Service improvements

Leeds City Council

Showing service improvements between 1 April 2021 and 31 March 2022

Find out more about service improvements

When we find fault, we can recommend improvements to systems and processes where they haven’t worked properly, so that others do not suffer from these same problems in future. Common examples are policy changes; procedural reviews; and staff training. Service improvements from decisions are published for 5 years and those from reports are published for 10 years.

Showing 1 - 7 of 7 cases with service improvements

Export results (CSV)

Downloads the current filtered list of service improvement decisions for Leeds City Council as a CSV file.

  • Leeds City Council (21 001 264)

    Category: Adult care services Date: 13-Oct-2021

    Summary

    The Council acknowledges there were failings in the care provided to Mrs Y. The Ombudsman has found fault in the way the Council dealt with concerns raised about Mrs Y.

    Service improvements

    The Council has agreed to review the overall standard of care provide by care agency and share with us any further improvements it finds necessary.

  • Leeds City Council (21 000 298)

    Category: Environment and regulation Date: 08-Nov-2021

    Summary

    Miss X complained the Council did not do enough to prevent anti-social behaviour from her neighbours over the last several years. There was no fault in how the Council investigated Miss X’s reports about noise nuisance or harassment since April 2020. However, there was fault in how the Council dealt with emails sent to absent staff and how it failed to provide information about the anti-social behaviour case review process. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss X, pay her a financial remedy and process an anti-social behaviour case review application from her. It also agreed to review its procedures.

    Service improvements

    The Council agreed to review its processes for accessing emails sent to staff in its anti-social behaviour teams who are on long-term leave to ensure massages are reviewed and acted on appropriately.The Council agreed to remind staff in its anti-social behaviours teams about the anti-social behaviour case review process and when they should tell people about thisThe Council agreed to publish the required information about the anti-social behaviour case review process on its website.

  • Leeds City Council (20 014 393)

    Category: Environment and regulation Date: 15-Dec-2021

    Summary

    The Council’s failure to consider whether Mr X’s reports of noise from a neighbouring skate park are a statutory noise nuisance or anti-social behaviour is fault. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Mr X £250, and investigate the matter fully.

    Service improvements

    The Council has agreed to produce guidance for staff to ensure complaints of ASB or possible statutory nuisance in parks are reported to the appropriate service.

  • Leeds City Council (20 014 094)

    Category: Adult care services Date: 13-Oct-2021

    Summary

    Mrs X complained about the actions taken by Seacroft Grange Care Village to protect her mother, Mrs M, during the COVID-19 pandemic and the actions and care prior to her death. I have not reinvestigated most of Mrs X’s complaints because the Council carried out a robust and thorough investigation which identified some areas of fault, and I could achieve nothing further. However, the Council should provide evidence the Care Home has carried out the recommendations it made. Where I have investigated, there was no fault.

    Service improvements

    Following a complaints investigation, the Council found fault with Seacroft Grange Care Village in areas relating mainly to record-keeping. It recommended actions the Care Home should take to improve. The Council has agreed to provide evidence it monitored the situation to ensure Seacroft Grange Care Village carried out the actions and its record-keeping improved.

  • Leeds City Council (20 010 153)

    Category: Adult care services Date: 20-Sep-2021

    Summary

    Mr X complained about a financial assessment the Council completed for his mother, Mrs Y, in June 2020. There was fault in how the Council decided Mrs Y deprived herself of capital. The Council agreed to review the decision and provide training to its staff.

    Service improvements

    The Council agreed to provide training to all its staff involved in Care Act financial assessments on the proper legal test for deprivation of assets and how to apply the test correctly.

  • Leeds City Council (20 008 263)

    Category: Housing Date: 04-Jan-2022

    Summary

    Miss X complains the Council failed to provide her with suitable accommodation which met her medical needs. We have found the Council failed to act on Miss X’s concerns that her then property was unsuitable, as well medical reports which evidenced this. Further, the Council failed to take action to secure Miss X alternative accommodation and did not consider whether it owed her a duty provide her immediate accommodation under housing legislation. These failings caused Miss X an injustice as she had no choice but to remain in accommodation which was not suitable for her medical circumstances. We have therefore recommended a number of remedies.

    Service improvements

    The Council will undertake a review of the complainant's case. The review identifywhy the ‘relief duty’ and duty to provide suitable interim accommodation wasnot considered in the complainant's case, as well as whether it was reasonable for herto continue to occupy her property. The purpose of the review will be to identifyseveral service improvements in these areas. The Council will implement theimprovements for the benefit of its customers in the future.

  • Leeds City Council (20 007 058)

    Category: Planning Date: 24-Nov-2021

    Summary

    the complainant, Mr X, complained the Council failed to properly consider objections to a planning application to extend part of a waste processing site. Mr X further complained it failed to use its powers to control noise and dust nuisance. The Council said it followed correct procedures and used its powers where necessary. It did not refer applications to councillors for a decision because the applications did not meet the criteria for a referral. We found the Council acted with fault and it has agreed to our recommended remedy.

    Service improvements

    The Council accepted it did not routinely record the Chair of the Plan's Panel's reasons for deciding whether to refer a planning application to the Plans Panel. The Council agreed to within three months include in its delegation reports whether the Chair has exercised their discretion and to record their reasons for that decision.

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings