LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about false information that she says led to her children being removed from her care. The issues raised relate to what happened in court.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her claim for damages after her car was damaged and written off. This is because this is a complaint about negligence which is a legal matter for the courts to consider and decide.

e have upheld Mr X’s complaint because the Council delayed considering his complaint at stage three of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council taking part of her land without permission or a compulsory purchase order. This is because the event complained of took place many years ago. The complaint is late and there is no reason why Mrs X could not have complained much sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care and mental capacity assessment. This is because it is unlikely we would find enough evidence of fault and there is no worthwhile outcome we could achieve as the person receiving care support has since died.

Summary: We will not investigate part of Mr X’s complaint about the removal of his child in early 2023 because the claimed injustice is not significant enough. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the conduct of a social worker because the matter would be better considered by Social Work England.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council not involving her in decisions about her father, Mr Y’s, care and instead, liaising with the Lasting Power of Attorneys which she said were not appropriate people. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons why she did not complain sooner. It is also unlikely that we would find fault with the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a lack of support from the Council’s children’s services. It is reasonable for her to request a stage three review under the statutory children’s complaints procedure.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not providing him with the care and support he requires. This is because we would not be able to achieve anything more with a further investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to replace a social worker and compensate the complainant for fault on her part. Our intervention would not add anything significant to the response the Council has made, or lead to a different outcome, and is not therefore warranted.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his children’s case. There is nothing more we could achieve by investigating because the Council has already taken action to correct the content of Social Work Assessments. The law prevents us from investigating anything the Council has produced for court proceedings, so we cannot consider Mr X’s complaints about a section 37 report.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a data breach. This is because the Information Commissioner is better placed to deal with the matter.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of an Education Health and Care Plan request as Miss X appealed to the Tribunal. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s provision of education.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care in a residential care home. This is because it is unlikely we would add to previous investigations or reach a different outcome.

Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it handled allegations made against Mr X, a teacher, by a child at his school. It followed correct procedure and allowed Mr X a fair opportunity to provide representations in support of his case.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to allow Ms X to pave a grass verge outside her home. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about savings for a looked after child. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council decided not to consider the complaint to justify us investigating.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed considering a complaint at stage three of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed considering a complaint at stage three of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to secure special educational provision in Section F of her child’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan by way of providing sufficient funding so the school could recruit support staff. This led to a serious incident where her child’s safety was put at risk. I find the Council did fail to ensure Ms X’s child, and other children within the school, received all the special educational provision to which they were legally entitled. I also find the Council failed to consider its equality duties when disabled pupils had reduced timetables because of fun

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled an adult safeguarding enquiry. We could not achieve anything further by investigating the complaint. The outcome Mr X sought has been achieved as his wife has returned to live with him.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement in Mrs X’s application for a year 7 school place. Mrs X’s complaint flows from decisions taken by academy schools. We have no powers to consider such matters. Where Mrs X’s complaint is within our jurisdiction, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant us investigating. Our involvement would also not achieve the outcome Mrs X wants.

Summary: There was no fault by the Council. The Council gave the correct advice on care funding on the information it received from the family before the care assessment was carried out and then carried out a financial assessment without fault. There was minor delay in carrying out the financial assessment, but some of this was while waiting for information from the family.

Summary: There was fault by the Council in the decision there had been an intentional deprivation of capital to avoid paying for care. First, the Council did not give Mr X an opportunity to explain the reason for the gift before making the decision. Second, the original decision did not give any reasons with reference to the relevant parts of Care and Support Statutory Guidance. Third, the Council failed to keep a written record of the panel’s consideration of Mr X’s stage two appeal against the decision. Finally, the Council did not consider Mr X’s claim that the gift was in line with an esta

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about contact from children’s services. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.