LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it handled Ms X’s debt from a Penalty Charge Notice.

Summary: We found the Council was at fault. The care and support plan it created for Mr X did not set out clearly the agreed expectations for the division of his care between paid and informal carers. This caused Mr X’s wife, Mrs X, confusion and uncertainty. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X.

Summary: Mr X and Ms Y complained about the Council’s handling and decisions around their adult child’s (Z) care and support, care placement, and mental capacity. We found no fault in the process the Council followed to reach its decisions on the substantial matters complained about. It therefore reached decisions it was entitled to make. There was some fault relating to a review meeting and delayed complaints handling. The Council will apologise to acknowledge the impact this had on Mr X and Ms Y.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement in a school’s Ofsted inspection. This is because the law prevents us from investigation what happens in schools.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council pursuing enforcement action in relation to a Penalty Charge Notice it issued to her. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: During another investigation, we identified the Council failed to deliver specialist therapies to a child, for two years. The evidence suggested this may have caused injustice to others. We opened this new complaint to investigate. We found the Council was at fault. It delayed carrying out specialist therapy assessments with children in its area. The Council has started work to address the issue.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to carry out an Education Health and Care Plan needs assessment properly for her child, B. She also complained the Council failed to provide alternative education to B. The Council was at fault. It failed to provide alternative education to B. The Council will make a payment to Mrs X, provide guidance and training to its staff, and conduct a review of B’s case.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to introduce a temporary congestion charge. This is because there is not enough evident of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in agreeing school transport. We have upheld part of the complaint, and the Council has agreed to take appropriate action. It would therefore not be proportionate to investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about whether Ms C’s son may have been eligible for healthcare funding sooner if the Council had contacted the health authority before it did. The local health authority is responsible for considering eligibility for healthcare funding for past periods of care where an individual has not been assessed. The health authority is better placed to consider the period of care in dispute.

Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council dealt with its investigation into her concerns that her child’s nursery had been wrongfully charging her compulsory top-up fees which was not allowed by law. Mrs X also complained about the Council’s poor communication with her. There were some faults by the Council which caused injustice to Mrs X. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the advice the Council secured during the Education, Health and Care Plan process. This is because it was reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability).

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s maintenance of the highway infrastructure in the town where Mr X lives. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner.

Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s decision to include Mrs Y’s property in its financial assessment for care fees because the Council followed statutory guidance in reaching the decision.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council would not fund a social activity for her child. That is because Ms X has appealed the amount of social care support her child receives to the Tribunal. Therefore, the law says we cannot investigate.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to deliver provision outlined in her child, B’s Education Health and Care Plan. She also complained about delay in reviewing the plan. The Council was at fault. B missed therapies for two years. It is likely the missed therapies had a significant impact on B’s education. The Council will apologise to Mrs X and make a symbolic payment to her.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint that she suffered injuries after tripping on a defective pavement. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs B to pursue her compensation claim by taking the Council to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint from Ms X about the Council’s handling of a complaint related to a meeting she attended, where she says she was bullied. This is because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council or achieve a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled Mr X’s earlier complaints relating to his contact with a family support service. That is because it is a late complaint and there are no good reasons why it could not have been made sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council has shared inaccurate information about her. The Information Commissioner is better placed to deal with her complaint.

Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it decided Mr X’s special guardianship allowance. Its approach to deciding allowances appears in line with its statutory responsibilities.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about flexibility of meeting adult social care needs. It is unlikely we would find enough evidence of fault given the Council did suggest many options. Although the complainant says they were not suitable it is unlikely we would settle that dispute. An Ombudsman investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about travel training for his child, Y. The Council has agreed to re-start the training. It is unlikely an investigation by us would achieve anything more.

Summary: Mrs X complained for her husband Mr X about his care in a council-funded care home. We found fault as care did not reflect Mr X’s preferences, he was not supported to walk, he had only infrequent showers and did not get enough opportunities to take part in activities he was interested in. The Council will apologise, make symbolic payments to reflect avoidable distress and complete a review by the quality assurance team.