LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of planning enforcement and building control matters related to extensions constructed by the complainant’s neighbour. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that fault by the Council has affected the outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about delays in assessment and payment of a discretionary carers payment, or her interaction with the Council. This is because part of the complaint is late, and further investigation of the other parts, would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: The Ombudsman carried out an investigation about not completing Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan annual reviews for children in its area. We asked the Council questions about the widespread impact of this action. The Council was at fault. It delayed carrying out a significant number of EHC Plan annual reviews for children in its area in 2024 and 2025. The action proposed by the Council to address the issue is a suitable remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Ms X’s application for a Discretionary Housing Payment. This is because we would not achieve a worthwhile outcome by doing so.

Summary: Ms C complained about the Council’s handling of her son’s (X) education when he stopped attending his school placement, and delays in the EHC plan process. We found fault by the Council for causing significant delays in the statutory process and its failure to ensure X received an appropriate education in 2024. The Council will apologise and make payment to acknowledge the impact its faults had on Ms C and X.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not properly consider supporting evidence for his rehousing application and delayed reviewing his medical priority decision. The Council’s delayed medical priority review decision is fault. It caused Mr X distress and uncertainty. On the balance of probabilities, there is no fault in how the Council or medical review panel made its decision on Mr X’s medical priority, so we cannot question the outcome. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X for the delay, make a payment to recognise the distress caused and carry out the service recommendations.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her complaint about the inscription on her father’s headstone. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care and support the Council provided to the complainant’s neighbour following their discharge from hospital. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that Miss X is intentionally homeless and that it will be taking action to remove her from temporary accommodation which it provided. It was reasonable for her to challenge the decision by way of an appeal to the court.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council has dealt with matters concerning child protection issues regarding his children. The law prevents us from investigating matters subject to court proceedings and there is insufficient evidence of fault with the Council’s decision not to investigate any separable matters until after proceedings have concluded.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about lack of education provision as Miss X has issued judicial review proceedings against the Council. It is reasonable to expect Miss X to complete the Children Act complaints procedure once court proceedings end.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about failure to complete a Care Act assessment of adult social care needs. This does not cause enough injustice because the persons needs were already met by a nursing home placement, so it is unlikely the outcome would be any different. Any complaints about the standard of the privately arranged care would be a separate complaint to the care provider.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. We have previously considered some issues and will not consider the same issues again. For the issues we would consider there is not a significant enough injustice to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council withholding information from a Care Company. This is because the Information Commissioner Office would be best placed to consider this complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss X’s contact with the Council. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable. We cannot investigate what happened in court, or overturn decisions made by the court. Nor can we direct the Council to alter any assessment it made about Miss X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s description of a property sold under the Right to Buy scheme in 2021. The details of the sale are a private legal matter and only the courts could provide a remedy for any claim of negligence.

Summary: Mr A complained that the Council has not moved him and his family although it has accepted he is in unsuitable accommodation. We found the Council is at fault and this delay has caused Mr A an injustice. We have recommended a financial remedy, which the Council has agreed to.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Carer allegedly flushing away Mrs X’s dentures. This is because the small claims court is best placed to consider the claim for the cost of replacement dentures.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the public procurement process because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify our involvement. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to go to court or another better placed body if he considers the Council has acted unlawfully.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of her son, Y’s, annual review. Mrs X also complained the Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan did not focus on preparation for adulthood. Mrs X said this impacted school consultations, transition, Y’s mental health, and her mental and physical health. There was fault in the way the Council did not include provision to assist preparing for adulthood, delayed issuing the EHC Plan and complaint handling was poor. This distressed Mrs X and frustrated her appeal right to the Tribunal. The Council agreed to apologise, make a financial payment

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about information that the Council provided during care proceedings. This is because the law prevents us from investigating complaints about what happened in court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to collect Miss X’s council tax payments. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to amend his daughter, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan after the 2023 annual review. He also complained the Council delayed completion of the 2024 annual review and EHC Plan reassessment. Mr X also complained about poor complaint handling. Mr X said this distressed him and frustrated his appeal right to the Tribunal. There was fault as the Council did not issue the final EHC Plan within statutory timescales and its complaint handling was poor. This frustrated Mr X and frustrated his right of appeal to the Tribunal. The Council will apologi

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s visit in 2020 to Mrs X to assist with benefits claims. This is because the complaint is late and there is no good reason for this.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council publishing the incorrect start date for its green waste collection service. This is because the matter has not caused Mrs X any significant personal injustice which is so serious that it warrants an investigation.