Gui
G d
ui a
d n
a c
n e
c o
e n
o
n
go
g od
o pr
od a
pr c
a t
c ic
t e
ic :
e
Re
R m
e ed
m i
ed es
e s
last u
as p
t u d
p a
d t
a ed J
t
a
ed J n
a u
n a
u r
a y 20
y 2 2
0 1
2
This document replaces previous LGSCO guidance and key principles document issued in July 2011
Versions
Date
Version Updates
December 2013
1
May 2014
2
Guidance about remedying complaints where fault
caused injustice to somebody who has since died
added to section 3 - general guidance. The addition of
this guidance has been cross checked for consistency
with the subject guidance and the remedy examples.
June 2015
3
The Ombudsman will not seek to dissuade a body
in jurisdiction from proposing a settlement which
exceeds what we would seek and should not limit
the redress offered to a person. Wording amended in
section 2 - The LGSCO approach.
January 2016
4
Wording in Subject guidance/Adult social care section
amended to take account of the Care Act 2014.
September 2016
5
The introduction, the role of the Local Government
Ombudsman and the LGSCO approach to remedies
(sections 1 and 2) revised.
January 2017
6
Ombudsman changed to Michael King
April 2018
7
Amended LGO to LGSCO. Insert information on Local
Government Act 1974, insert paragraphs ref personal
outrage, and outrage in the planning process.
May 2018
8
Inserted update to homelessness section
December 2019
9
Amendment to p8 - remove paragraph referring
to quantifiable loss and property value. Replace
paragraph on p40 ref Quantifiable financial loss.
January 2021
10
Wording of Subject guidance/ Planning section (p111)
amended to better reflect current practices. Out of date
case examples replaced.
Contents
Introduction
1
1. The role of the Ombudsman
2
2. Our approach to remedies
3
3. General guidance
10
4. Subject guidance
Adult social care
14
Benefits and debt recovery
20
Children and Education
22
Environment and public protection
32
Housing
37
Planning
42
5. Remedy examples
Key examples
47
Adult social care
49
Benefits and debt recovery
67
Children and Education
76
Environment and public protection
93
Housing
99
Other
109
Planning
113
Introduction
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman
(LGSCO), in common with all other Ombudsman schemes, was
established to conduct independent and impartial investigations
of complaints and deliver effective dispute resolution.
We do this by recommending redress which is proportionate,
appropriate and reasonable based on all the facts of the case.
Over the years we have learned from what complainants
have told us. They want us to remedy a complaint as soon as
possible. They think it is important that local authorities and
other bodies in our jurisdiction acknowledge when things go
wrong and take responsibility for putting things right.
Complainants often tell us they want to make sure the same
problem does not occur again in the future to cause injustice to
other members of the public.
We take all this into account in recommending redress. Each case which comes to the us is different
and we take the individual needs and circumstances of each complainant into account when making
recommendations to remedy injustice caused by fault. But all those who use our service need to have
confidence that our recommendations are consistent and fair.
Michael King
Local Government and
Social Care Ombudsman
1
1. The role of the Ombudsman
The LGA 1974 section 26A states:
“(1) Under this Part of this Act, a complaint about a matter may only be made –
(a) by a member of the public who claims to have sustained injustice in consequence of the matter…. ”
Case law has subsequently clarified the meaning of injustice and added the term ‘personal’ into our
consideration of it. R v Local Commissioner for Administration, ex parte Eastleigh Borough Council
[1988] QB 855 stated:
“The subsection [s26(1) LGA 1974] limits the extent to which they [the public] can involve the
Ombudsman by requiring, as a condition precedent to his involvement, that the complainant shall
personal y have been adversely affected by the al eged maladministration. If he was not so affected,
he did not himself suffer injustice. If he was, he did.”
We aim to remedy personal injustice wherever our investigations reveal there has been fault. There
must be a clear link between any fault we find and the personal injustice to the complainant. But the
remedies we recommend are not just about money: we look careful y into the root causes of problems
and recommend improvements to systems where they haven’t worked properly, so that others do not
suffer from these same problems in future.
Sometimes we will recommend a financial payment to the person who brought their complaint to us.
This might be to reimburse a person who has suffered a quantifiable financial loss, or it might be more
of a symbolic payment which serves as an acknowledgement of the distress or difficulties they have
been put through. But our remedies are not intended to be punitive and we do not award compensation
in the way that a court might. Nor do we calculate a financial remedy based on what the cost of the
service would have been to the provider.
Our final decisions on complaints are set out in writing and – in nearly all cases – published in an
anonymised form on the LGSCO website. This includes any remedies we recommend and clear
reasons explaining why those remedies were appropriate.
We check that remedies have been implemented properly: we hold the body in jurisdiction to account
for completing any actions, even where the action needs to be taken by someone else who is providing
a service on behalf of the body in jurisdiction. Although our recommendations are not enforceable in a
court, we have powers to issue public reports to draw attention to non-compliance and we have found
that it is extremely rare for a body not to comply.
Although there are some sensible controls on types of remedies (for example, we cannot recommend
disciplinary action against staff), the LGSCO has broad discretion to recommend remedies which we
judge to be suitable. This includes recommending remedies for people who may not have complained
to us but might have been affected by any failings we identify.
This guidance exists to help our Investigators decide on remedies in a broadly consistent way, while
still ensuring that each case is considered individual y, according to the scale and significance of the
injustice. Along with our other guidance, we publish it on our website in the interests of fairness and
transparency, and review it regularly.
2
1. The role of the Ombudsman
> When we have evidence of fault causing injustice we will seek a remedy for that injustice which
aims to put the complainant back in the position they would have been in if nothing had gone
wrong.
> We will always take account of the views and circumstances of the complainant when proposing
a remedy. We also consider the personal circumstances of the complainant and how what went
wrong affected them (for example, do they have health problems which were aggravated by the
failings, or did children miss school because the family was placed in unsuitable accommodation).
> We encourage bodies in jurisdiction to offer remedies We will take account of any offer made, and
will not interfere if we consider a proposal satisfactorily addresses the injustice caused.
> We will also consider any mitigating or aggravating actions by the complainant or any third-party
which may have affected the injustice (for example, whether the complainant cooperated with the
body in jurisdiction, or whether the complainant had support from friends or family which meant the
impact of any failings on them was lessened).
> Where appropriate, we will recommend an apology be made by the body in jurisdiction for fault
causing injustice.
> We will always consider what remedial action can be taken by the body in jurisdiction to remedy
injustice, when the injustice arises from a failure to take appropriate action. Remedial action may
include reconsideration of a decision where we consider the outcome might have been different
had fault not occurred.
> In some cases remedial action may include reimbursing the complainant (in full or in part) for
actual, quantifiable financial loss which has directly resulted from the fault, for example benefits
not paid and any avoidable, reasonable expenses. Professional fees may be included but
complainants should not need a professional adviser to complain to us and only exceptional y
do we recommend reimbursement of legal costs. Where it is appropriate to calculate interest we
usual y base this on the retail price index.
> We will recommend systemic changes such as a review of practice, policy or procedure if we
think it is likely further mistakes may affect others in the future. This might include, for example,
improved communication systems between departments, staff training on the impact of new
legislation or a reassessment of the needs of disabled residents.
> When it is not possible nor appropriate for remedial action to be taken (for example due to the
passage of time) then we will consider asking for a payment to acknowledge the impact of the fault
in terms of loss or harm. These payments usual y fall into two categories:
• acknowledgment of a loss of non-monetary benefit (such as education or amenity); or
• acknowledgment of avoidable distress, harm, risk or other unfair impact of the fault. This can
include uncertainty, raised expectations, lost opportunity and outrage.
We can also take account of the time and trouble associated with making the complaint (see general
guidance section).
3
1. The role of the Ombudsman
When a payment is recommended we will always consider any contextual circumstances such as
making a payment in trust for a child, or for a particular purpose, or offsetting against any debt owed
to the body in jurisdiction. We may also recommend a payment for someone who had to provide help
or support to a complainant because of a body in jurisdictions failings (for example a carer who had to
provide continuous care for a period without any respite).
Key questions in recommending a remedy
> What outcome does the complainant want to achieve by complaining?
> What has gone wrong?
> What is the personal injustice?
> Can action be taken to put the person affected back in the position they would have been in if
nothing had gone wrong?
> Is there an actual quantifiable financial loss, such as costs incurred or payments not received?
> On what basis can loss of non-monetary benefit be calculated?
> How severe was any other impact in terms of distress, harm or risk?
> Did the actions or inactions of the complainant or a third party contribute to or lessen the
injustice?
> Is there a more appropriate form of payment than cash (e.g. trust fund, annual leisure card)?
> Overal , is the remedy proportionate, appropriate and reasonable?
4
2. Our approach to remedies
This section sets out the general principles which we fol ow in assessing remedies, and those
parts of a remedy which are common to all complaints.
There must be a clear and direct link between the injustice we are remedying, and the fault we have
identified. We do not recommend a remedy where there is fault, but no injustice. We do not recommend
a remedy where injustice arose from circumstances unconnected to fault.
The remedy needs to be proportionate, appropriate, and reasonable. Similar remedies are appropriate
for similar cases but we have to consider each case on its own merits in light of the particular
circumstances.
Our key principle is that the remedy should, as far as possible, put the complainant back in the
position he or she would have been in but for the fault we have identified.
If this is not possible, financial redress may be the only available remedy. Financial redress should
always be linked clearly to the identified injustice.
We will always take account of the views of the complainant and the body in jurisdiction about putting
matters right. But we have to arrive at our own decisions about what would be a fair remedy.
Apology
Bodies in jurisdiction should apologise where fault has caused injustice. The body in jurisdiction may
apologise in person or in writing, but in either case the apology must be made directly to the person
affected using clear and plain language. It should not minimise or express any doubt about what
happened: to be meaningful, it must both accept responsibility for the fault, and acknowledge the
impact this had on the complainant. An apology should also include an assurance that the same fault
will not happen again, and explain what steps have been taken to ensure this.
Responsibility for making the apology rests corporately with the body in jurisdiction. So we will not
normal y seek an apology from a specific officer.
Review of policy and procedure
Bodies in jurisdiction should have in place policies and procedures that reduce the likelihood of
mistakes, and minimise the impact if mistakes are made. Where we have found fault causing
injustice, this may suggest those policies and procedures are inadequate. So a remedy may include a
recommendation for a review of the body in jurisdiction’s procedures or policy. Such a review should
also consider whether others have been similarly affected, if the outcome of our investigation suggests
this is likely. Where we know the body in jurisdiction has already carried out or agreed to conduct a
review, we recognise this in our decision.
In any event, it is important the complainant is reassured that the body in jurisdiction has learnt from
the complaint. So the body in jurisdiction should share the outcome of the review with the complainant.
This may take the form of an action plan with indicative timescales.
If our investigation has already identified the relevant fault in policy or procedure, a further review may
not be necessary. We may instead make a specific recommendation for change.
Our investigation may also show that satisfactory policies and procedures exist, but staff were either
not aware of them or did not properly apply them. Under those circumstances we may recommend staff
training.
5
link to page 16 link to page 11
2. Our approach to remedies
Remedial actions
Practical action may provide all or part of a suitable remedy. When the injustice stems from failure to
take some specific action, taking that action as quickly as possible may be a straightforward remedy.
Other recommendations made may depend on specific action being taken first, such as an inspection
or an assessment. Our recommendations need to make clear that the body in jurisdiction should
do this first. If the outcome is that no further services or actions are necessary, then the injustice is
remedied. But if further services are needed, there may be further injustice requiring a further remedy,
for example acknowledgment of the delay in providing those services.
In other cases practical action may mitigate the injustice. Th
e subject guidance gives examples for
specific areas of complaint.
Sometimes the complainant and the body in jurisdiction need to maintain an on-going working
relationship – for example, if the complainant is an adult care services user – but this has been
seriously damaged by the fault we identify. In such cases the remedy may include a recommendation
for the body in jurisdiction to arrange independent mediation to repair the relationship.
Quantifiable financial loss
Where the body in jurisdiction has failed to pay money due to the complainant, we may include a
recommendation for that sum to be paid in the remedy. But complainants can be affected by such a
fault in different ways and our recommendation will take account of this.
> A complainant may not be able to meet a particular cost, and so may accrue a debt, such as rent
arrears, as a result of the fault. Backdating the payment will normal y pay off the debt in full or bring
it down to a level below the normal threshold for recovery action or eviction. We may also include
in the remedy a recommendation to refund the costs (such as summons costs) associated with
the debt. We will also consider the degree of distress caused to the complainant by unnecessary
recovery or repossession action.
> A complainant may need to borrow money to meet costs, so backdating the payment may not
completely remedy the injustice. In such cases, we will take account of the costs of borrowing
in our recommendation for a remedy. We will also consider what other options were available to
the complainant and take a view on whether the complainant could have borrowed money more
cheaply. For example, it is usually cheaper to arrange an overdraft than to take out a short-term
loan, but not all complainants can access an overdraft.
> A complainant may pay for a service privately. This injustice amounts to a quantifiable financial
loss which can be remedied by a straightforward reimbursement.
> A complainant may have been without services during the period of fault – usually care services
– which would have been bought using direct payments. The remedy for this depends on the
level of injustice caused by not having these services, and should be assessed in line with our
guidelines on distress and harm. This may amount to more than the value of the direct payments,
if a particularly vulnerable complainant had critical needs and no alternative support. It may
amount to less, if needs were met by friends and family (although they may have their own,
separate injustices as a result).
6
link to page 12
2. Our approach to remedies
> A complainant may meet costs, which would have been covered by a payment from the body in
jurisdiction, by making economies which should not have been necessary. This is particularly
likely to be the case where the money owed was an al owance for looking after a child. A fostering
al owance recognises the skil s and experience of the foster carers, but is mainly intended to
meet the day-to-day costs of giving a home to a child. Backdating the al owance reimburses
the expenses which occurred during the period the al owance was not paid. It also al ows the
complainant to buy items (such as new clothes) which he or she could not afford to buy during this
period.
• Adoption and special guardianship al owances are slightly different because they are based on
the carer’s requirement for additional support to meet the child’s needs. They are sometimes
stil , effectively intended to meet the costs of giving a home to a child, and in such cases the
allowance should be backdated.
• Where adoption and special guardianship al owances are in place to al ow for additional
support services to meet the particular identified needs of the child, the injustice and therefore
the remedy may be different.
• If such services were bought privately, it may be more appropriate to recommend a
straightforward reimbursement.
• If such services were missed altogether, the injustice is the impact of being without the
services. It may be appropriate to recommend that extra services are put in place now (for
example, a holiday play-scheme where a family could not benefit from respite care).
• But arranging extra sessions at a later date may not be in the best interests of the child, and
if the child is no longer living in the placement, the benefit of the services lost to the family
cannot be recovered. The impact of the fault should in these circumstances be considered
as avoidable distress, and the remedy for the injustice will usually be a payment in line with
our guidelines on distress. This may amount to more or less than backdating the allowance,
depending on the circumstances of the case.
Where the body in jurisdiction has failed to pay money due to the complainant, and we include a
recommendation for that sum to be paid in the remedy, there may need to be an interest calculation.
We will not normal y consider including interest in the remedy unless the period of delay was more than
six months, and the payment itself is more than £1,000. We usual y base the calculation of interest on
the average retail price index for the period (unless prescribed otherwise by law in relation to a specific
matter).
Where the complainant has paid for a service but the body in jurisdiction has failed to provide the
service, either at all or to an acceptable standard, a remedy may include the refund of all or part of the
complainant’s expense. The level of refund will reflect the difference between the service provided and
the service paid for. This may be a straightforward calculation if the service was not provided at al . But
where the service was provided in part, or to a standard below that expected, we take account of this in
assessing a fair refund.
The complainant may have incurred avoidable expenses for items such as travel to school or extra help
at home. If we decide these expenses were reasonable, and arose directly as a result of the fault we
have identified, then we may include a refund in the remedy. Again, there may need to be an interest
calculation.
7
2. Our approach to remedies
Avoidable expenses may include professional fees, taking into account the fol owing:
> Complainants usual y do not need a solicitor or other professional adviser to help them make a
complaint to the LGSCO. So we are unlikely to recommend that fees for this purpose should be
reimbursed unless there are exceptional circumstances.
> There may be circumstances where it is reasonable for a complainant to have engaged legal help
in a matter, particularly where it is highly complex. In such cases, we may consider recommending
a remedy to reimburse costs which directly and necessarily flow from the fault identified. We will
not do this where costs were wholly covered by the legal aid scheme and the complainant has no
personal liability.
> We may recommend a contribution to costs rather than a refund of all the expenses. If we
consider the amount of professional advice commissioned was disproportionate, or not all the
advice arose from the identified fault, our recommendation will reflect this.
> Costs about expert assessment in relation to a statement of special educational needs can be
recovered at tribunal if the body in jurisdiction has acted unreasonably. Parents can use this route
to recover costs even if issues around the content of the statement and the placement have been
resolved, and we would normally expect them to do so.
Loss and damage to personal property can also be quantifiable. We do not usual y investigate
complaints where the claimed injustice whol y or mainly relates to such loss or damage, because such
a dispute can be remedied through the courts (or by the body in jurisdiction’s insurers). But occasional y
loss or damage may be taken into consideration when it arises from a wider investigation. In such
cases, the actual cost of replacing or repairing an item is something we can include in the remedy.
Where an item is irreplaceable because of its sentimental value then the injustice may be distress,
rather than actual financial loss.
Financial redress: acknowledgement of loss of non-monetary
benefit
The subject guidance which fol ows identifies the:
> benefits and services which may be lost;
> general range in which payments are likely to fal ; and
> factors to consider when assessing the remedy.
Financial redress: acknowledgement of avoidable distress, harm,
risk, or other unfair impact
We expect bodies in jurisdiction to treat people fairly and with respect, and not to expose the public
to unnecessary distress, harm or risk as a result of their actions or inactions. Such injustice cannot
general y be remedied by a payment, so we usual y seek a symbolic amount to acknowledge the
impact of fault on the complainant. The amount depends on the circumstances of the case.
8
2. Our approach to remedies
Distress
Many, perhaps most, complainants that come to us describe the distress they have experienced
because of their complaint.
‘Distress’ can include:
> uncertainty: if, even after taking a view on the balance of probabilities as to the likely outcome,
there is still doubt about how the outcome might have been different;
> raised expectations: if the body in jurisdiction’s actions led the complainant to (wrongly) believe that
certain actions or benefits would fol ow;
> lost opportunity: where the complainant was deprived of an opportunity to take action or influence
events, and it is likely the final outcome would have been different but for this omission;
> outrage: where the complainant has been treated significantly unfairly or the body in jurisdiction
showed a disregard for proper procedures; and
> undue significant stress, inconvenience and frustration.
We must be clear that it is
avoidable distress arising from fault by the body in jurisdiction which we are
recognising with a remedy.
