LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council assessed his care needs and decided to meet them. We found fault which caused injustice to Mr X. The Council has already taken some action to remedy Mr X’s injustice. The Council has also agreed to apologise to Mr X, address his concerns about the most recent care and support plan, decide whether to carry out a carer’s assessment for Mr X’s mother and pay him £500 to recognise his distress. The Council has also agreed further service improvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her Disabled Facilities Grant application. This is because it is unlikely our involvement would lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council refuses to consider Mr X’s ongoing complaints about noise nuisance from his neighbour. This is because we are unlikely to find enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application. This is because her complaint is late and I have found no good reason why she could not have come to us sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint from Mr X about the Council making false claims and interfering with his email account. The complaint was made late, and there is no good reason to consider it now.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to issue her a penalty charge notice. This is because Ms X could have appealed to the tribunal about the matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council managed trees near Mr X’s property. This is because the complaint is late and I have seen no good reasons to investigate it now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the complainant’s housing register applications, and her later right to buy (RTB) application. This is primarily because: parts of the complaint are late, and it is reasonable to expect the complainant to have contacted us sooner; there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council assessed her 2022 housing register application; and the District Valuer is better placed to consider any dispute about the valuation of the property under the RTB process.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement with Mr X’s child as part of a child protection plan. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault and we cannot achieve what Mr X is looking for.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a Child in Need plan, the work of its social workers and its complaints process. The Council has already investigated under the children’s statutory complaint procedures, apologised for delayed complaint handling, therefore further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to consider his complaint until ongoing family court proceedings have concluded. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of, and response to, his subject access request. This is because this is a complaint about matters best considered and decided by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: We have investigated the Council’s ongoing application of its Unreasonable Complainant Behaviour policy. We found no fault with the Council actions. We found no evidence of fault in the ongoing application of the policy, nor in the Council’s decision to cease investigating Mrs X’s complaint and any future corporate complaints. The Council has followed its procedures appropriately throughout and will continue to review the application of the policy every six months.

Summary: Ms M complained about matters related to a paediatric assessment of her child. Her Council complaint is part of, or connected to, a Tribunal appeal. The rest of her complaint is about NHS organisations. The law prevents us from investigating all these matters.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of the annual review of his child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. We found avoidable delay by the Council in completing the annual review which added to Mr X’s frustration. The Council had already apologised to Mr X and offered him a symbolic payment of £600. We found the offer made by the Council suitably addressed the injustice to Mr X caused by its avoidable delay.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council did not send him a disability bus pass, causing him to incur costs. The Council has sent a bus pass and agreed to pay Mr X’s costs. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his Subject Access Request. The Information Commissioner’s Office is the appropriate body to consider his complaint.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in specifying that the complainant’s son had a social, emotional and mental health need in his draft amended Education Health and Care plan. This is because the complaint concerns a matter which could have been considered in the course of the complainant’s appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability), and this places it outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary: Mr K complained that the Council failed to ensure it had suitable childcare provision available for his son (X) which met his needs. He also said it caused delays in the Education, Health and Care needs assessment process. We found the Council at fault for causing delays in the needs assessment process and it caused a service failure due to the lack of available childcare provision for children with disabilities. The Council will apologise and make payment to Mr K to acknowledge the injustice he and X experienced as a result.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council forged a document because there is not enough evidence of fault, and Mr X’s complaint about bailiffs visits is premature. Mr X’s complaint about a bus pass has already been remedied and further investigation is unlikely to provide a different outcome. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about housing benefit payments as he took this matter to court.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s children services complaint as the Council has agreed to a proportionate way to resolve the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the personal budget and funding of an adult social care home placement. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in these issues. There was some delay by the Council but that does not cause a significant enough injustice to justify an Ombudsman investigation when we would not consider the main issue of complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to the complainant’s damaged allotment. This is because part of the complaint is late, and our involvement is also unlikely to achieve a worthwhile outcome. It would be reasonable for the complainant to seek to recover the cost of damage to her property through a court of law because it can decide questions of liability which we cannot.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to address concerns raised about a neighbouring development. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault or injustice to justify investigating, and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: The Council was at fault for a delay to its investigation of Ms X’s complaint. But, in the context of her overall complaint about its complaint-handling, the fault was limited. The Council properly considered the complaint, made adjustments to its process in light of her communication difficulties, and generally acted in accordance with its statutory responsibilities. Nonetheless, it will take action to recognise Ms X’s injustice from the delay.