Royal Borough of Greenwich (19 001 162)

Statement Upheld Other 16-Nov-2020

Summary: Mr B complained the Council showed bias against him during a child in need case, failed to invite him to meetings and provide minutes, failed to provide a letter of support for his housing application, failed to carry out adequate monitoring and cancelled meetings at short notice or turned up late. The Council did not invite Mr B to all the child in need meetings, delayed sending him minutes of some of those meetings, failed to communicate properly with him and failed to provide him with a letter for his housing application. There is no evidence of bias in how the Council handled the case. The failures undermined Mr B’s trust in the process and led to him going to time and trouble to pursue his complaint. An apology, payment and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

Cambridgeshire County Council (20 002 220)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 13-Nov-2020

Summary: The Ombudsmen will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. Miss X’s complaint about her daughters 2013 admission to Cambridge and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust is late. Also, the Ombudsmen cannot investigate the delayed discharge of Miss X’s daughter. Miss X should have appealed to the Mental Health Tribunal if she felt St Andrew’s Hospital should have discharged her daughter from section 3 of the Mental Health Act.

Kent County Council (20 005 616)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 13-Nov-2020

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint that the Council was at fault in refusing her application and appeal for a Blue Badge for her son. This is because it is unlikely we would identify fault on the Council’s part causing injustice to Mrs B.

London Borough of Bexley (20 005 552)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 10-Nov-2020

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consultation about the closure of a local children’s centre. This is because the alleged fault has not caused an injustice to Mr Y and we cannot investigate complaints about personnel issues.

Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (19 019 597)

Statement Not upheld Other 10-Nov-2020

Summary: There is no evidence that the Local Authority Designated Officer failed to follow procedures, after an allegation was made against Mr C.

Brighton & Hove City Council (19 012 125)

Statement Upheld Other 10-Nov-2020

Summary: Ms X complains on behalf of herself and her niece, Y, that the Council has failed to provide an adequate response to the findings and recommendations of their complaint investigated under the children’s social care complaints procedure. The complaint was about lack of support when Y ran away from home and came into Ms X’s care. The Council has agreed to increase the financial remedy it offered to Ms X and Y.

Southampton City Council (18 014 227)

Statement Upheld Other 06-Nov-2020

Summary: Since December 2016 the Council failed properly to consider the housing situation of a severely overcrowded family. The Council also failed to make adequate enquiries before deciding the children in the family were not in need. The Council has now carried out a proper housing assessment and rehoused the family. It will pay a financial remedy to the complainant for the delay.

Norfolk County Council (20 003 253)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 05-Nov-2020

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council failed to stop her child posting inaccurate and unfair comments about her on the internet. It is unlikely we would find Council fault caused the comments to be posted.

Norfolk County Council (20 001 106)

Statement Not upheld Other 04-Nov-2020

Summary: Mr B complained the Council had failed to properly investigate allegations of harm by his granddaughter, Ms G, to his great-grandchildren. He made this complaint also on Ms G’s behalf. He says the Council’s actions have caused the family significant distress. Mr B says the Council has failed to help Ms G re-establish contact with the children even though their adoption broke down. He wants the children returned to Ms G and his rights, as a great-grandparent, to be restored. The main part of the complaint concerns action by the court, which places it outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. We cannot deliver the outcomes Mr B wants, in relation to returning the children, so have discontinued the investigation.

Royal Borough of Greenwich (19 006 472)

Statement Upheld Other 03-Nov-2020

Summary: Mr X complained that the Council reduced his Special Guardianship allowance after assuring him it would not do so. We have not found enough evidence that the Council made a reliable promise not to reduce the allowance. Even if an officer gave Mr X such an assurance, which he denies, there was no written commitment. There is evidence that other officers said there was no guarantee. Also the support plan agreed by the court showed the allowance would be means-tested after two years. The Council was at fault in failing to explain the means test to Mr X and failing to apply the means test when it should have done. Its policy on the means test is flawed as it is not in line with the law and statutory guidance. It also failed to deal with the complaint under the statutory children’s social care complaints procedure. The Council has agreed a remedy including revising its policy, improving communications and complaint handling, and reviewing Mr X’s allowance.