When we assess distress, we consider the complainant’s individual circumstances (such as their state
of health and age). In reaching a view on remedy we will consider the complainant’s own assessment
of the degree of distress or inconvenience they have suffered. But we also understand that some
complainants may understate the degree of distress or inconvenience they have suffered, while others
may overstate the position.
The same fault could lead to different remedy payments, depending on its consequences and the other
circumstances of the case. Our recommendation for a remedy needs to reflect all the circumstances
including:
> the severity of the distress;
> the length of time involved;
> the number of people affected (for example, members of the complainant’s family as well as the
complainant);
> whether the person affected is vulnerable and affected by distress more severely than most
people; and
> any relevant professional opinion about the effects on any individual.
A remedy payment for distress is often a moderate sum of between £100 and £300. In cases where
the distress was severe or prolonged, up to £1,000 may be justified. Exceptional y, we may recommend
more than this.
Harm or risk of harm
Where the complainant claims injury or harm to health as the main injustice, this is usual y a matter
for the courts to decide. But sometimes it is appropriate to acknowledge the impact of the fault has
included harm, or risk of harm. Such harm, or risk of harm, can arise when the complainant, because of
fault by the body in jurisdiction, did not receive services intended to provide protection. In general, harm
9
3. General guidance
or risk of harm needs to be considered in the same way as distress:
> the severity of the harm or risk of harm;
> the length of time involved;
> the number of people affected (for example, members of the complainant’s family as well as the
complainant);
> whether the person affected is vulnerable and affected more severely than most people; and
> any relevant professional opinion about the effects on any individual.
Where fault by the body in jurisdiction exposed a complainant to the risk of harm (rather than actual
harm), a remedy payment of up to £500 will usual y be an appropriate acknowledgement of the impact
of the fault. Where the risk was significant, or harm actual y occurred, a remedy payment of up to
£1,500 may be recommended to acknowledge this. Exceptional y, if there was significant actual harm
over a prolonged period, we may recommend more.
Time and trouble
There is inevitably time and trouble involved in bringing a complaint. But this only general y requires a
remedy when there has been a fault in the way the body in jurisdiction considered the complaint, which
meant the complainant incurred time and trouble above what is considered usual. For example the:
> body in jurisdiction repeatedly refused to consider the complaint;
> complainant had to ask a council or or MP to help, before the body in jurisdiction would consider
the complaint;
> body in jurisdiction spent several months considering the complaint multiple times at the first stage
of its complaints process, instead of progressing the complaint to a higher level; or
> body in jurisdiction did not consider the conclusions and recommendations of an independent
investigation into the complaint.
In cases like these, if the body in jurisdiction had acted without fault it could have resolved the
complaint without involving the LGSCO. So those circumstances justify a payment for time and trouble.
The remedy payment for time and trouble is unlikely to be less than £100 or more than £300. It should
be adjusted to reflect the degree of extra difficulty experienced by the complainant, and any factors
which make the complainant vulnerable. We do not recommend repayment of the actual costs (such as
postage and phone cal s) associated with making a complaint.
The complainant’s actions and circumstances
Where a complainant’s actions or inactions affected the outcome of events, we will take account of this
in the remedy. Examples include:
> delay in providing information requested by the body in jurisdiction;
> pursuing a complaint in unreasonable and excessive detail; and
> failing to take up an offer of provision which partly met the complainant’s needs, while the body in
jurisdiction considered an application for a higher level of provision.
10
3. General guidance
We will also take account of the complainant’s circumstances. A disability or condition may
make a complainant less able to cope with the impact of the fault we have identified. If so, our
recommendations for the remedy will reflect this.
Personal Outrage
The principle of outrage as a recognisable injustice comes from case law (R v Parliamentary
Commissioner for Administration, ex parte Balchin [1996] EG 166 (CS)). The case quoted Crossman
and contained a partial definition of injustice as “….. not merely injury redressable in a Court of
Law but also the sense of outrage aroused by unfair or incompetent administration, even where the
Complainant suffered no actual loss”.
So it is clear that outrage as an injustice is recognised. However, there is no legal precedent requiring
us to remedy that injustice in every case. General y, an additional remedy for personal outrage will be
considered where the fault that occurred was so significant or was completely outside the norms of
what a person could expect from their dealings with a body in jurisdiction.
Contextual circumstances
Others may have been affected by the body in jurisdiction’s fault. If there is evidence to suggest this, we
usual y recommend the body in jurisdiction identifies those similarly affected by its fault and offers an
appropriate remedy for the injustice this caused. We may also ask the body in jurisdiction to tell us what
action it has taken. But in some cases it may be in the best interests of those affected for the LGSCO to
investigate the impact and recommend a remedy.
It may be appropriate to express a remedy not as a sum of money, but as a formula which sets out
how the body in jurisdiction should calculate the payment – for example, the difference between the
al owance that was paid, and the al owance that should have been paid, multiplied by the period of the
fault. Where relevant, a formula needs to include reference to any continuing injustice so that the formula
encompasses the future as well as the past.
Where a complainant owes the body in jurisdiction money, it is reasonable for the body in jurisdiction
to offset a remedy payment against the debt, unless the:
> debtor is a parent or household, and the payment is to remedy injustice to a child;
> remedy payment is intended for a specific purpose, for example to buy equipment which the
complainant needs, which would be lost if it were instead used to offset debt; or
> complaint itself is about the body in jurisdiction offset ing a payment against a debt, and we have found
the body in jurisdiction at fault for doing this. However, other parts of the remedy (such as a remedy
payment to acknowledge distress) could still be deducted from the debt.
11
3. General guidance
Sometimes it may be appropriate to make part of a remedy payment to someone other than the
complainant, who has also suffered injustice. For example:
> the remedy payment could be made partly to a parent and partly to a child;
> part of the remedy payment could be earmarked for a particular purpose for the benefit of a child or
other person; or
> if the complainant is making the complaint partly or whol y on behalf of other people, the remedy
payment could be paid to those other people.
> Where the person affected by the injustice was a child, some or all of the remedy payment could be
put in trust until the child reaches adulthood.
Remedying complaints where fault caused injustice to someone
who has since died
If there is clear evidence of a quantifiable financial loss arising from the fault, we will normal y recommend
a financial remedy that repays that loss to the deceased person’s estate. For example, where the
deceased person:
> paid care home fees which should have been paid by the body in jurisdiction;
> paid for a service but did not receive that service; or was entitled to housing benefit but because of
processing delays did not receive it before they passed away, and they met their rent responsibilities
out of their own funds.
However, where the injustice is less tangible, for example distress, harm, risk, or another unfair impact of
the fault, we will not normal y seek a substantive remedy in the same way as we might for someone who
is still living. We would not expect a public or private body to make a payment that would enrich a person’s
estate.
Nor do we recommend paying a token payment to a nominated charity or to help fund a memorial to the
deceased person, to remedy injustice to that person. But such action may remedy injustice to the person
bringing the complaint to us (usual y a family member or next of kin). Recommendations to remedy
personal injustice to others affected by the fault should be in line with this guidance.
12
The subject guidance on the fol owing pages is neither
prescriptive nor comprehensive. It aims to il ustrate
some common situations and highlight the approach the
LGSCO takes, in order to promote consistency wherever
possible.
For joint investigations with the Parliamentary and
Health Service Ombudsman, and the Housing Services
Ombudsman, we take account of this guidance in arriving
at a remedy for those parts of the complaint which fall
within LGSCO jurisdiction.
13
4. Subject guidance
Adult Social Care
Assessment of need
Councils must assess the social care needs for any adult with an appearance of need for care and
support, regardless of whether or not the local authority thinks the individual has eligible needs or of
their financial situation (see Care and Statutory Support Guidance - October 2014).
Assessments should identify what needs an individual has and what outcomes they are looking to
achieve to maintain or improve their wel being. Assessments must consider if an individual has needs
arising from a physical or mental impairment or il ness; whether as a consequence they can achieve
various specified outcomes (for example, being unable to maintain personal hygiene) and what impact
this has on wel being. Where an individual is unable to meet two or more of the specified outcomes
and this will have a negative impact on wel being the council must consider how those outcomes will be
met. This will usual y mean the council proceeds to draw up a care and support plan with the individual
which will identify outcomes to prevent harm. Carers are also entitled to an assessment of need and
similar national eligibility criteria apply.
Assessments are therefore crucial in determining what needs an individual (and/or their carer) has,
and whether the council is under any obligation to provide services to meet those needs. Faults in this
area could affect whether someone receives a service they are entitled to, or result in needs being
overlooked.
Councils also have particular duties to meet the needs of individuals leaving hospital after being
detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. Failing to meet these duties can result in people not having
their social care needs met after discharge.
Remedies the LGSCO may recommend include:
Remedial action
Carry out a fresh assessment of need, or review the previous assessment. This could be by an
independent social worker where poor practice by the council has caused a breakdown of trust with the
complainant.
Contextual circumstances
> There may also be injustice to those who have had to ‘step in’ temporarily, and have lost earnings
or used up holiday to do so.
> Those leaving hospital after being detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 are often among the
most vulnerable of complainants.
14
link to page 12
4. Subject guidance
Adult Social Care
Care or support plans, and provision of care
After an assessment of need and eligibility, if an individual is eligible to receive services from the
council, it must provide that individual with a care or support plan to show how their needs will be met.
Effective care planning is essential in ensuring that individuals have their needs met. It is also essential
that care providers fol ow those plans. The Care and Support Statutory Guidance (October 2014)
contains extensive guidance on care and support planning and what such plans should contain.
Remedies the LGSCO may recommend include:
Remedial action
> Review or amend care plans, to reflect the individual’s needs and explain in detail how those
needs will be met.
> Put in place arrangements to provide care where it has broken down.
> Review of care provider.
Care providers
There are some overlaps with the other adult social care sections, particularly safeguarding. And there
will be times when a complaint about a provider is registered against the council, because the council
(rather than the service user) has commissioned the care.
Care providers have a duty to provide quality care in line with regulatory standards, and to provide clear
information to those paying for care about the services they are buying, the charges that will be made,
and how often charges will be reviewed.
Remedies the LGSCO may recommend include:
Remedial action
> Review contract to make it clearer.
> Review policies to check all required policies are in place, up to date, and fol owed in practice.
> Waive or refund fees, or delay in implementing an increase so the complainant can plan for this.
Contextual circumstances
> Often relatives link an incident of failure in care to the subsequent death of, or other serious harm
to, the service user. We cannot usual y conclude that such a link exists. But we may consider the
distress arising from uncertainty to be an injustice which can be acknowledged by a symbolic
payment.
> If there has been a breach of a specific standard which we think needs to be highlighted more
widely, we will normal y send a copy of our final decision to the regulatory body, the Care Quality
Commission.
15
4. Subject guidance
Adult Social Care
Charging
After assessing need and planning on how those assessed needs can be met, the council must also
assess if individuals should pay towards the cost of services. It must carry out financial assessments
fol owing guidance contained in the Care and Support Statutory Guidance (October 2014). The council
also does this when residents in care homes change from private to public funding. Individuals can be
caused distress if not properly advised on the requirement to make a financial contribution towards care
or if decisions are poorly communicated. Mistakes by councils during financial assessment can cause
financial loss to individuals and sometimes their families.
Councils have particular duties to meet the needs of individuals leaving hospital after being detained
under the Mental Health Act 1983. Failing to meet these duties can result in people wrongly being
charged for after-care services.
Remedies the LGSCO may recommend include:
Remedial action
> Reassess financial contributions due, backdating the assessment where appropriate. This may mean
seeking independent advice if the disputed issue is complex.
> Write off outstanding charges where an invoice arises from fault.
> Place a hold on recovery of disputed sums to enable the dispute to be resolved.
16
4. Subject guidance
Adult Social Care
Mental capacity
Complaints can arise where it is not clear if an individual has capacity to make decisions about their
care. Councils must fol ow the law set out in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to decide if individuals can
make choices about their care and may need to carry out an assessment of capacity if there is doubt.
They should only intervene where individuals are assessed as lacking capacity and a decision needs to
be made in their ‘best interests’.
Restrictions placed on people because they lack capacity may need to be considered against
‘Deprivation of Liberty’ safeguards. Failure to fol ow the law in this area may lead to people being
wrongly denied choice about their care or denied basic freedoms. It can also lead to individuals who
do not have capacity being left in potential y unsuitable or vulnerable situations, causing distress both
to them and to their family members. Capacity can vary over time and an assessment may become
outdated.
Remedies the LGSCO may recommend include:
Remedial action
> Carry out a fresh assessment of capacity; this could include the involvement of an Independent
Mental Capacity Advocate to help inform the council’s decision making.
> Consult the complainant’s family as part of a ‘best interest’ decision-making process (it may also
be appropriate to consider whether some disputes about relatives’ best interests can be resolved
through the Court of Protection).
> Carry out a fresh assessment of need, once capacity is established.
> Take action to address potential deprivation of liberty through consideration of the ‘Deprivation of
Liberty’ safeguards.
Contextual circumstances
> Others may also have been affected if a wrongly-made decision meant they were not able to visit
the complainant.
> There may also be injustice to those who have had to ‘step in’ temporarily, and have lost earnings
or used up holiday to do so.
17
4. Subject guidance
Adult Social Care
Personalisation (self-directed support)
Personalisation is a social care approach to ensure that every person who receives support will
have some choice and control over how their assessed eligible needs will be met. Councils al ocate
the amount of funding to meet an individual’s need by way of a ‘personal budget’. Councils may use
a formula (or ‘resource al ocation system’) to calculate this, but can approve a higher amount. The
individual can then have a say on how their needs will be met from that budget and if they want the
council to provide services or to buy their own service through a ‘direct payment’. Councils must also
make it clear that direct payments do not have to be accepted and should discuss with recipients what
to do if they no longer wish to receive them.
Individuals can be disadvantaged if councils do not have proper systems in place to support
personalisation. They can lose choice and control over how they want services to be delivered. Moving
on to direct payments can also cause confusion and misunderstanding about the council’s role if the
process is not clearly explained. Direct payments place obligations on the individual which can be the
cause of dispute if not properly understood.
Remedies the LGSCO may recommend include:
Remedial action
> Reinstate council-provided services if withdrawn inappropriately.
> Reinstate direct payments withdrawn inappropriately.
> Initiate direct payments if there has been a delay in arranging them.
> Provide clear information about the responsibilities of the complainant as an employer.
Quantifiable financial loss
Reimburse money used to pay for care services which should have been covered by direct payments,
with a calculation for interest where appropriate.
Acknowledgement of impact
Although direct payments are a monetary benefit, they are al ocated to fund specified care services. A
recommendation for a payment to acknowledge the disruption, inconvenience and distress caused by
not having the care services may be appropriate.
Contextual circumstances
There may also be injustice to those who have had to ‘step in’ temporarily to provide unpaid care, and
have lost earnings or used up holiday to do so.
18
link to page 13
4. Subject guidance
Adult Social Care
Safeguarding
By law, councils must have procedures in place and co-operate with other agencies (such as the
NHS and police) to investigate al egations of abuse against vulnerable adults. Local authority social
services departments have the lead responsibility for safeguarding. Complaints may be made by those
who al ege abuse and also by those who have been subject to al egation. A failure to have robust
procedures in place could result in action not being taken to safeguard the vulnerable adult. Poor
communications can also cause unnecessary distress and uncertainty both for individuals al eging
abuse and al eged perpetrators.
Remedies the LGSCO may recommend include:
Remedial action
> Start or review a safeguarding investigation where there has been procedural fault in the initial
investigation.
> Put statements on file where al eged perpetrators may not have had the opportunity to put
theirversion of events to the council.
> Publicly confirm the final outcome, where a flawed or delayed investigation has led to loss of
reputation affecting the complainant, and the new finding exonerates the complainant.
Contextual circumstances
Payments to acknowledge
harm or the risk of harm should reflect the vulnerability of the complainant.
19
link to page 12 link to page 40
4. Subject guidance
Benefits and debt
recovery
Benefits and discretionary housing payments
Faults in this area can cause financial hardship. They can also cause complainants to incur rent arrears
and be placed at risk of eviction. Complainants may also face financial hardship and recovery action
while waiting for decisions on council tax reductions, discretionary housing payments, or payments
from local support schemes. Faults in this area can also affect landlords.
Remedies the LGSCO may recommend include:
Remedial action
> Determine a claim without further delay.
> Consider a fresh application for benefit or other payment or reduction, by an officer not previously
involved with the case, and issue a decision within four weeks or sooner.
> Restore review or appeal rights.
> Forward a delayed appeal to the Tribunals Service within four weeks or sooner.
> Stop recovery action or repossession until a claim has been determined.
Quantifiable financial loss
> Reimburse interest incurred on loans the complainant has had to take out to cover a period of
delay in determining a claim.
> Where benefit was paid to the tenant instead of to the landlord, and the tenant cannot now be
traced, pay the equivalent amount to the landlord.
> Refund summons and court costs where such action has been taken before the outcome of a
claim or appeal is known.
Contextual circumstances
> Injustice caused by delay in dealing with an appeal may not be clear until the outcome of the
appeal is known. It will be greater if the appeal is upheld than if it is unsuccessful. But delay is
likely to cause anxiety regardless of the outcome of the appeal.
> Distress arising from ongoing court action while a complainant’s true financial position is unknown
should be assessed in line with general guidelines o
n distress. Receipt of a Notice Seeking
Possession will general y be at the modest end of the range, whereas an avoidable eviction is
likely to merit a significant payment. But this is not a tariff – all circumstances will be relevant.
> If an avoidable eviction results in
homelessness then the remedies in that section may also apply.
20
4. Subject guidance
Benefits and debt
recovery
Recovery of debt
Councils are entitled to take recovery action for money owed in connection with rent, council tax,
parking penalties, and other charges. But such recovery action should be proportionate to the debt,
and take account of the vulnerability of the complainant. Recovery action should also normal y be
suspended while a benefit claim is being determined, an appeal is underway, or a complaint is being
investigated, the outcome of which could affect the debt being recovered.
In most cases, the council confirms the debt in court and then passes the debt to bailiffs to recover.
Failures in communication, including passing a complaint between council and bailiffs without actual y
addressing it, can cause significant additional distress and time and trouble.
Action by bailiffs – whether in the form of a letter, visit, or removal of goods – is likely to cause distress
even where there is no fault. Where that distress was avoidable, because bailiff action occurred as a
result of council fault, or greater than it should have been, because of fault by the bailiffs, this additional
distress should be remedied.
Remedies the LGSCO may recommend include:
Remedial action
> Provide the complainant with clear information about the debt, how it arose, and how it has been
calculated, showing how their payments have been al ocated.
> Suspend recovery action.
> Void the recovery process and restart it from the point at which fault occurred.
> Recalculate the debt, after removing any costs wrongly incurred, and make a new payment plan.
Quantifiable financial loss
> Refund summons and court costs where such action has been taken before the outcome of a
claim or appeal is known.
> Refund payments wrongly obtained when recovery action continued despite an ultimately
successful appeal being underway.
> Reimburse costs of buying items to replace those removed by bailiffs.
