LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council using fabricated reports and lying to the court in proceedings for her son because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters which are being, or have been, considered in court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council suspending its use of the statutory complaints procedure for children’s service complaints while waiting for a Tribunal to conclude. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s complaint handling to warrant our further involvement. Mrs X is welcome to return to us regarding the substantive matters of her complaint to the Council if she remains dissatisfied once the Tribunal has concluded and the Council has completed the statutory complaints process.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the contents of a social worker’s assessment report. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider his complaint until the ongoing court proceedings have concluded.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council invoiced his wife for her father’s care. This is because any injustice is not significant enough.

Summary: We found fault by Broadoak Manor Care Home (acting on behalf of St Helen’s Metropolitan Borough Council) in the care it provided to Mrs X. This caused her husband, Mr X, distress and uncertainty. The Council will apologise and take action to prevent similar problems occurring in future.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s actions in its child protection involvement with his child. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider his complaint further whilst there are ongoing court proceedings.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about the advice sought by the Council during her child’s Education Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment. Ms X has appealed to the SEND Tribunal about the content of the EHC Plan, so we have no power to do so.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to pay residential care fees. This is because Mr X can reasonably take the matter to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council tax premium because there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement with his children. The matters complained about are currently being considered by a court, and the law says we cannot investigate.

Summary: Mrs Y complained that the Council unreasonably refused to complete stage two of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. We find no fault in the Council’s actions or decision making.

Summary: Miss J complained the Council has lost the deeds to her late father’s house, making it difficult to sell and possibly reducing its value. We have decided to discontinue this investigation. This is because we cannot practically investigate the loss of the deeds, and claims for significant financial loss should be made to the courts.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to meet statutory timescales when finalising her child’s education, health and care (EHC) Plan. The Council is at fault for the delay in issuing the final EHC Plan and failing to communicate with Mrs X effectively. It has agreed to provide Mrs X a financial remedy to acknowledge the delay and avoidable distress caused.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed finalising his child’s education, health and care plan and it provided him with misleading information. The Council acknowledges it is at fault, the delay frustrated his appeal rights and caused avoidable distress. The Council has agreed to provide Mr X a payment to reflect the avoidable distress caused.

Summary: Mrs Z complains about how the Council administered her son’s (X) Education Health and Care Plan review. We uphold the complaint when comparing the Council’s assessment against the requirements of the Special Educational Needs Code of Practice. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council delayed paying early years providers for commissioned places. That is because there is no good reason the complainant cannot take the matter to court.

We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to arrange suitable education provision for a child. This is because the complainant has used their right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal, and this matter is not separable from that appeal

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint that her car was damaged by a pothole. 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 Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his neighbour’s planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision-making relating to membership at a leisure facility. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault and there is no significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about traffic management because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a delay in responding to a complaint about a missed recycling collection. We do not consider the complainant suffered a significant personal injustice which justifies an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council chasing her for payment of an invoice she had already paid. This is because we could not add to the Council’s investigation. Ms X has made additional complaints, which it is appropriate for the Council to investigate and respond before we consider whether our involvement is justified.

Summary: There was delay in completing an Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment and delay in considering whether alternative education was required. This caused uncertainty, frustration, distress and additional time and trouble. However, it is not possible to say with any certainty that Y would have accessed additional education without this delay, the suitability of education offered is a matter which is under appeal and outside the remit of the Ombudsman. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment for distress and uncertainty.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s priority on the housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.