courts are best placed to determine.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council’s refuse van damaged the complainant’s car. This is because it is a matter for insurers or the courts. We will use our discretion not to investigate the complaint about the Council’s complaint handling.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to appropriately manage her child’s care since accommodating her child under a Section 20 agreement. We found fault with the Council failing to progress to stage 3 of the children’s statutory complaint procedure and for delays in producing the stage 2 response. The Council agreed to consider Ms X’s complaint under stage 3 of the children’s statutory complaint procedure. The Council also agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her £150

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about court reports because we cannot investigate a complaint about what happened in court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the suitability of a final offer of accommodation the Council made to Miss X when she was homeless. It was reasonable for Miss X to use her statutory right of appeal to the county court.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s responses to fly-tipping in his area. There is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant us investigating. We also cannot achieve the complaint outcome Mr X seeks. Other issues are premature for us to investigate and it would be reasonable for him to pursue them with the Council first.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint the Council has recorded false information about her and her child. The law prevents us from investigating anything that is or has been the subject of court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s assessment of her housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.