> Reimburse costs of buying items to replace those sold to pay the debt and avoid escalation of
recovery action.
Contextual circumstances
> A council has a responsibility to remedy any injustice arising from fault by bailiffs acting on its
behalf.
> Payments for distress associated with unnecessary court or bailiff action will usual y fall in the
‘modest’ range of £100 to £300. But distress may be greater if action continues for more than a
few weeks or includes removal of goods, or if the complainant is particularly vulnerable.
21
4. Subject guidance
Children and
Education
Adoption and fostering
Faults in adoption and fostering services primarily affect adoptive parents and foster carers, and the
children they care for. But they can also affect birth parents. All can lose confidence in the council to
provide appropriate services or respond to their concerns.
The placing authority normal y retains responsibility for providing support to adoptive parents and
adopted children for three years after the Adoption Order is made. After this, the home authority is
responsible. But financial support by the placing authority can continue beyond three years. Lack of
support can contribute to the breakdown of placements and may have a significant impact on a child in
both the short and long term.
The placing council is responsible for the management and supervision of its foster carers, and for
paying fostering al owances. Faults in these areas can make caring for a child more difficult and
contribute to placement breakdown. We also consider complaints about procedural fault during the
investigation of al egations or concerns about the quality of care.
Remedies the LGSCO may recommend include:
Remedial action
> Provide the services, assessments or reviews the complainant or child should have received.
> Consider providing extra services to make up the loss.
> Reinstate allowances.
Quantifiable financial loss
> Backdate allowances.
> Reimburse out-of-pocket expenses met by the complainant while al owances were not paid.
If al owances are reinstated and backdated, this should cover such costs. But it is not always
appropriate to do this.
Contextual circumstances
If there is evidence of service failure, send the final LGSCO decision statement to the Chair of the
Adoption or Fostering Panel. It may also be appropriate to request that a copy of the decision statement
is kept on the child’s care file, so that he or she can see it in the future.
22
link to page 8
4. Subject guidance
Children and
Education
Child protection
A council has a legal duty to investigate where it has reasonable cause to suspect that a child is
suffering or at risk of suffering significant harm. The council’s primary responsibility is to safeguard the
welfare of the child. Carrying out its duties is inevitably going to cause some distress to those involved.
The LGSCO can only remedy injustice arising from faults in the process. In some cases injustice
will be minor and short-lived. For example, the council may have already remedied the injustice by
apologising, and recording and taking account of the complainant’s views, or correcting the record. In
these circumstances the LGSCO is unlikely to recommend any further remedy.
Where a child has suffered harm, or was at risk of harm, because of failings in the child protection
process, this can be remedied in line with our
general guidance.
Remedies the LGSCO may recommend include:
Remedial action
> Place a note on the file that lists errors, or makes clear the complainant’s dissent, where records
are disputed, and it is possible that professionals or the child could in the future form an unfair view
of the complainant based on those records.
> Make a clear record of the outcome of the child protection investigation and inform other agencies
involved of the outcome.
> Where families have been separated for longer than necessary, specific action such as counsel ing
may be more appropriate than a remedy payment for distress.
Contextual circumstances
> In complaints involving children of sufficient maturity and understanding we should take account of
the child’s view of injustice and remedy, if this can be obtained without causing further distress.
> In cases of young people aged 16 plus there may be grounds to consider paying all or some of a
financial remedy direct to them.
> Others in the family group may also have been affected by the identified fault.
23
link to page 40 link to page 30
4. Subject guidance
Children and
Education
Children in care and leaving care
There is detailed guidance available about how a council should look after children in its care and on
leaving care. Decision making about placements must be made in the context of the child’s long-term
need for stability and permanency. Changes to a looked-after child’s (LAC) placement should be made
at a statutory LAC review unless there is an emergency requiring the council to move a child in their
best interests.
Assessing the injustice to the child can be difficult because the effects on a child of a council’s faults
may not be ful y visible until the child is an adult, and may be clouded by the effects of the actions
of others (such as parents or relatives). But, despite this difficulty, it is important to consider both the
short-term injustice and any potential long-term injustice to the child.
Remedies the LGSCO may recommend include:
Remedial action
> Provide the services, assessments, or reviews the child should have received.
> Consider providing extra services to make up the loss.
> Provide clear information about the support available to a child leaving care.
Quantifiable financial loss
Backdate allowances.
Contextual circumstances
> In complaints involving children of sufficient maturity and understanding we should take account of
the child’s view of injustice and remedy, if this can be obtained without causing further distress.
> In cases of young people aged 16 plus there may be grounds to consider paying all or some of a
financial remedy direct to them.
> Remedies for
homelessness and
lost education may also apply, particularly for a child leaving
care.
> It may be appropriate to request that a copy of the decision statement is kept on the child’s care
file,so that he or she can see it in the future.
> Faults here affect primarily the children involved but also sometimes the birth parents, family
carers, foster carers and adoptive parents.
> We do not general y recommend a remedy for the complainant’s time and trouble in completing the
statutory complaints procedure, unless this has been affected by significant delay.
24
4. Subject guidance
Children and
Education
Special guardianship and kinship care
The principle of maintaining family ties is embedded in legislation, and often relatives offer to step in
to support children whose parents can no longer provide appropriate care. Special guardianship and
kinship (or ‘family and friends’) care al ows such children to live with people they have a connection to
and may already know. Special guardianship requires a court order, which usual y sets out the support
the child’s home authority will provide; carers with a special guardianship order can ask for a review
if circumstances change later. Kinship care should involve the council in carrying out a foster carer
assessment and providing appropriate support to the carers and the child, as it would for other foster
carers. Councils should provide detailed information about the child’s background and the reasons for
seeking a placement, as relatives are not always aware of this.
Faults can include delay, but also acting in haste, without properly assessing the suitability of kinship
carers or properly planning the placement, which can contribute to placement breakdown. This can
cause a significant degree of distress to all involved, which can be magnified by the family connection.
Councils sometimes wrongly take the view that a kinship care placement is a private arrangement
requiring no support.
There can also be faults along the same lines as those about adoption and foster care, and looked
after children. But the impact may be greater where special guardians and kinship carers have children
of their own. There can also be significant financial implications if the family has had to move or extend
their home to accommodate the additional children placed with them, and the placement breaks down.
Remedies the LGSCO may recommend include:
Remedial action
> Provide clear information about the roles and responsibilities of carers and the council.
> Provide clear information to carers about the background and needs of the child.
> Carry out or review:
• assessments of the placement;
• the complainant’s eligibility for financial support;
• arrangements for contact with birth family;
• the child’s needs.
> Provide services already identified in assessments.
> Consider providing extra services to make up for missed ones or if there will be a delay in
accessing some services (such as therapy).
> Pay or reinstate al owances.
Quantifiable financial loss
> Backdate allowances.
> Reimburse out-of-pocket expenses met by the complainant while al owances were not paid.
If al owances are reinstated and backdated, this should cover such costs. But it is not always
appropriate to do this.
25
4. Subject guidance
Children and
Education
Special guardianship and kinship care cont. .
There can be significant financial loss if a council continues to recover an interest-free loan which was
intended to be repaid from al owances that have now been discontinued and cannot be reinstated. If a
legal charge is put on the property for the full loan, payments made can be reimbursed.
Contextual circumstances
Others in the family group may also have been affected by the identified fault.
26
4. Subject guidance
Children and
Education
Education out of school
The council has a statutory duty under S19 of the Education Act 1996 to provide ful -time education
where a child cannot attend school because of exclusion, medical reasons, or ‘otherwise’. Councils
usual y expect schools to arrange off-site provision in the first instance, but the duty to provide
ful -time education remains with the council. There may be an overlap between SEN, admissions and
S19 requirements in some cases.
In assessing the remedy we should take account of any provision made or offered. This may not
be ful -time suitable education. But general y part-time provision should be on a temporary basis,
for exceptional and documented reasons, and part of a programme to return the child to ful -time
education.
Remedies the LGSCO may recommend include:
Remedial action
> Review level and suitability of provision.
> Provide additional tuition or equipment.
> Identify a suitable school place and arrange admission, under the local Fair Access Protocol if
necessary.
Quantifiable financial loss
Reimburse the cost of educational materials, tuition, or childcare bought by parents.
Acknowledgement of non-monetary benefit
Where fault has resulted in a loss of educational provision, we will usual y recommend a remedy
payment of between £200 and £600 a month to acknowledge the impact of that loss. The figure should
be based on the impact on the child and take account of factors such as:
> the child’s SEN;
> any educational provision – ful -time or part-time, without some or all of the specified support – that
was made during the period;
> whether additional provision now can remedy some or all of the loss;
> whether the period affected was a significant one in a child’s school career – for example, the first
year of compulsory education, the transfer to secondary school, or the period preparing for public
exams.
So, where a child without SEN received part-time education in supportive home circumstances, the
remedy payment will usual y be at the lower end of the range. Where a child with moderate learning
difficulties received no education at al , the remedy payment will usual y be at the higher end of the
range.
27
4. Subject guidance
Children and
Education
Education out of school cont. .
Contextual circumstances
> The primary injustice is to the child and this should be recognised in the remedy.
> Impact on education, development and life-chances may be significant. This is particularly so for a
child with SEN, who is already educational y disadvantaged.
> A child working towards GCSEs may not be able to access the full range of subjects, or the
curriculum for the relevant exam board, while out of school. This can also increase the impact of
the fault significantly.
> A child who is out of school after moving to a new area may miss out not only on education, but
also on the opportunity to form local friendships. The distress arising from this isolation can be
remedied by a modest payment, with a broad interpretation of how it should be spent.
28
link to page 30
4. Subject guidance
Children and
Education
School admissions and school appeals
Fault in school admissions can cause a great deal of worry for parents. It may lead to a child missing
out on a school place or missing significant periods of education. Faults in appeals may mean parents
have not had a fair hearing. They may also call into question the outcome of the appeal.
Schools which are their own admission authority may delegate some or all of the admissions and
appeals processes to the local authority. But the school retains responsibility for ensuring that the
correct processes are fol owed. So the school has the responsibility to remedy any injustice arising
from faults in those processes.
Remedies the LGSCO may recommend include:
Remedial action
> Determine an application or offer an appeal without delay.
> Offer a fresh appeal with a new panel and clerk.
> Exceptional y, if it is clear that fault in the admissions process deprived the child of a place at a
particular school, and if fault in the appeal meant the panel did not properly consider this, offer a
place.
Contextual circumstances
If a child was out of school altogether because of fault during the admissions process, then remedies in
the
‘Education out of school’ section of this guidance may also apply.
29
4. Subject guidance
Children and
Education
School transport
Faults in school transport cases can mean a child goes without the ‘home to school’ transport support
that they should receive. Parents may have to pay for transport, or a child may not be able to attend the
school. It can mean children have to walk to school on unsafe routes or have journeys that are too long.
Remedies the LGSCO may recommend include:
Remedial action
> Decide an application or offer an appeal without delay.
> Reassess the safety or distance of a route before coming to a new decision.
> Reassess the transport provided.
> Provide bus passes for parents and younger siblings where a child is too young to travel
unescorted on public transport.
> Offer a new appeal with different officers or members hearing the appeal, if a previous appeal was
affected by fault.
Quantifiable financial loss
Reimburse costs incurred by parents arranging own transport.
Contextual circumstances
The council should normal y provide suitable transport to a school named in a statement of SEN.
If a child is out of school altogether because of fault during the school transport application process,
then remedies in the ‘Education out of school’ section of this guidance may also apply.
30
4. Subject guidance
Children and
Education
Special educational needs (SEN)
In SEN complaints we are usual y seeking to remedy a shortfall in the provision specified in the child’s
statement of SEN, or injustice caused by delay in completing the assessment and statementing
process.
We would usual y wait for the outcome of the appeal before the First-Tier Tribunal as we may need this
decision before we can assess the injustice. This is especial y relevant in cases where the parent has
paid private school fees and the First-Tier Tribunal has to decide whether the school should be named
in the statement.
Remedies the LGSCO may recommend include:
Remedial action
> Complete an assessment without further delay.
> Arrange extra provision to make up for the shortfall – this is particularly relevant for provision such
as speech and language therapy and occupational therapy.
> Provide educational equipment.
Quantifiable financial loss
Reimburse school fees, where it can be shown that the council would have met them if there had been
no avoidable delay.
Acknowledgement of loss of non-monetary benefit
Where fault has resulted in a loss of educational provision, we will usual y recommend a remedy
payment of between £200 and £600 a month to acknowledge the impact of that loss. The figure should
be based on the impact on the child and take account of factors such as:
> the severity of the child’s SEN;
> any educational provision – ful -time or part-time, without some or all of the specified support –
that was made during the period;
> whether additional provision now can remedy some or all of the loss;
> whether the period affected was a significant one in a child’s school career – for example, the first
year of compulsory education, the transfer to secondary school, or the period preparing for public
exams.
So where there was a delay in arranging six hours of classroom support a week, it is likely the remedy
payment will fall at the lower end of the range; but a similar delay during the first term at secondary
school is likely to justify a remedy payment in the middle of the range; and a delay in arranging ful -
time classroom support during the first term of secondary school might justify a remedy payment at the
higher end of the range.
Contextual circumstances
> In complaints involving children of sufficient maturity and understanding we should take account of
the child’s view of injustice and remedy.
> In cases of young people aged 16 plus there may be grounds to consider paying all or some of the
financial remedy direct to them
31
4. Subject guidance
Environment and
public protection
Anti-social behaviour (ASB)
Councils have duties to investigate anti-social behaviour such as excessive noise, intimidation,
drunkenness and petty vandalism and they have powers to take action against people whose behaviour
is unacceptable. Other agencies including landlords and the police may have a role in control ing and
remedying ASB so good liaison with other agencies is important.
The most common feature of ASB cases is the effect it has on the quality of life of the complainant. The
distress caused to those who suffer may be displayed by fear, lack of sleep, and staying with relatives
or friends. Delay or lack of action by a council may result in further distress which might otherwise have
been avoided. It is important to ensure that the remedy is for the additional distress caused by fault in
the council’s response.
Remedies the LGSCO may recommend include:
Remedial action
> Re-evaluate the evidence and consider what action to take. This may include gathering further
evidence by:
• interviewing witnesses;
• using officers or specialists as independent witnesses;
• installing noise monitoring equipment.
> Review with the police the practical measures available to control ASB.
Acknowledgement of loss of non-monetary benefit
Where delay in taking action has caused demonstrable loss of amenity, we will usual y recommend
a payment in the range of £75 to £350 a month, taking account of the severity of the loss and the
circumstances of the complainant. Where the loss of amenity was minor, for example intermittent noise
disturbance during daylight hours, the payment would be at the lower end of the range. Where the
impact on daily life was significant, for example a vulnerable complainant and her young children were
routinely deprived of sleep, this would merit a payment at the upper end.
Contextual circumstances
The level of injustice may be greater for complainants, or members of their household, who are
vulnerable (for example through age or disability).
32
4. Subject guidance
Environment and
public protection
Cemeteries and crematoria
Faults in the administration of cemeteries and crematoria can cause relatives significant distress. This
is particularly so when the impact of a fault only becomes apparent at a burial or other significant
occasion (such as the anniversary of the death). Faults can include incorrect al ocation of a grave plot,
burial in the wrong plot, damage to graves, poor maintenance, failure to address vandalism, and failure
to take account of local criteria when approving memorials. Councils also test the safety of memorials
at regular intervals. Assessment criteria need to be clear and easily understood.
Councils have a duty to bury or cremate anyone who dies or is found dead in its area where it seems
no suitable arrangements have been made. Councils also have a duty to dispose of the deceased’s
property. Councils should make reasonable attempts to contact next of kin before organising a funeral
or disposing of property. Failure to deal sensitively with burial, and with the disposal of the deceased’s
goods, can lead to considerable distress. It can add significantly to the grief felt by the deceased’s
family and next of kin. It can lead to the loss of intensely personal items such as family photographs
or objects that next of kin would treasure. And it can deny someone the chance to arrange a personal
funeral and pay their respects.
Remedies the LGSCO may recommend include:
Remedial action
> Support the complainant (or third party) through the process of applying to have remains exhumed
and re-buried.
> Revise risk assessment procedures, policies and training.
> Improve publicity about the action the council will take if it finds a memorial is unsafe.
> Install a memorial seat or feature to commemorate the deceased.
> Arrange for bereavement counsel ing.
Quantifiable financial loss
> Costs associated with exhumation and re-burial.
> Cost of repairing, restoring or replacing a memorial.
Contextual circumstances
Typical reaction to any intervention is anger, distress, and shock. In assessing injustice it is important to
separate out the natural distress over the death of a loved one, and the additional distress arising from
council fault. This is still likely to be significant.
33
link to page 13
4. Subject guidance
Environment and
public protection
Environmental health
Councils have a duty to take ‘reasonably practicable steps’ to investigate complaints of various
nuisances, including smel s, dust, smoke, and noise, that are prejudicial to health or cause a nuisance.
Councils can only take enforcement action if they identify that a statutory nuisance exists or is likely to
occur or recur. Councils have a similar duty to take steps to prevent nuisance.
Smel s, dust and smoke cannot be easily measured, but the government has given guidance. Whether
the problem amounts to a statutory nuisance depends on type, frequency, duration and timing, and is a
matter of professional judgement. Councils can also take action to address light pol ution.
Remedies the LGSCO may recommend include:
Remedial action
> Investigate the issue.
> Re-evaluate evidence to see if action can be taken now.
Acknowledgement of loss of non-monetary benefit
If it is clear that a properly conducted investigation would have led to action to address nuisance
sooner, we will usual y recommend a payment for loss of amenity in the range of £75 to £350 a month,
taking account of the severity of the loss and the circumstances of the complainant. Where the loss of
amenity was minor, for example intermittent fumes prevented ventilation of the home during the day,
the payment would be at the lower end of the range. Where the impact on daily life was significant, for
example round-the-clock noise disturbed a housebound complainant, this would merit a payment at the
upper end.
Contextual circumstances
If a complainant, on the council’s instructions, kept records which the council subsequently failed to
consider, a payment for avoidabl
e time and trouble may also be appropriate.
34
4. Subject guidance
Environment and
public protection
Taxis and private hire vehicles
Councils have duties to license hackney cabs (taxis) and private hire vehicles. We can consider
complaints by taxi drivers and taxi driver associations about issues such as increases to fees, the
number of licences issued in the council’s area, and vehicle standards and testing.
Councils will consider complaints about drivers who break the licence. The most common feature of
these complaints is poor customer service or fare disputes and unfair ‘disciplinary’ action taken by
councils against taxi drivers without giving the driver a right of representation.
Action can lead to the loss of a licence and thus someone’s livelihood so it can cause great distress
and anxiety. Delay or lack of action by a council may also result in avoidable distress.
Remedies the LGSCO may recommend include:
Remedial action
> Invite a new licence application and consider it.
> Start or review a complaint investigation where there has been procedural fault in the initial
investigation.
> Put statements on file where a driver may not have had the opportunity to put forward his or her
version of events, and reconsider or take this information into account.
> Publicly confirm the final outcome, where a flawed or delayed investigation has led to loss of
reputation affecting the complainant, and the new finding exonerates the complainant.
Quantifiable financial loss
Costs of a vehicle bought or disposed of on the basis of wrong advice given by the council.
35
4. Subject guidance
Environment and
public protection
Waste management
Councils have a duty to col ect household waste free of charge, but they can limit the number of bins
they are prepared to col ect from each property and the frequency of col ection. The council can tell
residents where to put the bin and what can and cannot be put in it. People often complain about the
lack of bin col ections, sufficient bin space and where the council specifies the bin must be placed.
Councils may also remove abandoned waste, including cars.
Remedies the LGSCO may recommend include:
Remedial action
> Consider moving wheeled bin col ection points.
> Re-assess the needs of disabled residents in deciding wheeled bin col ection points.
> Improve arrangements for monitoring waste col ection.
Quantifiable financial loss
> Reimburse the nominal costs of taking household waste to a tip when it should have been
collected.
> Pay the value of a car wrongly removed and destroyed.
36
4. Subject guidance
Housing
Homelessness
Fault by councils in carrying out their duties to the homeless can cause a serious injustice. A homeless
person may be forced to sleep rough if a council wrongly refuses to take a homelessness application.
A homeless household may have to stay longer in unsuitable accommodation if there is unreasonable
delay in deciding a homelessness application. These faults may cause significant hardship and distress
because homeless people are often vulnerable and on a low income.
The Ombudsman may recommend the fol owing remedies:
Remedial action
> take a homelessness application.
> arrange suitable accommodation.
> issue a homelessness decision.
> decide an outstanding review request.
Financial remedy for quantifiable losses and costs of non-monetary benefit
We may recommend a council reimburses a homeless person for extra costs incurred as a direct
result of fault in dealing with the homelessness application or arranging suitable accommodation. The
examples given below are not exhaustive:
> the additional cost of buying take-away food when there are no cooking facilities, or inadequate
cooking facilities, in bed and breakfast or hostel accommodation;
> charges to store personal belongings when a council has breached the six week maximum limit
for families in B&B and an earlier move to alternative temporary accommodation means they could
have taken their belongings out of storage sooner;
> extra travel ing costs to get to school or work if a household is inappropriately placed in
accommodation outside the Council’s area;
> any outstanding charges for temporary accommodation that was clearly unsuitable for the
household’s needs.
Financial remedy for distress, hardship and inconvenience
Where a complainant has been deprived of suitable accommodation during what would inevitably
have been a stressful period in their life, our recommendation for financial redress is likely to be in the
range of £150 to £350 a month. But we may recommend a higher monthly amount in cases where
the injustice is exceptional or particularly severe. We assess each case on its merits and consider the
impact the fault had on the complainant and other members of his or her household.
37
4. Subject guidance
Housing
We have set out below the factors we take into account but this is not an exhaustive list:
> the size of the accommodation – are there enough rooms for the household?
> the condition and state of repair of the accommodation;
> are toilet and bathing facilities private or shared with other households?
> are there adequate facilities to store, prepare and cook food?
> the age of the household members; and
> any disabilities or vulnerabilities of the household members.
So, where a mother and three-year-old daughter had to share a bed for a month we may propose a
payment of £150; but where a family of four shared one room for a month the appropriate payment
may be £350.
If we are satisfied the complainant had no option but to sleep rough due to fault by a council, we
are likely to recommend financial redress at the top end of the range, with an additional payment to
acknowledge distress, to be assessed in line with our general guidance.
Unsuitable bed and breakfast placements – financial remedies
The most serious injustice is often experienced by households who stay long-term in unsuitable B&B
accommodation, often far in excess of the six week legal limit for families with children or a pregnant
household member.
The law says this type of accommodation is never suitable for young people aged 16 or 17 and families
with children or a pregnant household member. The Suitability of Accommodation Order 2003 says it
can only be used for a maximum of six weeks for families when no other accommodation is available.
We will assess financial redress in these cases by reference to the number of weeks a family has
stayed in B&B beyond the point where they should have been moved. This may be earlier than the
maximum six weeks. We are likely to recommend a weekly payment in the range of £50 to £150. This
payment is additional to reimbursement of any specific quantifiable costs that the homeless household
incurred.
Recommendations for review of practice and policies
We will recommend a wider review as part of the remedy where we find evidence of a systemic failing
that is likely to have affected many other homeless applicants. For example:
> where a council has many homeless households with children in B&B for more than six weeks;
> where a council is taking far too long to deal with homelessness reviews;
> where we find staff have not properly applied or understood the law or councils use inadequate
> template letters that fail to inform homeless applicants about their review and appeal rights.
We may make the fol owing recommendations:
> review the policy for reducing the use of B&B and procuring other types of temporary
accommodation;
> ensure all B&B establishments have been inspected to check they meet the minimum standards
set out in the law and statutory guidance;
> ensure officers always carry out a suitability assessment to identify the household’s needs before
making a placement in B&B or other temporary accommodation;
38
4. Subject guidance
Housing
> where a B&B placement is the only available option, notify applicants who have children, or a
member of the household is pregnant, about the six week maximum limit and their right to request
> a suitability review when the main homelessness duty has been accepted;
> actively monitor all cases where families are in B&B to find alternative accommodation before the
six week limit is reached.
39
link to page 12
4. Subject guidance
Housing
Housing adaptations
Sometimes people are seeking adaptations to their home, rather than a move. They may have to wait
too long for the adaptations, or encounter problems during the work or after it is complete. Two council
departments are usual y involved – social services assess the need, and housing al ocates the grant
and may carry out or supervise the work. Councils also provide funding for some home improvements.
Councils may require the complainant to manage the contract for the works, including confirming that
works meet the required standard.
Remedies the LGSCO may recommend include:
Remedial action
> Carry out a new assessment of need.
> Carry out agreed adaptations within a set timescale.
> Inspect work done and arrange remedial work if needed.
> Consider other ways of helping complainants to meet a shortfall in funding for the required work.
Departments other than housing may be able to make an interest-free loan or provide funds
recoverable through a charge on the property.
> Review policies on departments working together.
Quantifiable financial loss
> Expenses caused by delay in carrying out adaptations; for example, additional care charges,
where these have not been met by direct payments.
> Professional fees for drawing up plans, where this was an additional cost made necessary by
council fault.
Acknowledgement of loss of non-monetary benefit
> Where a complainant has been deprived of modifications which would have improved his or her
daily life, we will usual y recommend a remedy payment in the range of £150 to £350 a month. The
figure should be based on the impact on the complainant and take account of factors such as:
> the extent of the adaptations needed. A remedy for the impact of a delay in instal ing a handrail is
likely to be at the lower end of the range. The impact of a delay in providing accessible bathing
facilities is likely to fall at the upper end of the range;
> the particular circumstances of the person requiring adaptations. Avoidable uncertainty about
when works will begin is likely to have a greater impact on a person with autistic spectrum disorder,
for example; and time is of the essence for those with life-limiting il ness;
> the adequacy of current or interim arrangements. The impact of delay on a person who is able to
access bathing facilities with help, and who has such help, will be less than the impact on a person
who is left for a period without any access to bathing facilities.
Contextual circumstances
Others, particularly close family carers, and siblings if adaptations are to meet the needs of a child,
may also have been affected by the fault. Their injustice should be considered in line with our guidance
on
distress.
40
link to page 12
4. Subject guidance
Housing
Housing allocations and transfers
Where people live, and the conditions they live in, significantly affect day-to-day life. Demand for social
housing considerably outstrips supply, so fault by the council can add to the already long wait for a
suitable property, or mean that people are not able to access social housing at al .
Remedies the LGSCO may recommend include:
Remedial action
> Backdate an application or priority award.
> Correctly allocate priority or waiting time.
> Enhance priority or waiting time (particularly appropriate if there has been a delay).
> Carry out a medical assessment and make appropriate provision.
> Carry out a review of a decision.
> Al ow a person to go on the housing list
> Where a person has missed out on a property, we may recommend the council al ocate the next
suitable property available. This is not always possible, for example if the complainant wanted
property near family or school, or there may be a delay. In these cases a higher financial payment
may be appropriate to acknowledge the greater impact of the lost opportunity, and the additional
time spent living in unsuitable accommodation.
Acknowledgement of loss of non-monetary benefit
Where a complainant has had to remain in unsuitable accommodation because of fault in the housing
al ocation process, financial redress is likely to be in the range of £150 to £350 a month. The figure
should be based on the impact on the complainant and take account of factors such as:
> overcrowding;
> disrepair;
> the physical needs of the occupants – for example, a disability which prevents access to some
rooms; and any particular vulnerability of the complainant or household members.
So a situation where three young children had to continue to share a bedroom would usual y require a
remedy at the lower end of the range; and a situation where a disabled adult could not access bathing
facilities would usual y require a remedy at the upper end of the range.
If the complainant’s current home meets their identified needs for size, location and accessibility,
it is unlikely to fit the description ‘unsuitable accommodation’. So the injustice will usual y be the
complainant’s lost opportunity to improve their housing situation or meet their preferences. This should
be assessed in line with our guidelines o
n distress.
Contextual circumstances
> The injustice is likely to be greater if the complainant is particularly vulnerable, or has dependants
who were also affected.
> The injustice may be less if the complainant has failed to bid on suitable properties during the
period affected by fault.
> Other tenants may have been affected by a failure in applying a policy.
41
4. Subject guidance
Planning
Planning
Fault in the planning process can have a significant impact on a complainant’s home life if decisions
are not taken properly. We receive complaints from people who live next to development sites as
well as people carrying out development who have applied for planning permission or are subject to
enforcement action by a planning authority.
Examples of development sites range from small scale building work at individual residential properties
to large housing and industrial developments and infrastructure projects.
Complaints about planning include failure to reach a decision on a planning application properly, failure
to take enforcement action against a breach of planning permission, failure to investigate a reported
planning breach, delay, and flawed planning application advice.
When planning applications are determined incorrectly, neighbours often ask for planning permission to
be revoked. We will only recommend a council revoke planning permission in very exceptional cases.
This is because any injustice can usual y be remedied by taking other action at significantly lower cost
to the public and planning applicants are general y not responsible for fault by a planning authority.
Remedying injustice caused to people living next to development sites
In order to determine what injustice has been caused by any fault we identify we will consider what
development has been carried out and compare this what development would have been al owed if
there had been no fault in the way the planning authority reached its decision. There must be a clear
and direct link between the injustice we are remedying, and the fault we have identified.
In most cases we will be able to reach a balance of probabilities judgement based on relevant policies
and our own experience of dealing with planning complaints.
Remedial action
In the first instance we will usual y ask the planning authority to take remedial action. This may include:
> Investigating any al eged planning breach and decide what action to take.
> Taking steps to serve enforcement notices or enforce a planning agreement without further delay.
> Considering whether a statutory nuisance exists and take appropriate action.
> Negotiating an amendment to a permission with the developer so as to prevent injustice arising for
the complainant, for example by including:
> obscure glazing in overlooking windows;
> fast-growing or established shrubs or trees in a planting scheme; or a wal , fence or trel is along a
boundary.
42
4. Subject guidance
Planning
It may also be possible to reduce the impact of any permanent loss of amenity by taking mitigating
measures such as:
> planting hedging or trees in the complainant’s garden to screen the development;
> erecting an acoustic barrier; or
> instal ing double or triple glazing for parts of a house affected by noise.
A complainant may not wish to accept remedial action being taken at their home. In these
circumstances we may consider recommending a financial remedy equivalent to the cost of taking
remedial action. We will not consider a remedy for loss of amenity or loss of value where remedial
action is possible.
Where a loss of amenity is temporary (for example, pending remedial or enforcement action), we
normal y recommend a payment in the range of £75 to £350 a month, until a permanent solution is
found and established. We will take account of the severity of the loss and the circumstances of the
complainant.
Payment to acknowledge loss of amenity
If it is not possible to take remedial action to lessen the effects of the flawed decision, and it is clear that
if there had been no fault the planning application would not have been approved in its current form,
we may recommend a financial payment to acknowledge any loss of amenity (outlook, privacy, light to
main habitable rooms, etc). This is likely to be in a range between £1000 to £5000, depending on the
severity of the loss and personal circumstances of the complainant. We will only recommend loss of
amenity remedies where there is good, clear evidence of a direct causal link between the fault and the
loss of amenity.
For example a lack of screening might cause a moderate loss of amenity at the lower end of the range
where there was unacceptable overlooking of one window and the complainant was general y out
during the day. However, the loss of amenity would be at the higher end of the range where a lack of
screening caused unacceptable overlooking to more than one window, and therefore a significant loss
of privacy, to a housebound complainant.
In rare cases, where the loss of amenity might lead to us recommending an amount that would exceed
£5000, we may ask the council to assess the loss of value to the complainant’s property. In these
cases the loss of amenity is likely to be significant and loss of value can be used as a measure of
loss of amenity. These cases should be discussed with the Ombudsman’s planning forum before any
recommendations are made.
A ‘before and after’ valuation may be needed to determine loss of value. We usual y recommend this is
carried out by the district valuer. It is not based on what the value of the complainant’s property would
have been if there had been no development. It is based on what the value would have been if there
had been no fault – which may still have led to some development taking place. The Ombudsman will
then reach a view on an appropriate remedy taking account of the district valuers advice.
43
4. Subject guidance
Planning
Time and trouble and distress
We will also consider providing a remedy for unnecessary time and trouble and any additional distress
not linked to the loss of amenity. We will not usual y recommend a remedy for uncertainty in planning
complaints as we can usual y make a finding on what decision a planning authority would have
reached if there had been no fault.
Professional fees
The Ombudsman provides a free service and it would not usual y be necessary to instruct a solicitor
or planning consultant to assist in making a complaint or chal enging a planning authority’s decision.
However, where matters involved were of significant complexity, we may consider reimbursement of
professional fees. It would not general y be considered necessary to reimburse fees for both a planning
agent and a solicitor about the same matter
Public outrage in planning cases
Sometimes people will complain that, although they are not personal y affected by the al eged fault,
they have a wider sense of outrage at what is al eged to have happened. These circumstances can
appear within planning complaints.
LGSCO is not prevented from considering planning complaints where proximity to the actual building is
not the prime consideration and there is no direct loss of residential amenity.
However, such investigations are likely to be restricted to cases where the fault complained about
is particularly significant, exceptional or unusual and the person or persons complaining have a
demonstrable interest in the matter complained of. For example, we may consider complaints about:
> the impact of development on the countryside or coastline from a person who regularly uses the
area for recreation purposes and who lives local y.
> the impact of a development on local wildlife from members of a local wildlife group.
> the impact of development on a historic building or conservation area from a person with a
demonstrable interest in historic buildings or building conservation.
Remedies in such cases will general y seek to mitigate the impact caused by any fault rather than
compensate an individual for their sense of outrage.
Complaints from planning applicants and people subject to action by a planning
authority
The Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints where a person has a right of appeal to the Secretary
of State. The Planning Inspector deals with appeals about a range of planning decisions made by
planning authorities on behalf of the Secretary of State. This means there is only a limited number
of circumstances where we would consider a complaint from a person who has applied for planning
permission or been the subject to action by a planning authority.
Where a planning authority has given clearly misleading advice before a person submits a planning
application, we may consider what impact the advice had on the applicant’s subsequent actions.
Where we believe an applicant may not have proceeded with a planning application or would have
submitted different plans we may recommend the Council refunds part or all of the fees incurred in
making an application.
44
4. Subject guidance
Planning
As set out above, where matters involved were of significant complexity, we may consider reimbursement of
professional fees. But it would not general y be considered necessary to reimburse fees for both a planning
agent and a solicitor about the same matter and we will consider whether such fees would have been
incurred if there was no fault by the Council.
45
These examples are based on real complaints, and show how
we put our guidance on remedies into practice.
In many cases, we do not find fault causing injustice, so a
remedy is not appropriate. When it is, the remedy reflects
the impact of the fault on the complainant, rather than
the fault itself. So these examples are not precedents for
future complaints where we find similar fault, because the
circumstances of each complainant are different.
46
5. Remedy examples
Key examples
Remedial action
Remedy
Mrs A’s car was clamped while she was making an emergency
We recommended the council:
visit to an elderly relative who lived on a council estate. The council
agreed to refund the charge of £95 she had paid to remove the
> al ocate Mrs A a parking
clamp, but then delayed making the payment for several months.
space at the estate and
The council offered to increase the compensation but her relative’s
give her a 12-month
health had declined and Mrs A had to visit more frequently. .
parking permit. This was of
more value to Mrs A than
the equivalent payment
would have been
Appropriate for the circumstances
Remedy
Mr B could not cope with his daughter C and asked the council for
We recommended the council:
support. The council did not respond to the request, and C went
> remind staff dealing with
to live with her mother. Her mother also failed to cope and C was
children being placed into
placed in foster care. The council did not consult Mr B or consider
care that contact needs
moving C back to his care.
to be made with family
Mr B’s confidence in the council was undermined which contributed
members and, in particular,
to ongoing difficulties and caused him significant distress. He was
both parents of a child
also left not knowing whether some of the stress he experienced
before a decision to place
could have been avoided and whether intervention by the council
the child in foster care is
at an earlier stage could have meant C remained living with him,
made, even if a parent has
rather than being placed in foster care. C herself was also left
in the recent past indicated
not knowing if, with support, she could have lived with her father
that they cannot care for
instead of going into foster care.
the child.
> pay £2,000 to Mr B to
acknowledge the distress
arising to him from the
council’s fault, and a
payment of £1,000 to C
to help her reconnect and
reintegrate with her family
when she is eventual y
returned to their care.
The remedy took account
of the considerable difficulty
the council experienced in
involving Mr B in planning for
C’s future, and the fact that Mr
B himself made no contact with
the council about this issue
for a 14-month period. The
remedy also took account of the
progress C had made while in
foster care, and the stability this
47
arrangement had provided for
her.
5. Remedy examples
Key examples
Appropriate for the circumstances
Remedy
Mr Y sent the council a petition about lorries using the road through
We decided the council’s
his vil age. The petition raised legitimate concerns and it took the
apology was a satisfactory
council three months to respond. That response simply said the
remedy for the injustice Mr Y
council would investigate. The council’s investigation was then
was caused by that error. We
delayed by the need to gather data and produce a report. The
found no fault in the decision-
council failed to provide Mr Y with any updates while it did this. This
making process about the
was fault by the council.
substantive issue of traffic
through the village.
Payment of costs
Remedy
When Mr and Mrs J decided to move abroad, one of the children
We recommended the council
they were fostering wanted to move with them. A court approved
pay their legal costs of £4,300.
this. The council decided that because the situation was unusual
the financial support it provided for the placement should be set out
in a legal contract between it and Mr and Mrs J. The contract took
some time to agree and the council required Mr and Mrs J to pay
for their own legal representation regarding the matter. We agreed
with Mr and Mrs J that as the placement was on behalf of the
council it should have met the costs of agreeing the contract.
Quantifiable financial loss
Remedy
Mr J replaced his van fol owing advice from the authority that it
We recommended that a
would not comply with new emission requirements needed to
reimbursement of 15% of the
al ow it to be driven within a low emission zone. The advice was
purchase price would be a fair
wrong and the old van would have been compliant with the new
remedy, to reflect the drop in
requirements. When the authority realised the advice given was
value of the asset as soon as
wrong it made no attempt to contact Mr J to advise him correctly.
it was put on the road.
Mr J had therefore spent money on a new van when he had no
need to do so. There were 35 complainants in the same position.
We considered that although the owners paid a considerable sum
to buy a new van (over £15,000 in some cases) that was not entirely
attributable to the council’s actions. They now had an asset which
had a value. In addition a new van would have a guarantee, be
more fuel efficient and less likely to break down. We concluded the
real loss to the complainants was the immediate depreciation which
the vehicles would suffer as soon as they were put on the road.
48
5. Remedy examples
Adult Social Care
Assessment of need
Remedy
Ms G complained that Council X failed to ensure her daughter Ms
We recommended each
J’s needs were met whilst she was waiting for Council Y to agree
council:
funding responsibility. Ms J was 26 and had Asperger’s syndrome.
She needed support with education, employment, organisation
> apologise and make
and time management. She also needed prompts to maintain her
a payment to Ms J of
personal hygiene and appearance.
£1,000 (£2,000 in total)
to acknowledge her
Council X provided Ms J with funding for 10 hours of support
distress and anxiety.
a week to enable her to live independently when she went to
university in Council Y’s area. Ms J decided she wanted to stay
> We also recommended
there after finishing her degree. Council X said it would stop funding
each council apologise
Ms J’s care and told Ms G to approach Council Y. Council Y
and make a payment to
began its assessment of Ms J’s needs two months later but failed
Ms G of £500 (£1,000
to progress the assessment as it was waiting for records from
in total) to acknowledge
Council X. During this period, and on more than one occasion, Ms
her distress and
G expressed serious concern about her daughter’s welfare to both
inconvenience.
councils.
Ms J could not organise the benefits she needed and her mental
health was deteriorating. Both councils lost sight of the key
priority of promoting the well being of a vulnerable adult in need of
community care services. They failed to provide services to meet
Ms J’s assessed eligible needs and in doing so, they effectively
abandoned her for a total of six months. Both councils were aware
this situation was placing Ms J’s mental health in jeopardy yet they
took no decisive action to resolve matters. This was an injustice to
Ms J. Ms G had to make monthly visits to help her daughter with
matters that should have been covered by an appropriate care
package. The time and inconvenience she was put to, coupled
with the undue distress and worry caused by this situation, was her
injustice.
49
5. Remedy examples
Adult Social Care
Assessment of need
Remedy
Mr F attends a day care facility and the council provided him with
We recommended the
transport there and back. Due to a dispute about costs between the
council:
council and the transport provider, the council told Mr F he would
have to either fund his own transport or share transport with another
> remind senior managers
service user. The council did not reassess Mr F’s needs before
and officers that services
making this change. Neither option was in fact appropriate so
cannot be reduced
or changed without
Mr F could not access day care for six months. The council then
a reassessment of a
agreed to reinstate transport and reassess Mr F’s needs but
person’s needs;
delayed for a further six months in doing so. Mr F’s parents, who
made the complaint, were put to significant time and trouble to
> review other service
obtain the services Mr F needed, and had to provide him with
users who may have
additional support at home.
been affected by the
same policy decision in
relation to the payment
of transport for services
commissioned from the
same provider;
> apologise to Mr F and his
parents for the identified
failures;
> pay £1,000 to Mr F
to acknowledge the
prolonged distress which
resulted from him not
being able to access
services he was entitled
to; and
> pay £200 to Mr F’s
parents to acknowledge
the anxiety and distress
and uncertainty caused
to them by the way
the council withdrew
services, failed to fol ow
through an agreement to
reinstate transport, and
delayed in reassessing
Mr F’s needs.
50
5. Remedy examples
Adult Social Care
Assessment of Need
Remedy
Mrs J requested a wheelchair from the council. The council delayed
We recommended the
for a month in considering her request. It then applied its wheelchair
council:
policy and said that she was not entitled to a wheelchair as she only
needed it for social use.
> review its wheelchair
policy to ensure that
The council failed to consider Mrs J’s individual needs for a
individual circumstances
wheelchair and how the lack of a wheelchair may affect her
are taken into account
ability to participate in social activities and to attend medical
before making a
appointments. So Mrs J was left not knowing whether, but for the
decision;
faults identified, she was entitled to a wheelchair.
> apologise to Mrs J
for not completing an
assessment earlier; carry
out a reassessment
of Mrs J to consider
whether she is entitled to
a wheelchair; and
> communicate any further
decision in writing
explaining the reasons
for its decision.
51
5. Remedy examples
Adult Social Care
Care or support plans, and provision of care
Remedy
Mrs C’s husband has an acquired brain injury and lives in a
We recommended the
specialist nursing home. The council commissions this care. It
council:
made significant efforts to review Mr C’s needs and support during
a period when his condition was changing, and it involved Mrs C in
> pay £1,000 to Mr and
this process.
Mrs C to acknowledge
the impact of its faults
But the council failed to write a care plan for almost two years
on them. We also
and delayed in facilitating Mr C’s transition from the home to the
recommended the
community. So Mr C remained in a nursing home for longer than
council:
necessary, rather than receiving services that would promote his
independence and integration in the community. The council’s delay
> complete a new financial
in responding to Mrs C’s complaint about this caused her significant
assessment to determine
inconvenience and frustration.
Mr C’s contribution
towards community
services as soon as his
support plan was agreed;
> arrange a new continuing
healthcare assessment
of Mr C as a matter of
priority;
> keep Mrs C informed of
any progress concerning
her husband’s proposed
move and ensure she is
involved in assessments
and discussions about
his care and transition
options; and
> complete capacity
assessments on a
decision by decision
basis in line with the
Mental Capacity Act
2005.
52
5. Remedy examples
Adult Social Care
Care or support plans, and provision of care
Remedy
Mrs B lived in a residential care home. She could not use her left
We recommended the
side after a stroke, was in a wheelchair and was not able to dress
council:
herself. She preferred to wear trousers. But the care home staff
dressed her in skirts with no underwear as it made personal care
> refund half the residential
tasks easier.
home fees for the period
of her stay there.
Mrs B found this degrading, undignified and upsetting particularly
when friends and family were visiting. We found the failure to take
> The council also
account of her wishes was fault.
apologised and paid
£50 to cover Mrs B’s
daughter’s time and
trouble to make the
complaint. The care
provider (acting on behalf
of the council who funded
Mrs B’s placement):
> sent all its staff on dignity
training;
> committed to keeping
the issue under review
at staff supervision
meetings; and
> reminded staff about the
importance of respecting
resident choice and
dignity.
We also referred the case to
the Care Quality Commission.
53
5. Remedy examples
Adult Social Care
Care or support plans, and provision of care
Remedy
Mrs Q raised concerns with the council about the care provided by
We recommended the
a care agency to her daughter Ms J. The council’s initial response
council:
to Mrs Q’s complaint failed to address her concerns properly.
> apologise to Mrs Q for
When Mrs Q complained a second time the council did nothing until
the poor way it dealt with
she sent a reminder. It then advised her to make a formal complaint.
her concerns;
Officers should either have sent Mrs Q a proper response to her
letter, including the information she had asked for, or passed it on to
> take action to address
the complaints department.
the issue of Ms J’s diet
and work with Mrs Q to
The key issues Mrs Q raised about her daughter’s diet, cleaning
ensure the dietician gets
items wrongly being charged to Ms J, and training for carers to
the information needed
support Ms J’s communications needs, remained unanswered.
to provide advice;
And as the care agency overwrote the support plan whenever it
was updated, there was no historic record of the support which
> take action to identify any
should have been in place at the relevant time, which hindered
money to be refunded to
investigation of these issues.
Ms J, and pay it back to
her;
> ensure risk assessments
are done for the use
of Ms J’s mobility
equipment;
> ensure it keeps a copy of
Ms J’s support plan each
year;
> review Ms J’s support
plan to ensure it
properly addresses her
communication needs;
and
> pay Mrs Q £100 to
acknowledge her
avoidable time and
trouble in pursuing the
complaint.
54
5. Remedy examples
Adult Social Care
Care providers
Remedy
Mrs H lived in a residential home. The care provider failed to issue
We recommended the care
her with a contract, and gave no written costs information, but
provider:
verbal y agreed the fee, and said that the fee would not change.
> refund the overpayment
Later, Mrs H was assessed as needing nursing care, so she
to Mrs H’s estate and
received an NHS contribution towards her fees. The care provider
made a mistake in its invoicing and deducted this amount from
> take steps to ensure that
the amount she had agreed to pay. Mrs H was then assessed as
in future, its invoices are
eligible for continuing healthcare funding. She should not have paid
correct,
towards her fees after that date. But the care provider continued
> it issues contracts and
to invoice and the family continued to pay. This resulted in an
written information about
overpayment which did not become apparent until after Mrs H’s
costs in all cases, and
death.
> it has an accessible
complaints procedure.
We also referred the case to
the Care Quality Commission.
Care providers
Mrs G was elderly and paid for her own domiciliary care with a
home care agency. Care staff were scheduled to visit her twice a
week to attend to personal care, such as helping her wash.
On four occasions they did not turn up. On two of them the agency
sent alternative staff when Mrs G raised the problem. Mrs G could
not wash without help, so the missed and delayed cal s caused her
distress and inconvenience.
When we investigated, the agency confirmed that it had not charged
for the four missed cal s, and offered to apologise in person to Mrs
G. It set up a new rota system and a call log to prevent such failures
happening again. We decided that these steps provided a fair
remedy.
55
5. Remedy examples
Adult Social Care
Care providers
Remedy
Mr G was a self-funding resident in a private residential care home.
We recommended the home:
He had dementia and difficulties with his mobility. His wife managed
his financial affairs on his behalf and paid the home by standing
> apologise to Mrs G for
order. Mr G’s condition declined during his stay at the home. He
her distress and refund
was awarded continuing healthcare funding by the NHS to cover the
the outstanding money
full cost of his care fees due to the level of help he needed.
straight away.
The standing order Mrs G had set up to pay the home continued
> provide written terms
after the NHS started funding Mr G’s care. Mrs G wrote to the home
and conditions for every
asking for the money to be paid back. It paid back some of the
resident;
overpaid fees but withheld just over £2,300. Mrs G asked for the full
> carry out, within six
refund. Solicitors representing the home wrote to
months, an assessment
Mrs G saying Mr G’s fees had increased (almost doubled) due to
of the current needs
his deteriorating condition and so no further refund was due. We
of each resident,
found the home’s administrative practices were poor. There was no
in accordance with
contract on Mr G’s file and no record of a review or reassessment to
the Care Quality
evidence the change in his care needs.
Commission’s Essential
Standards of Quality and
Safety; and
> introduce systems for
• accurately recording
when residents (or
their representatives)
are notified of
increases in fees or
charges;
• checking payments
received against the
amounts due; and
• promptly following up
any discrepancies.
56
5. Remedy examples
Adult Social Care
Care providers
Remedy
Mrs J was elderly and lived in a residential care home. She
We recommended the home:
commissioned and paid for her own care. Her daughter, Mrs H,
complained that inadequate care in the home led to
> improve its record
keeping and complaint
Mrs J’s health declining and her admission to hospital. When
handling, and train staff
we investigated we could not properly establish the level of care
about these issues.
provided because of poor record keeping. For example, there was
insufficient information about:
We also recommended the
>
home:
food and fluid intake;
>
> apologise and
what fol ow-up actions the care provider took when it recorded
concerns about fluid intake and bed sores;
> pay £2,400 to
>
acknowledge the
hospital transfer arrangements;
uncertainty for Mrs J’s
> advice from the GP; and
family about whether
> conversations with family members.
failures in care had led to
the decline in her health.
Mrs J was admitted to hospital with dehydration, renal failure and
pressure sores. The home’s failure to keep adequate records led
to uncertainty over whether the care was adequate, whether any
failures in care led to the decline in Mrs J’s health, and whether the
home kept the family properly informed. We also found the home
delayed by two months in responding to Mrs H’s complaint, which
made the matter worse.
57
5. Remedy examples
Adult Social Care
Care providers
Remedy
Mr B had a learning disability and was living in a residential
We recommended the care
care home arranged and funded by a council. Ms D (his sister)
home:
complained that staff at the care home did not:
>
> pay Mr B £150 to
contact her when Mr B needed to go to hospital urgently;
acknowledge his distress
> go to hospital with Mr B when his care plan said he needed an
in not having someone go
escort; and
with him to the hospital.
> pass on key medical information to the hospital about Mr B’s
> The care home also
condition and care needs.
agreed to assess Mr B’s
We found the care home was at fault because:
needs,
> Ms D was recorded as the emergency contact so staff should
> to review the assessment
have contacted her; and
of needs every year, and
> there should have been a hospital passport (key information
> to record the outcome.
about the person’s medical condition and care needs) for staff
to pass to the hospital.
We also identified that the care home had not reviewed Mr B’s
assessment of needs for six years when this should be done, by
law, every year.
The care home changed its procedures so that all residents have a
hospital passport that staff can give to a hospital.
58
5. Remedy examples
Adult Social Care
Charging
Remedy
Mr J complained about the adequacy of the information the council
We recommended the council
gave him about the costs of his wife’s care.
write off 50% of the bill
The council’s officer and the complainant’s family had different
outstanding.
recol ections of what happened in June when the officer gave the
family a consent form and charge sheet to sign.
Mrs J’s care services started in July but the council did not assess
her finances for another three weeks. The council did not then send
the bill until six weeks after her care had started. The council said
she had to pay the full costs of her services.
Had there been no delay by the council in confirming the amount
Mrs J had to pay it seemed unlikely Mrs J would have refused the
care package. But her family may well have decided they did not
need all the care visits provided for in the package.
Charging
Remedy
Mrs J complained that the council failed to backdate a lower
We recommended the
assessed contribution for her husband’s homecare service. The
council:
council carried out a telephone financial assessment with
> backdate the reduced
Mrs J to work out how much her husband would have to pay for his
charge to the start of Mr
homecare service.
J’s homecare service
Mrs J queried her husband’s contribution to the charge on several
and
occasions. The council did not fol ow its usual practice in this case
> arrange a refund for the
because it did not send out a financial assessment form after
period for which he paid
Mrs J first queried the charge; in fact it did not send a form to her
a higher charge.
for 14 months, despite her repeated queries.
Mrs J needed help from the council in completing the form and as a
result of the new assessment her husband’s contribution to the cost
of his care was much lower. We concluded the council should have
fol owed its procedure, and sent Mrs J a financial assessment form
in response to her first query. If it had done this, it is likely it would
have made an accurate financial assessment much sooner.
59
5. Remedy examples
Adult Social Care
Charging
Remedy
Mr F was resident at a nursing and care home for 11 months. The
We recommended the
council arranged and commissioned the placement.
council:
It agreed with the home that Mr F’s care would be provided at
> reimburse Mrs F for the
the council’s funding rate. The council paid the home in full and
additional fees she had
invoiced Mr F for his contribution. When Mr F was due to move into
incurred; it could pursue
the home the room that he had been al ocated was not available.
the home for a refund
But the home said a larger room was unoccupied and Mr F could
through its contract.
have this if he paid a temporary additional charge. His wife paid
fees of £2,400.
> remind all care providers
with whom it arranges
The council said it was not involved with this arrangement and
care that they cannot
could not help his wife to recover those fees. This was fault.
charge additional fees
The council had a contractual arrangement with the home and
for the same services
could have corrected the situation.
directly with the
service user or their
representative.
Charging
Remedy
The NHS had initial y agreed continuing care funding for Mr X but a
We recommended the
week later the council was told this was an error and Mr X did not
council:
meet the continuing care criteria.
> write off the charges
The council therefore assessed Mr X’s financial means and decided
incurred during the first
he had to contribute to his care costs. But the council continued to
three months of the
tell Mr X’s family that he did not have to pay for his care, and did not
placement,
confirm the contribution in writing for another three months.
> al ow Mr X’s wife a
The confusion and the lack of a written statement, setting out
reasonable time to pay
clearly the care contribution expected from the family, meant Mr
off the debt accumulated
X entered a care placement without ful y knowing the financial
after the family knew
implications. The council then presented Mr X’s wife with an invoice
about the contributions
for the outstanding payments. This caused considerable and
that Mr X was expected
unnecessary anxiety.
to pay.
> We also recommended
the council review its
procedures to ensure
financial assessments
and determinations are
made known to families
before they agree to a
residential placement.
60
5. Remedy examples
Adult Social Care
Mental capacity
Remedy
Mrs D had a degenerative mental health condition. She was living
We recommended a multi-
with and being cared for by her sister Mrs E until a fall resulted in
stakeholder meeting to begin
her admission to hospital. A multi-disciplinary discharge meeting
the process of dealing with
decided that the flat Mrs E lived in was unsuitable and that she
the sisters’ assessments,
could not give the level of care Mrs D required. The option of Mrs D
and begin planning to
returning to the flat with a care package was explored but thought
accommodate them together
not to be viable. Mrs D was admitted to a nursing home.
for as long as they wished.
Six months later Mrs E herself was diagnosed with the same
condition as her sister. Her condition continued to deteriorate but
she was reluctant to accept help from social services.
Mrs E never accepted she could not care for Mrs D and was
unhappy with the care Mrs D received in the nursing home at
times. The records show that Mrs D and Mrs E missed each other’s
company a lot. After three years the care home placed restrictions
on Mrs E visiting fol owing some difficulties between her and the
carers. Some meetings were held at which Mrs E stated that she
wanted to live in a care home with Mrs D.
Mrs E moved from her flat to sheltered accommodation and Mrs
D was able to visit her there. At this time Mrs D began asking to
go back and live with Mrs E. This resulted in an application for a
Deprivation of Liberty authorisation. It was granted as Mrs D lacked
capacity and Mrs E was not able to provide the level of care Mrs D
needed. Mrs D’s needs also could not have been met in sheltered
and supported living accommodation. Both sisters were upset about
the authorisation. The authorisation expired after six months and
another was made and granted. In the second authorisation it is
noted that both sisters voiced a preference for being together. It was
however deemed to be in Mrs D’s best interests to remain where
she was. The council said it would support the sisters spending as
much time together as possible.
We found it was fault by the council not to assess whether the
sisters could live together in a home that could cater for the needs
of both. So the council did not know whether the arrangements
were the least restrictive.
61
5. Remedy examples
Adult Social Care
Mental capacity
Remedy
For about 20 years, Mr D, who has Down’s syndrome, lived in
We recommended the council:
residential care where he formed a long-standing friendship with
another resident, Ms B
. Their carers were surprised when Mr D
> pay his family £500 to
proposed to Ms B. Two different social workers met them over the
acknowledge the impact
next few months to talk about their plans. But the council did not
of its fault,
assess Mr D’s capacity to understand such a decision until two
> provide more training
and a half years after he had proposed to Ms B. During that period
about mental capacity
officers encouraged Mr and Ms B to talk about the details of their
for staff who work with
wedding and where they would live afterwards. But once Mr D’s
people with learning
mental capacity was assessed by a psychologist, the council had
disabilities, and
to tell Mr D that he could not marry Ms B after al . Mr D and Ms B
accepted this decision and were not distressed by it.
> consult residents’ families
much sooner about their
We said that the council’s failure to consult Mr D’s family and to
relatives’ decisions.
assess his mental capacity early on gave him false hope that he
could marry Ms B; it also led to considerable distress and anxiety
for his family.
Mental capacity
Remedy
Mrs N was in her 70s, suffered from dementia and had lived in a
We recommended the council:
care home for a number of years. She needed help with personal
care but being a private person refused to let care home staff see
> acknowledge the distress
her naked.
caused to Mrs N’s family
by paying £1,000 to a
A carer reported seeing a ‘mole’ on Mrs N’s breast and within a
charity of the family’s
matter of weeks this was confirmed as an advanced cancer which
choice.
could not be treated, and Mrs N died.
> review the way its
It was not possible to say how long Mrs N had had cancer. A
contracts
safeguarding investigation found partial neglect by the care home.
> specify the need for
We found the care home (acting on behalf of the council who
screening of care
funded Mrs N’s placement) to be at fault.
home residents to
We found that it had not helped Mrs N to the best of its ability and in
make sure they are not
her best interests, in accordance with The Code of Practice which
disadvantaged by being
accompanies the Mental Health Capacity Act 2005. And it had not
in a care home.
supported Mrs N to access breast screening facilities, in line with
the Care Quality Commission’s Essential Standards.
62
5. Remedy examples
Adult Social Care
Personalisation (self-directed support)
Remedy
Mrs J used her direct payment, plus funding from the Independent
We recommended the
Living Fund, to employ two personal assistants. She paid them
council:
gross, because she did not realise that, as an employer, she should
have deducted tax and National Insurance (NI) contributions.
> support Mrs J to contact
HMRC to find out how
After five years the council discovered this error. It told Mrs J that
much was owed, and
her failure to administer the direct payment account meant she was
then
liable for unpaid tax and NI contributions. The unpaid liability owed
to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) came to about
> pay any money owed to
£46,000.
HMRC on Mrs J’s behalf.
The council had signed an agreement to say it would support Mrs J
to manage her payrol . We found the council was at fault because it:
> did not provide her with any support to manage her payroll or
direct payment;
> failed to act when it did not receive regular timesheets from
Mrs J;
> only sent two letters to Mrs J in a five-year period asking her to
return paperwork that she should have sent monthly; and
> failed to monitor how Mrs J was spending the direct payment.
If the council had acted correctly, Mrs J would have made the
correct deductions and not have incurred the liability.
63
5. Remedy examples
Adult Social Care
Personalisation (self-directed support)
Remedy
Mr A and Ms B were in their thirties, had severe physical disabilities
We recommended the
and shared a house. They had been friends since school. They
council:
received separate direct payments from the council with which
they each employed personal assistants to provide 24-hour care.
> carry out fresh
At night, each had a waking carer. For Ms B, female carers were
assessments of Mr A and
essential and she did not want a male carer to deliver intimate
Ms B, taking into account
personal care. Mr A employed male carers for the same reason.
their individual needs and
Both stayed away from home overnight regularly when visiting
human rights.
friends and family.
The council decided to review Mr A’s and Ms B’s care because of
a change to its eligibility criteria. The outcome was a cut in direct
payments, and the provision of shared night cover. We found the
decision to reduce the direct payments was flawed because:
> Mr A and Ms B lived independently in the community as co-
tenants, not as a couple. Their needs should be assessed
individually and funding decisions should not have considered
the care available to a housemate;
> the law says that councils must provide funding to meet eligible
social care needs. The reviews concluded Mr A and Ms B
needed help with personal care more than twice a night, every
night. But Ms B’s direct payment only covered the cost of a
carer for two nights a week, so the funding for night care did
not meet her eligible need. Similarly, Mr A’s direct payment
only covered care for five nights when the assessment said
he needed care every night. So his eligible need was not met
either;
> Mr A and Ms B had needs that were incompatible with a
shared night care arrangement. Either could be away from
home and take the night carer with them. This would leave the
other without any night care. It was unreasonable of the council
to conclude that Mr A and Ms B could share night care without
looking further at the impact of this arrangement on each of
them individually; and
> Ms B did not want a male carer to help her with intimate
personal care. Mr A did not want a female carer for the same
reasons. The council did not consider their right to respect for
private life when it decided to reduce the payment and impose
sharing of night care.
The council had not yet implemented the proposed cut in direct
payments so Mr A and Ms B continued to receive the previous level
of care while we were investigating the complaint.
64
5. Remedy examples
Adult Social Care
Personalisation (self-directed support)
Remedy
Mr B complained about a nursing home where his wife Mrs B
We recommended the council:
stayed for a period of respite care. The council accepted it did not
deal properly with Mr B’s complaint. There were long delays and
> ensure its direct
it never sent him a final response. The council offered to pay him
payments policy was
£10 a month for the delay plus £100 for any distress this may have
brought into line with
caused. The council also said it would help Mr B to find a different
current guidance at the
nursing home. But it only suggested two care homes and one of
earliest opportunity
those was suggested in error. It did not therefore do what it said it
> We also recommended it
would.
apologise to Mr & Mrs B
We found that the council’s policy on direct payments was not in
and
line with the Department of Health Guidance, as the council did not
> pay them £200 to
al ow their use for respite breaks. This prevented Mr and Mrs B from
acknowledge the impact
exercising proper choice over where Mrs B stayed when Mr B went
of fault in the complaint
away for a break.
process, and
> £300 to acknowledge
their lost opportunities to
choose Mrs B’s respite
care.
Safeguarding
Remedy
Mr B was a social worker and director of a children’s home. A
We recommended the council:
resident made an al egation of abuse against him, which the
> apologise, pay him
council investigated. He complained that the council failed to fol ow
£1,000 to acknowledge
procedures when carrying out the investigation.
the impact of its fault, and
We found that there was delay in the investigation, referral forms
> ensure managers follow
were not completed properly and there was a lack of clarity in
procedures and keep
letters to Mr B. In the end the council decided not to pursue action,
accurate records.
but as a result of the failures in procedure and poor communication
Mr B was left believing the al egations were being pursued for four
months longer than necessary. This caused him avoidable distress
and anxiety.
65
5. Remedy examples
Adult Social Care
Safeguarding
Remedy
Mr A is elderly and has dementia. Because of the effect his
We recommended the home:
behaviour was having on his wife, his family secured a placement in
a specialised wing of a nursing home.
> pay £250 each to Mrs
A and her daughter
He stayed there three months before his daughter removed him
in recognition of the
because of the home’s failure to prevent him from wandering. On
distress and anxiety they
one occasion Mr A was missing for some time until a neighbour,
had been caused by the
who lived near his former home, reported that he had turned up
home’s faults during Mr
there. The home’s staff failed to realise he was missing – the
A’s stay there.
alarm was raised when his family visited but could not locate him.
In her complaint the daughter raised other concerns about quality
of medical oversight, level of stimulation and quality of care in the
home.
The home properly reported the incident to the Care Quality
Commission and to the council. The council convened a
safeguarding strategy meeting within two weeks to assess the
situation for Mr A and other residents.
The home’s manager had by then investigated ful y how the
normal security arrangements had failed, and why staff had failed
to spot Mr A’s absence. He accepted that there had been serious
shortcomings. He came to the meeting with a list of planned
actions to prevent further such difficulties. He had identified
practical measures to protect Mr A such as staff training issues
and improving door security arrangements. He wanted to balance
the need to protect residents who might wander with his wish to
ensure the unit was accessible and welcoming to families and other
legitimate visitors.
Mr A’s family accepted that the home had made substantial
improvements after the incident. We concluded that the care
provider had promptly recognised a failure of care, and had taken
appropriate steps to rectify matters.
66
5. Remedy examples
Benefits and debt
recovery
Benefits and discretionary housing payments
Remedy
Mr B has mental health issues and was doing ‘permitted work’ for
We recommended the
a mental health charity. So some of his income should have been
council:
disregarded when assessing his entitlement to benefits. The council
underpaid Mr B for 21 months by £150 a month .
> pay Mr B the unpaid
benefit of £3,150.
During the period he was being underpaid Mr B suffered hardship.
Because Mr B was
He had to sell his car, go to court to fight eviction from his property
vulnerable, and the
and he had a relapse of his mental health. He self harmed and he
period of avoidable
was eventual y sectioned.
distress
Mr B accepted the council was not solely responsible for his mental
> pay him a further £1,000
health relapse, but the debt he was in was clearly a contributory
to acknowledge the
factor. He would not have had the stress of facing eviction had the
impact of its fault.
council paid the correct benefits, and because of his il ness he was
less able to cope with this stress than others would be.
Benefits and debt recovery
Remedy
Mr L appealed against a council’s housing benefit decision but the
We recommended the
council did not review its decision for two years. He received no
council:
benefit during this time but the council did not progress the appeal
> pay Mr L £2,500,
even when he complained.
representing the interest
When the council did carry out a review, it paid him £15,000 in
on £15,000 at 8% over
backdated benefits. Mr L claimed he lost his home because of the
the period of delay.
council’s delay but provided no evidence that he had been evicted.
We used this interest
He also said he had to pay £2,700 in legal fees to help pursue his
rate because it most
appeal, and had incurred avoidable interest charges because he
appropriately reflected
took out loans to survive.
the avoidable interest
charges he had incurred.
> pay Mr L a further £500
to acknowledge the
avoidable frustration
caused by its error. We
did not accept that legal
advice was necessary to
pursue the appeal or that
Mr L had lost his home
as a direct result of the
council’s delay.
67
5. Remedy examples
Benefits and debt
recovery
Benefits and discretionary housing payments
Remedy
Ms N disagreed with decisions about her housing benefit. We found
We recommended the
the council’s letters accompanying decision notices were poorly
council:
worded, implying Ms N’s only recourse was to complain to the
LGSCO. This caused her to lose the opportunity to appeal.
> al ow Ms N a further
month to request a
review or appeal, as
this put her back in the
position she would have
been in had there been
no fault.
Benefits and discretionary housing payments
Remedy
Mr G became self-employed and told the council, so it could review
We recommended the
his benefit entitlement. The council delayed in responding to the
council:
change in circumstances for 18 weeks. The council also failed to
> reconsider Mr G’s claim
respond to complaints.
as a priority and pay him
The delay caused Mr G frustration and uncertainty because he did
£150 to acknowledge
not know what benefit he would receive.
the distress caused
by the delay. We did
not propose a higher
financial remedy because
Mr G did not provide
specific evidence
of hardship, and it
was not known if the
reconsideration would
result in any benefit being
paid.
Benefits and discretionary housing payments
Remedy
Mr B contacted the council to check what his benefit entitlement
We recommended the
would be after he started work. The council told him his benefits
council:
would continue for four weeks after starting work but this advice
> apologise to Mr B
was wrong.
and pay him £150
This caused Mr B financial embarrassment, because he used his
to acknowledge the
wages for other expenses and did not reserve money for rent and
avoidable distress
council tax, and then had to borrow from friends and family.
caused by its fault.
68
5. Remedy examples
Benefits and debt
recovery
Benefits and discretionary housing payments
Remedy
Mr R received council tax benefit for several years. The council
We recommended the
decided Mr R had never been entitled to this benefit so it cancel ed
council:
it retrospectively, which created arrears of over £2,800 on his
council tax account. Mr R disputed the council’s decision and
> reconsider its decision
appealed. He did not pay off the arrears while the appeal was
to take recovery action,
pending. So the council obtained a liability order confirming the
taking account of factors
debt. The council said it would refer the debt to bailiffs if Mr R did
such as how likely it was
not make a repayment arrangement. Mr R agreed to pay off the
to win the appeal, the
arrears in eight monthly instalments but worried he would not be
size of the debt, and Mr
able to keep up the repayments as he had no income at the time.
R’s vulnerability.
He asked to reduce the repayments to £20 a month and the council
> keep a clear record of the
refused.
reasons for its decision
We found the council had based its decision to take recovery
> contact Mr R to ask
action entirely on wanting to recover all the unpaid council tax by
if he still wanted it
the end of the financial year. So it had not considered all relevant
to reconsider the
information in deciding to continue with recovery action while Mr R’s
terms of the payment
benefit appeal was outstanding.
arrangement.
The council had also wrongly told Mr R it was not possible to make
a repayment arrangement for less than £50 a month. This caused
Mr R uncertainty about whether, if the council had considered
matters properly, the threat of bailiff action might have been avoided
and he might have had a repayment arrangement which was easier
to manage.
Benefits and discretionary housing payments
Remedy
Ms L applied for an emergency grant when she moved into her new
We also recommended the
home. The council required her to apply for an emergency loan
council:
before it would consider an application for an emergency grant.
> ensure it applies the
We found the council was wrong to do this because Ms L’s
criteria correctly to
circumstances did not fit the requirements of the emergency loan.
future applications for
As a result of this fault, there was a delay of several weeks before
emergency grants,
Ms L could buy what she needed to set up her new home.
without requiring every
applicant to apply
The council processed a second application for an emergency
grant and provided the goods Ms L needed.
We decided this was a fair remedy.
> for an emergency loan first.
69
5. Remedy examples
Benefits and debt
recovery
Recovery of debt
Remedy
Miss F was subject to immigration control. She was not al owed to
We recommended the
work and could not claim council tax benefit. Her only income was
council:
a payment made by the council using its power under S17 of the
Children Act 1989 to provide support to a child in need.
> apologise and write
off Miss F’s debt for
She got into council tax arrears and the debt was passed to bailiffs.
two council tax years,
The council’s recovery policy did not make clear that the council
including the cost of
can, if it sees fit, reduce or write off a council tax debt.
summonses; a total of
The recovery policy also did not refer to the council’s internal
approximately £850
procedures for considering debt between its own departments.
> review both her council
So the council failed to properly consider writing off the council
tax account for the
tax debt even though it had a policy obligation to undertake such
current year, and the S17
consideration and a legal power to do so. It also failed to consider
payments it was currently
whether Miss F was a vulnerable person and failed to investigate
making.
her complaint.
> review its processes
The council’s faults caused Miss F unnecessary distress.
for liaising with other
departments to identify
exceptional cases, and
devise and publish a
policy for dealing with
debts owed by people
who cannot access
public funds.
Recovery of debt
Remedy
Ms E was issued with a parking ticket which she did not pay. The
We recommended the
council passed the debt to its bailiffs and the bailiffs’ charges were
council:
added to the debt.
> pay Ms E £150, to be
Ms E made an agreement with the bailiffs to pay by monthly
offset against the debt, to
instalments. But the bailiffs then clamped the car.
acknowledge the distress
caused.
Ms E contacted the bailiff company who apologised and removed
the clamp the same day but we found this fault had caused her
significant inconvenience as she could not col ect her daughter from
school.
70
5. Remedy examples
Benefits and debt
recovery
Recovery of debt
Remedy
Mr V was in arrears on his council tax account and had agreed a
We recommended the
payment plan with the council. He was advised that he needed to
council:
make sure that his payments reached the bailiffs by the third of
each month in order to prevent further action being taken.
> apologise
Mr V did so but bailiffs continued to visit and leave letters
> pay Mr V £1,000 to
threatening seizure of goods. In total 10 bailiffs’ letters were issued
acknowledge the
when they should not have been. This caused significant injustice to
distress caused by the
Mr V’s wife, who became sick with worry and scared to answer the
bailiffs’ repeated and
front door.
unnecessary contact.
> council cancel any bailiff
fees arising from the
letters
> take the debt back from
the bailiffs, and
> monitor payments itself.
Recovery of debt
Remedy
Ms Y set up a standing order to pay her council tax. As there
We recommended the
was no council tax reference number on the standing order form,
council:
payments she made were not al ocated to her account.
> pay Ms Y £1,800 to
Although the council realised the mistake early on, and Ms Y
acknowledge the distress
provided proof of payment several times, it took six years for
caused by the many
the council to resolve the problem. In the meantime the council
summonses, liability
continued to take legal action against her for money she did not
orders and bailiffs letters
owe.
she had received and for
her efforts in pursuing
her complaint over a long
period.
> The council also agreed
to make changes to its
system for dealing with
missing payments.
71
5. Remedy examples
Benefits and debt
recovery
Recovery of debt
Remedy
Mrs G had severe mental health problems and was known to
We recommended that the
the council’s community mental health team. She owed just over
council:
£5,000 council tax, and after other recovery methods had failed the
council obtained a Bankruptcy Order.
> apply for an annulment
of the Bankruptcy Order,
During the proceedings Mrs G’s sister wrote to the council more
and
than once explaining that Mrs G had mental health problems
and could not manage her affairs. We found the council had not
> consider how it could
recorded adequately why the bankruptcy route was chosen, or what
recover the debt by other
checks had been made into Mrs G’s circumstances, in particular
means.
with the adult social care team.
Recovery of debt
Remedy
Mr T stopped on a Red Route and incurred a parking penalty
We recommended the
charge notice. He did not pay the penalty until the council issued an
council:
order for recovery.
> apologise and
By the time the council received Mr T’s payment it had already
> pay Mr T £300 to
referred the debt to its bailiffs. The council did not tell the bailiffs the
acknowledge the distress
penalty had been paid and so the bailiffs enforced the penalty by
caused to him by the
clamping Mr T’s car early in the morning.
bailiffs’ actions,
Mr T paid the penalty and charges and his car was released
> pay Mr T £180 to
straight away. He contacted the council as soon as its offices
acknowledge his
opened and officers confirmed payment had been made.
avoidable time and
The bailiffs promptly refunded his charges but there was further
trouble in pursuing the
fault on the part of the council when it delayed for eight months in
refund of the duplicate
refunding the duplicate payment of the penalty.
payment.
72
5. Remedy examples
Benefits and debt
recovery
Recovery of debt
Remedy
Mr H’s cheque paid to the council’s bailiffs bounced, and the bailiffs
We recommended the
levied a fee for this. The bailiffs also charged twice for a visit made
council:
on two liability orders at the same time.
> remind its bailiffs they
The council then failed to respond to Mr H’s correspondence about
may not lawful y charge
this. So Mr H suffered a financial loss and had the avoidable time
for bounced cheques
and trouble of bringing his complaint to the LGSCO when, if the
when acting on its behalf
council had responded to Mr H’s letters, it could have resolved the
in collecting council tax
matter itself.
debt;
> refund the wrongly
incurred fees;
> apologise for not
responding to Mr H’s
correspondence;
> offer a meeting with Mr H
to answer his questions
about how the remaining
debt was calculated; and
> credit the oldest debt on
Mr H’s account with £150
to acknowledge the time
and trouble caused by its
fault.
Recovery of debt
Remedy
Mr X’s son attended a council nursery and the invoices the council
We recommended the
sent to Mr X were not correct. There was a shortfall of £50 per
council:
month. By the time the council told Mr X about its error he had
> met Mr X to devise
accumulated a substantial debt without having had the opportunity
a more manageable
to plan how to repay it.
repayment plan
The council set out a repayment plan of £67 per week. This was
> apologise
onerous for Mr X and failed to take account of the fact that the debt
had arisen from council fault.
> pay Mr X £150 (to be
offset against the debt)
The council’s failure to recognise the impact of its fault meant that
to acknowledge the
Mr X then had the time and trouble of bringing his complaint to the
avoidable time and
LGSCO.
trouble caused to him by
its fault.
73
5. Remedy examples
Benefits and debt
recovery
Recovery of debt
Remedy
Ms B incurred two parking penalties. She did not receive the
We recommended the council:
documents about the penalties so was unaware of any debt until
the bailiffs arrived to col ect the first penalty, fol owing a court order.
> apologise to Ms B
The bailiffs did not tell the council that they had found Ms B at a
> pay her a further
different address to that on the warrant, which would have required
£650 in recognition
the council to reapply to court.
of the avoidable
stress, frustration, lost
Ms B contacted the council to find out if she had incurred any other
opportunity, and lost
parking penalties and the council told her she had not. This was
interest, caused by its
not in fact the case and the bailiffs arrived in respect of the second
faults
parking penalty a matter of days later.
> We also recommended
Ms B made full payment to the bailiffs in respect of both penalties
the council make sure
and began the process of appealing to court. She also complained
that its staff were ful y
to the council. The council said it would refund all that she had paid
aware of the correct
if the court ruled in her favour.
procedures to follow
When the court granted permission to Ms B to appeal, the council
refused to make any refund and wrongly said Ms B had to file new
paperwork. It continued to insist that this was the case, failing
to fol ow the correct legal procedure, until after the LGSCO was
involved, six months later.
The injustice to Ms B was significant. The second bailiff visit caused
her significant stress and further charges; she lost the opportunity
for an early resolution in court; she suffered significant frustration,
and the time and trouble of bringing her complaint to the LGSCO
when the council did not make a full refund after tel ing her it would;
and the council’s continuing refusal to follow statutory guidance
on the appeal process prolonged her uncertainty about the final
outcome of her appeal. She was also out of pocket by £1,000
from the penalties and associated charges and fees. The council
refunded this, and cancel ed the parking penalties, so Ms B avoided
the stress of continuing with her appeal. But these actions did not
remedy all the injustice arising from its faults.
74
5. Remedy examples
Benefits and debt
recovery
Recovery of debt
Remedy
Ms J received a decision that she was no longer entitled to benefits.
We recommended the council:
She appointed a solicitor to appeal against this decision on her
> apologise to Ms J and her
behalf. The council did not respond to correspondence from the
representative
solicitor about her appeal and refused to consider the appeal
because it had not been raised by Ms J herself. T
> progress an appeal against
the benefit decision
he council referred the recovery of Ms J’s overpayment of benefits
> pay £300 for the distress
to its bailiffs but it referred the wrong amount. The council also sent
caused by six bailiffs
Ms J a statement showing a zero balance outstanding. So Ms J did
letters sent after her
not have clarity about the amount she owed, which was essential to
solicitor had requested an
plan her repayment of the debt.
appeal
> pay £50 for the avoidable
confusion caused by
the error in referring
the wrong overpayment
figure to the bailiffs
> pay £500 for the
prolonged uncertainty
caused by the 18 month
delay in the council
reviewing its decision
on Ms J’s benefit
entitlement;
> pay £125 for the impact
of the further delay of six
months in referring Ms J’s
appeal to tribunal;
> pay £200 towards Ms J’s
legal costs. Ms J could
have made an appeal
and raised a complaint
herself, so we did not
consider it appropriate
to recommend full
reimbursement of her
legal fees. But the council
had entered into frequent
correspondence with the
solicitor while declining
to accept an appeal from
him on behalf of Ms J.
This added unnecessary
and additional cost to Ms
J’s legal costs.
75
5. Remedy examples
Children and
Education
Adoption and fostering
Remedy
Mr M had two adopted daughters, E and F. The council removed his
We recommended the
adoption al owance for E, and reduced the al owance for F.
council:
We found the council had failed to properly consider Mr M’s
> repay the allowance for
circumstances and failed to make a proper decision to introduce a
E for the missed period,
new policy.
reinstating the allowance
until E reached 25
or finished ful -time
education, whichever
was sooner, with an
annual review. The
council had already put
in place a mechanism to
make sure no adoption
allowance stopped
automatical y when a
child reached 18, and
undertaken to check
whether other adoptive
parents had been
similarly affected
> review its information
documents to ensure
they were clear that
payments did not always
stop when a child
reached 18. With respect
to F, it was likely Mr M
had in fact benefited
from the council’s
delay in applying new
statutory regulations.
But we recommended
the council seek legal
advice and carry out a
consultation on the policy
of reducing adoption
allowances which it had
introduced.
76
5. Remedy examples
Children and
Education
Adoption and fostering
Remedy
Mr and Mrs J were deregistered as foster carers fol owing a child
We recommended the
protection investigation. They appealed, and the independent
council:
review recommended that the council should reinstate them.
> met Mr and Mrs J without
The council accepted the recommendation but did not place any
any further delay to
children with them, instead paying them a retainer until it had
discuss its reasons for
completed an investigation into their complaint about the conduct
reassessing them
of the child protection investigation. The complaint was upheld
and the council accepted the findings. The council then decided to
> provide written
deregister Mr and Mrs J again.
confirmation of its
decision and the reasons
They appealed, and the independent review again recommended
for it.
the council should reinstate them. The council’s decision on this
recommendation should have been made within 12 days but the
> pay Mr and Mrs J £450
council did not make it for eight months. It decided to reassess
to acknowledge the
Mr and Mrs J rather than reinstate them. It did not provide clear
distress caused by the
reasons why it was not accepting the independent review’s
council’s significant delay
recommendation.
in communicating its
decision, and said that
We found this delay, and the failure to provide reasons for the
any further delay would
eventual decision, caused Mr and Mrs J avoidable uncertainty
justify an additional
about their future as foster carers.
payment.
77
5. Remedy examples
Children and
Education
Adoption and fostering
Remedy
Mr and Mrs V were approved as prospective adoptive parents for
We recommended the
one child aged between one and six years.
council:
The council placed two siblings, aged six and seven, with them.
> backdate the higher
Both children had serious and long term special needs but the
al owance to the start of
council had not carried out a proper assessment of those needs
the placement, minus the
before placing the children with Mr and Mrs V.
sum of £500 which the
The council was not clear with Mr and Mrs V that their home
council had already paid
was not big enough, or that it would not contribute to the costs of
for cleaning.
moving.
> pay Mr and Mrs V
There was confusion between the council and Mr and Mrs V’s
a further £2,000 to
home authority about who should be providing support, and the
acknowledge the
council did not put in place therapy which the adoption panel had
additional and avoidable
recommended should start before the children were introduced to
distress over a period
prospective adopters.
of 18 months caused by
The council had accepted the difficulties caused to Mr V’s work
its faults, including the
arrangements by the unexpected demands of the children and paid
inconvenience of having
a reasonable contribution to these unexpected expenses.
to move earlier than
expected
It had also paid £5,000 towards the costs of moving and as Mr and
Mrs V had expected to move anyway when the children reached
> review its procedures to
secondary school age, this was a fair contribution. But it had not
ensure that it integrates
acknowledged the impact of its other faults.
the advice of the
adoption panel into its
We found that if the council had properly assessed the children’s
adoption support plans
needs before the placement began, it was likely it would have paid
a higher al owance for their care from the outset. Its failure to do so
meant that Mr and Mrs V had had additional expenses of cleaning
and repairs which meant they could not pay for holidays and family
days out.
We also found that if therapy had been started as recommended,
and the children’s social worker had visited regularly, it is likely the
children’s difficulties would have been mitigated, reducing Mr and
Mrs V’s stress and distress.
78
5. Remedy examples
Children and
Education
Adoption and fostering
Remedy
Ms Z fostered a child, K, for several years. The council had delayed
We recommended the council
in adopting a ‘staying put’ policy for children leaving care and when
K went to university (whilst remaining in Ms Z’s home) the council
> provide K with the
calculated a new weekly support rate instead of paying her the weekly
accommodation allowance
amount it had already calculated for her pathway plan. The council
it had calculated in her
also failed to explain to Ms Z what financial and other support would
pathway plan, backdating
be available to her if her role changed from foster carer to landlord,
any underpayment to date,
so she did not have the necessary information to be able to make an
so that she could repay
informed decision when agreeing that K could remain with her.
Ms Z.
She suffered financial loss, and she also suffered stress and
> pay Ms Z £350 to
frustration as she tried, unsuccessful y, to find out from the council
acknowledge the distress
what support would be available; information that should have been
its faults had caused her.
immediately available.
Final y we recommended
the council prepare and
When Ms Z complained, the council sent her a copy of the response
introduce a ‘staying put’
it had made to a complaint from K, instead of addressing the separate
policy as a matter of
issues Ms Z had raised.
urgency.
The council then refused to investigate her complaint further. If the
council had investigated the complaint, it was likely it could have
resolved it and Ms Z would then have avoided the further time and
trouble of bringing the matter to the LGSCO.
79
5. Remedy examples
Children and
Education
Child protection
Remedy
Mr H agreed to move out of the family home while the council
We recommended the
assessed whether he was a risk to his children. There were delays
council:
in the council’s assessment, which eventual y concluded that
> also pay Mr H £300 to
Mr H did not present a risk. Mr H had had to stay away from home
acknowledge the distress
for between four and eight weeks longer than he would have done if
caused to him by the
the council had carried out the assessment, and communicated the
unnecessary delay in
outcome, promptly.
returning to the family
Mr H had not incurred any additional living expenses during this
home.
period and although he said he had lost his job because of the
council’s faults, there was no evidence to support this.
The council had already apologised to Mr H and undertaken
to review its work al ocation procedures as a result of its own
investigation of his complaint.
80
5. Remedy examples
Children and
Education
Child protection
Remedy
Mr L is the business partner of an adult who works with children.
We decided the payment
Concerns were raised about the behaviour of his business partner
of £500 was a fair remedy,
and the council began a safeguarding investigation.
because a significant
The council considered Mr L’s suitability to work with children as
amount of distress inevitably
part of the same investigation, when it should have considered the
arises from a safeguarding
issue separately. It also did not give him the opportunity to respond
investigation.
to an al egation made about him.
The fault was in how this was
During the investigation Mr L was suspended as a school governor.
carried out, not the decisions
He was reinstated when the then Independent Safeguarding
to investigate and make the
Authority confirmed he was still suitable to work with children.
referral to the Independent
Safeguarding Authority.
The council in its own investigation of Mr L’s complaint accepted
And his reappointment as a
there had been flaws in the safeguarding investigation which had
governor ensured that any
caused Mr L distress. It offered him a payment of £500 to remedy
damage to his reputation was
this. Mr L did not feel this adequately reflected the distress caused
limited.
to him over a period of three years.
So the injustice being
remedied was the additional
distress arising from being
deprived of the opportunity to
respond to the al egations.
81
5. Remedy examples
Children and
Education
Child protection
Remedy
Ms G made two complaints to the council. One was about a
We recommended the
safeguarding investigation into her actions as a parent. The second
council:
was about historic events dating from her time as a child in the
council’s care.
> apologise
There were significant delays in the investigation of both
> reconsider the findings
complaints. The council’s investigation of the historic complaint
of its complaint
identified faults in the professional practice of council staff while Ms
investigation
G was in its care, and also flaws in case recording.
> provide a written
The council did not accept the findings of the investigation but failed
response with clear
to provide reasons for this.
reasons,
We found the delays caused Ms G avoidable frustration and
> undertake a thorough
distress, and the failure to provide reasons caused her uncertainty
review of its complaints
about the outcome of her complaint.
handling processes to
prevent similar delays in
the future.
> pay Ms G £250 to
acknowledge the
impact on her of its
faults in considering her
complaints.
82
5. Remedy examples
Children and
Education
Child protection
Remedy
Mr J’s son was the subject of a child protection investigation which
We recommended the
included a core assessment. Mr J complained to the council that
council:
the core assessment contained errors and did not include parental
views.
> add Mr J’s document to
the file within 28 days,
The council upheld his complaint and agreed to correct the errors
without charge
and add a document setting out Mr J’s views to the file. It also
agreed to review the assessment and support package. But there
> write to confirm it had
done so
was a delay of five months in placing Mr J’s addendum on file and
the council said Mr J would have to pay a charge for this. There
> pay Mr J £200 to
was also a delay of eight months in carrying out the review.
acknowledge the
avoidable frustration
The council did provide additional interim support during this
arising from its delays.
period so we found these delays had caused Mr J frustration and
uncertainty about whether the council would actual y resolve his
During the investigation we
complaint in the way it had agreed to.
had also found the council
had no records of letters it
said it had sent to Mr J, so we
recommended the council:
> write to Mr J explaining
what steps it would be
taking to ensure its staff
were properly trained in
their duty to record all
dealings with service
users.
83
5. Remedy examples
Children and
Education
Children in care and leaving care
Remedy
R, a young person with autism, was looked after by the council. We
We recommended the
found that the council put him in placements that could not meet
council:
his needs, moved him from one placement to another too often,
and placed him too far away from his family for contact to be easily
> pay R £12,000, to
arranged.
be held in trust, to
acknowledge his lost
The council failed to monitor his care properly and took too long to
education and the
take action when he complained about things. At some placements
significant distress, over
he suffered abuse.
several years, arising
For long periods he had little or no education.
from its faults
> review R’s files and
arrange for a fresh
assessment by an
independent medical
expert, deferring any
further decisions until
the outcome of that
assessment.
> review its procedures
and its provision for
children with autism.
84
5. Remedy examples
Children and
Education
Children in care and leaving care
Remedy
Ms C became homeless at the age of 16 when she gave birth to a
The council had offered to
son. She asked the council for help.
pay Ms C £3,500 to remedy
The housing department and her health visitor both made referrals
the injustice arising from
to the children’s services department. Children’s services made an
its faults - £2,500 to repay
initial assessment of her son, but took no further action about this,
the debts and £1,000 to
and did not carry out any assessment of Ms C herself.
acknowledge her distress.
The housing department housed Ms C and her son. Ms C
We decided this was a fair
struggled, and three months later she attempted suicide. The
remedy for the avoidable
council began a child protection investigation regarding her son.
expenses, and the significant
distress, she had suffered.
The council took Ms C’s son, and, a year later, her newborn
daughter, into care. The children eventual y moved to live with a
relative.
We found the council had failed to assess Ms C as a child in need
when she asked for help at the age of 16. Had it done, the duty
to provide her with suitable accommodation would have fal en to
the children’s services team not the housing department, and Ms
C would not have had to pay rent and council tax. As it was, she
incurred avoidable debts total ing £2,500. She also did not acquire
the status of a ‘looked-after’ child and the leaving care benefits this
would have brought. The council did make some payments to Ms C,
but she did not receive the full support to which she was entitled.
85
5. Remedy examples
Children and
Education
Special guardianship and kinship care
Remedy
Mrs M was looking after her niece, N, as N’s mother was an
We recommended the
alcoholic who could not look after her, and her father had suddenly
council:
disappeared.
> change its procedures,
Mrs M complained that she was not receiving the foster carer’s
giving families taking
al owances and support she was entitled to. The council said that
in children proper
she was not entitled to this support because she was not an agreed
information,
foster carer, but had offered to take in her niece, which was defined
as kinship care.
> offer Mrs M the
opportunity of becoming
We found that the council had asked Mrs M to look after her niece,
an agreed foster
and had not explained to her that it would treat it as a private
carer, with backdated
arrangement, not acquiring the rights of financial and on-going
allowances.
support, unless she became an agreed foster carer.
Special guardianship and kinship care
Remedy
Mrs D agreed to care for her nephews for a week when their
We recommended the
parents were arrested. The children stayed with her for several
council:
months but when Mrs D asked the council for support, it said this
> pay Mrs D the
was a private arrangement.
allowances she should
Mrs D complained. The council’s investigation found that Mrs D had
have had during the
been misled and coerced by the children’s social worker.
period her nephews
were living with her, as
she had had to meet
the expenses of caring
for them from her own
pocket.
86
5. Remedy examples
Children and
Education
Education out of school
Remedy
Ms V moved house into the council’s area and applied for a school
We recommended the
place for her daughter W. One of the schools she named on the
council:
application form was in a neighbouring council’s area.
> pay £300 for the lost
The home council contacted the neighbouring council to check
education,
availability in that school. But it did not fol ow this up when the
> pay £50 to acknowledge
neighbouring council did not respond.
Ms V’s avoidable time
W did not receive an offer of a place for nine weeks. This was much
and trouble in pursuing
longer than the 20 school days the home council’s policy said an in-
officers and making her
year application should take. So W missed four weeks of education,
complaint
and Ms V had to constantly chase both councils about the school
place.
With no place on offer, Ms V was then put to the trouble of
complaining to the LGSCO.
.
Education out of school
Remedy
L was assaulted at school. She transferred to another school but
We recommended the
suffered a further assault which left her too frightened for her safety
council:
to attend.
> apologise to both L and
The council did not acknowledge it had a duty to provide education
her father
and L missed a total of five terms. Her father was put to a significant
amount of time and trouble in corresponding with the council to try
> pay L £6,000, to be used
for educational purposes,
to resolve the matter.
for her lost education,
> pay £200 to
acknowledge the distress
arising to her from fault
by the council at a time
when she was already
vulnerable.
> pay her father £600
to acknowledge his
avoidable time and
trouble in trying to get
the council to fulfil its
statutory duty.
87
5. Remedy examples
Children and
Education
Education out of school
Remedy
Mrs T’s son Y had a statement of SEN because of global
We recommended in addition,
development delay. The council failed to provide him with a
the council:
school place (or suitable ful -time education) for 16 months after
he reached compulsory school age, and failed to implement the
> pay Mrs T £3,600, to
provision on his statement.
be used for educational
purposes, for the
Mrs T had to continual y negotiate with and chal enge the council
three terms in which Y
during this period, causing her distress which would have been
received no education
avoided if the council had acted in accordance with the law and
at al ; and a further £500
SEN Code of Practice. And the loss of early education caused Y
to acknowledge her time
further delays in his development and learning.
and trouble in trying to
There was some part-time provision over two terms. The council
get the council to comply
had already identified a suitable school place and arranged for ful -
with the law and statutory
time classroom support by the time we made enquiries.
guidance.
School admissions and school appeals
Remedy
Ms R moved house and made an in-year application for a primary
We recommended the
school place
.
council: :
The council said it had no school vacancies. It did not offer any
> pay Ms R £1,200, to be
place at all for more than a term, and then offered a place at a
used for educational
school well beyond the statutory walking distance.
purposes, for the missed
During this period the council did not offer any right of appeal or any
term of education.
alternative education. We found the council should have considered
> refer the case to its fair
the application under its Fair Access Protocol for hard-to-place
access panel to consider
pupils, and considered the child as an ‘excepted pupil’ if there were
whether the al ocated
no vacancies.
school was within a
reasonable distance.
The council did so and
al ocated a place at a
nearer school.
School admissions and school appeals
Mr N identified a shorter route to school than that used by the
council to calculate home-school distance for admissions purposes.
We found the council had departed from its measuring procedure
because of the unusual location of Mr N’s house, and in fact Mr N’s
shorter route complied with the procedure. The error did not deprive
Mr N of a place at the school but rectifying it did give Mr N a higher
position on the ‘continued interest’ (waiting) list.
88
5. Remedy examples
Children and
Education
School admissions and school appeals
Remedy
E was 14 and when her family moved house the council failed to
We would normal y
al ocate her a school place. We found the council had failed to
recommend a sum of £2,400
apply its Fair Access Protocol properly and because of this E was
for two terms of missed
out of school for two terms.
education.
In this case, we
recommended the council:
> use this sum to buy E a
laptop with educational
software, and provide
catch-up tuition, and pay
her the balance.
We recommended the same
remedy for similar complaints
about this council.
School admissions and school appeals
Remedy
Mrs F said that she did not get places for her children at her
We decided that the offer of
preferred school because the council made a mistake when it
places at the school was a fair
measured the home-school distance, and did not take account of a
remedy for the complaint.
connecting path near to her home.
She said the appeal panel did not properly consider this.
The council carried out a site visit in response to our enquiries.
It agreed the connecting path should be included in its distance
calculations.
The council recalculated the home-school distances and decided
that Mrs F’s children should have been offered places at her
preferred school.
School admissions and school appeals
Remedy
Ms J appealed for a place in year 3 for her daughter Z. The panel’s
We recommended a fresh
decision that her admission would cause prejudice to the school
hearing with a different clerk
was based solely on the physical size of the classroom. But
and panel.
the information provided to the panel about this was wrong. We
recommended a fresh hearing with a different clerk and panel.
89
5. Remedy examples
Children and
Education
School transport
Remedy
Although Mrs Y and her son D lived within the normal walking
We recommended the
distance to school, D had disabilities that made it impossible for him
council:
to walk unaccompanied, and Mrs Y’s disabilities made it impossible
for her to accompany him.
> provide school transport,
review its policies and
We found that the council had failed to consider whether there was
procedures
an exceptional need to award free school transport.
> pay Mrs Y £300 for
When it eventual y did consider the point, it failed to do so properly
the avoidable distress
(including failing to consider its duties to the family under equalities
caused by the council’s
law) and delayed in completing the process.
faults.
School transport
Remedy
J is autistic with a statement of SEN. Her school was more than
We recommended the
three miles from home so the council provided transport in the form
council:
of a place in a minibus.
> provide free transport
When J reached the age of 14 the council decided she could travel
(either by paying the cost
to school by public transport and issued her with a free bus pass
of the parent’s travel or
instead. J’s parents appealed, saying J could not travel safely by
by reinstating the minibus
bus on her own.
place)
The council agreed she could not travel unaccompanied, but said
> reimburse J’s parents for
it would only provide the minibus one way because a parent was
the cost of the bus fares
available to accompany her on the journey home. It refused to fund
incurred to date
the cost of the parent’s travel.
> review and revise its
We found that the council’s duty to the child, which it had accepted
transport policy taking
was an ‘eligible child’, was to provide suitable free transport, which
into account the law and
this arrangement was not.
national guidance.
90
5. Remedy examples
Children and
Education
Special educational needs (SEN)
Remedy
C was 16 years old and had autistic spectrum disorder. He needed
We recommended the
significant levels of support at school.
council:
We found the council delayed in providing services, planning
> pay C £750 to
his transition to 16+ education, and responding to his mother’s
acknowledge the impact
complaint.
of its faults over a
We also found that inaccurate assessments were not amended in
two-year period. The
a timely way. These faults caused anxiety and uncertainty about
remedy would have
C’s future services; frustration with the council which led to a
been higher but there
breakdown in trust and relations; and avoidable time and trouble in
were times (due to her
pursuing both the service needs and the complaint.
frustration) when C’s
mother did not engage
The council had already apologised for failings identified, and it took
with professionals,
action to set transition planning in progress when it received our
and she also refused
enquiry letter.
interim services offered,
although her reason for
this was that C did not
cope well with change.
Special educational needs (SEN)
Remedy
J had a statement of SEN. When her family moved to a new area
We recommended the
and J changed schools, the council failed to issue a new statement
council:
of SEN for two terms. J missed some provision because of this.
> fund additional provision
We recommended the council fund additional provision for J to
for J to make up for what
make up for what she had missed, and pay her mother £250 to
she had missed,
acknowledge the time and trouble she had spent chasing officers
> pay her mother £250
and making her complaint.
to acknowledge the
time and trouble she
had spent chasing
officers and making her
complaint.
91
5. Remedy examples
Children and
Education
Special educational needs (SEN)
Remedy
Mr K’s daughter M had a statement of SEN which included
We recommended the council:
provision of a Teacher of the Deaf (ToD).
> pay Mr K £150
Her regular ToD had a planned absence and the council failed to
arrange suitable cover. When Mr K complained, the council did
> review its support
arrange suitable cover.
services for hearing
impaired and deaf
The regular ToD returned to work but when she had a second
children, taking account
planned absence the council again failed to arrange suitable cover
of the views of their
in time.
parents.
The school did provide other extra support, but M missed six
sessions with a ToD and Mr K had the avoidable stress and anxiety
of having to pursue the council a second time.
Special educational needs (SEN)
Remedy
D has a sensory impairment. The council failed to plan holistical y
We recommended the council:
for her transfer to post-16 education, so she lost the opportunity
> arrange for D to transfer
to start on time at an independent specialist col ege, a placement
to the col ege at the start
recommended by all the professionals working with her.
of the next academic
Fault in its placement and appeal processes caused further delay
year.
in resolving the matter. We recommended the council arrange for D
> pay D £1,500 for the
to transfer to the col ege at the start of the next academic year. We
loss of three terms of
also recommended the council pay D £1,500 for the loss of three
specialist provision.
terms of specialist provision. The figure reflects the fact that D did
The figure reflects the
receive some education during that period, but it fell significantly
fact that D did receive
short of meeting her needs.
some education during
that period, but it fell
significantly short of
meeting her needs.
92
5. Remedy examples
Environment and
public protection
Anti-social behaviour
Remedy
Mr W complained the council had not acted properly to stop anti-
We recommended the council:
social behaviour on land immediately behind his home.
> provide Mr W with a
The council’s actions had been unsuccessful and Mr and Mrs W
written apology for not
had to keep cal ing the police and the fire brigade.
providing him with regular
As a result of investigating Mr W’s complaint, the council sought
updates about what
advice about planning permission for an industrial fence.
actions it was taking to
sort out this issue.
When the planning authority said this type of fencing was unlikely
to get planning permission, the council did not pursue the matter
> either:
further, or provide Mr W with any updates about its intentions. Mr
• submit a planning
and Mrs W had believed the situation would soon be sorted but
application for a
instead experienced continuing distress.
fence without further
delay, and keep Mr
W informed of its
progress; or
• within a reasonable
timescale (three
months maximum),
explore further
possible fencing
options with Mr W and
the planning authority.
If the only fencing
proposal likely to be
successful would
not be fit for purpose
(for example, low
and decorative, and
therefore unlikely to
reduce the anti-social
behaviour) it should
> write to Mr W and explain
the reasons why it will not
use public funds to submit
a planning application
that is unlikely to be
successful.
93
5. Remedy examples
Environment and
public protection
Anti-social behaviour
Remedy
Mr A complained that the council took too long to dispose of a
We recommended the council:
derelict property that it owned next door to him, failed to keep it
secure from trespassers, and failed to maintain trees along the
> market the property
boundary.
quickly
We found that the council had failed to give priority to disposing of
> do work to the trees
the property, and the sale had been delayed unnecessarily for six
> pay Mr A £500 to
months. During this period Mr A and his family had suffered more
acknowledge the distress
nuisance and worry than they need have done.
arising to him from the
delay
> start a review of its
procedures for disposing
of residential properties in
its ownership
Cemeteries and crematoria
Mr K’s grandfather’s ashes were buried in a double plot in a
cemetery 30 years prior to Mr K’s complaint
. Rows were marked,
but at that time the individual graves (30cm by 30cm) were not.
When his grandmother died, Mr K asked the council to bury his
grandmother’s ashes in the same grave. On the morning of the
interment, council workers visited the cemetery to open the plot.
They could not find it but were unable to tell Mr K this until the
family arrived for the ceremony. This caused Mr K and his family
significant distress.
The council investigated Mr K’s complaint and found that record
keeping and plot marking were poor. It worked with the families of
those buried in neighbouring plots to identify Mr K’s grandfather’s
plot, and arranged for it to be opened for his grandmother’s ashes.
94
5. Remedy examples
Environment and
public protection
Environmental health
Remedy
Mr H complained about the council’s handling of his complaints
We recommended the council:
about noise from a factory next door.
> pay Mr H £500 for his lost
A council officer investigated but concluded that the owners of the
amenity in this period
factory had a defence against the noise complaints, so he could
take no action.
> pay £500 towards the
professional fees he
Three months later a new officer took over the post, and she
incurred after the first
concluded that there was a problem. She carried out testing and
officer wrongly concluded
agreed a programme of works to reduce noise, but the owners
the council could not take
delayed in carrying this out.
action.
The council prepared to serve a noise abatement notice but did not
do so because production at the site ended.
We found an inconsistency of approach between the two officers
who dealt with Mr H’s complaint. The second officer took the
correct approach and identified measures that could be taken.
So Mr H suffered avoidable noise nuisance for a period of three
months. Environmental health
Environmental health
Remedy
Mr S complained that his local council failed to take adequate
We recommended the council:
action in response to his complaints about odour and noise from the
> ensure that in future it
restaurant next door to him.
keeps detailed records of
We found that the council acted properly when he first reported the
all letters, cal s and visits
cooking smel s. Officers visited the site, got evidence of a statutory
about such complaints
nuisance and served an abatement notice on the restaurateur. But
> pay Mr S £2,000 to
we were not satisfied that the council took enough action to ensure
acknowledge the loss of
that the notice was then complied with.
amenity caused by its
The council did not keep proper records of the complaints that Mr
delay in taking effective
S made, or of the visits that it says that it made. The council issued
action.
another abatement notice, a year after the original one, and started
legal action against the restaurant to stop the nuisance.
If the council had kept proper records, it could have started this
action a year sooner.
95
5. Remedy examples
Environment and
public protection
Environmental health
Remedy
Mr A reported a squirrel infestation to the council. The council
We recommended the council:
carried out an initial visit within five working days, and subsequently
carried out baiting visits and proofing works.
> apologise to Mr A
But over a period of seven weeks it did not tell Mr A what action it
> pay £250 to acknowledge
was taking. Mr A reported the continuing problem and the impact it
the avoidable distress
was having on his sleep and general health, since he had a medical
caused by the
condition exacerbated by stress.
council’s failures of
communication.
He asked the council’s officer to knock on his door when attending,
or to update him by telephone or email if he was not at home.
He continued to be disturbed by the noise, which occurred day and
night, and eventual y spent all his time in his kitchen, sleeping in
there on a camp bed.
The council then delayed for six weeks in responding to Mr A’s
complaint and did not tell him how he could escalate it to the next
stage. These failings caused Mr A distress and put him to some
time and trouble.
96
5. Remedy examples
Environment and
public protection
Taxis and private hire vehicles
Remedy
Mr P, a licensed taxi driver, complained that the council issued him
The council apologised to
with a warning letter about his behaviour, fol owing a complaint from
Mr P and paid him £150 to
a member of the public, without first obtaining his views.
acknowledge the upset he
The council accepted that it had been wrong to do this, and
had been caused.
that it had not fol owed its own procedures for dealing with such
We decided this was a
complaints.
satisfactory remedy.
Taxis and private hire vehicles
Remedy
Mr T is a taxi driver. When he complained about the behaviour of
We recommended the council:
taxi marshals, the marshals made counter allegations.
> apologise to Mr T
The council did not properly consider Mr T’s complaint, or give him
> keep better records of
an opportunity to refute the al egations, before asking its licensing
complaints made about
sub-committee to decide whether to revoke Mr T’s licence.
taxi drivers and the action
The council also delayed in taking statements from witnesses and
taken to investigate them;
did not ensure it took them in an independent and transparent way.
> give all parties to
We could not conclude these faults affected the final outcome.
a complaint equal
But we found the faults had caused Mr T uncertainty about the
opportunity to provide
fairness of the outcome. This had effectively been remedied by our
evidence;
investigation.
> provide clear reasons for
deciding to refer a case
to the licensing sub-
committee;
> review its procedures for
taking witness statements;
> send copies of minutes
and decisions to affected
parties within a month of
the relevant hearing.
97
5. Remedy examples
Environment and
public protection
Waste management
Remedy
Mrs J had a medical condition which meant she could not move her
We recommended the council:
bins to and from the roadside col ection point. She had received
assisted col ections at her former address. She asked for the same
> apologise and pay Mrs J
service at her new house.
£100 to acknowledge the
impact of its faults.
On many occasions her bin was not emptied. At other times, it
was emptied but not moved back to the storage area. On returning
In different circumstances we
home she had to try to move the bin herself so she could get her
would not have recommended
car back on her property.
a financial remedy. But the
The council and its contractors accepted there were problems with
impact of the council’s faults
the bin col ections which occurred intermittently over a period of
was significant in this case,
more than a year and caused Mrs J distress and inconvenience.
because of Mrs J’s medical
condition, and because of the
Mrs J’s main concern was to have a consistent assisted bin
council’s repeated failure to
col ection. By the time we investigated, the council had already
resolve the complaint over
taken steps to ensure it did not miss her bin in the future.
such a long time.
98
5. Remedy examples
Housing
Homelessness
Remedy
Mr S left home when he was 17 years old fol owing problems with
We recommended the council:
his stepfather. He told the council he had been thrown out of the
family home and was homeless.
> pay Mr S £2,000: £1,000
was to acknowledge
He was given a housing register application form to complete rather
the three-month period
than a homelessness application form. The council did not enter
he was without suitable
this information on its housing computer system for two months.
accommodation, and his
The council then failed to identify that Mr S wanted to make a
particular vulnerability
homelessness application. Mr S had to stay with different friends
because of his age, and
and move around frequently for a total of three months. By the time
£1,000 to acknowledge
the council’s mistake came to light
the significance of the
lost opportunity to obtain
Mr S was 18 and so he was no longer in a priority need group. So
housing
he had lost a crucial opportunity to secure settled accommodation
and support services.
> review the service it
provides to young people
to ensure that they
receive proper housing
assessments.
Homelessness
Remedy
The council placed Mr Y and his daughter in bed and breakfast
We recommended the council:
accommodation while it considered their homelessness application.
> pay him £6,000
It arranged for their belongings to be put into storage. Five months
(£5,000 for the value
later the council decided it did not have a duty to accommodate
of the possessions and
Mr Y. The council then told him that, as its duty to accommodate
£1,000 to acknowledge
him had ended, it was no longer required to look after his
the distress and
belongings. After contacting Mr Y the council arranged for the
inconvenience arising
belongings to be disposed of.
from their disposal) and
We found that the council was wrong to tell Mr Y that once its
review its procedures.
housing duty to him had ended, it was no longer responsible for
looking after his possessions.
The duty to look after possessions continues until the council
considers they are no longer at risk of loss or damage, even if
its housing duty has ended. In this case, Mr Y said he was still
homeless and had nowhere to store his belongings.
99
5. Remedy examples
Housing
Homelessness
Remedy
Miss J told the council she was too frightened to return to her home,
We recommended the council:
because of harassment from her neighbour.
> pay Miss J £250 to
The council thought she would not meet the criteria to qualify
acknowledge the lost
as homeless so it did not take a homelessness application from
opportunity.
her. This was effectively a decision about the outcome of a
homelessness application without the benefit of a right of appeal.
When the council did accept Miss J’s homelessness application
eight weeks later it found she was homeless and in priority need.
Miss J did not find out for another two weeks that she was entitled
to bid in the highest priority band. During that period only one
property became available on which a bid from Miss J would have
been successful.
If the council had taken a homelessness application at the start,
though, Miss J would have been able to bid on properties eight
weeks sooner.
We found it was more likely than not she would have bid
unsuccessful y during that period, but the lost opportunity to change
her situation was an injustice to her.
100
5. Remedy examples
Housing
Homelessness
Remedy
Mr S asked the council for help after being made homeless at the
We recommended the council:
age of 17. There was initial y a dispute between the housing team
and the children’s services team about who should accommodate
> apologise to Mr S
him. The council then offered him interim accommodation. But
and pay him £500
when he returned to the council on the Monday, having just had
to acknowledge the
his 18th birthday, the council said it would not help him any more
additional stress its
because he was now an adult. We found the council did not act
failings caused at what
with urgency when Mr S asked for help after being made homeless,
was already a difficult
did not give reasonable notice of its intention to discontinue interim
time. The figure reflected
accommodation, and did not properly consider exercising its
the fact that Mr S did not
discretion to extend the provision of interim accommodation. There
have to resort to sleeping
were then delays in considering his homelessness application
outside during this period
and he had to spend four weeks sleeping on friends’ sofas before
> review its joint working
finding a place in a hostel.
protocol to ensure a
client-centred approach,
> review its standard
paragraphs to ensure it
makes applicants aware
of their right of appeal
> make officers aware of
the need to consider all
relevant circumstances
when making a decision
to extend or discontinue
interim accommodation.
101
5. Remedy examples
Housing
Homelessness
Remedy
Mr X and his two children were evicted from private rented
We recommended the council:
accommodation. Mr X made a homelessness application to the
council.
> search for suitable
alternative
The council placed them immediately in nightly let accommodation,
accommodation for Mr
consisting of a self-contained flat in a modern purpose-built block.
X and his family, taking
The building was not secure and it was poorly managed and
account of his preference
maintained.
for a property near his
Mr X complained to the council, which agreed to move him to
children’s school
alternative accommodation, and to take action to improve conditions
> search for suitable
in the block. But two years later the council had not yet re-housed
alternative
Mr X and his family, and conditions in the block had not improved.
accommodation for the
We found the council had not provided residents with
other residents it had
accommodation that met the minimum property standards set out
placed in the block;
in its agreement with property providers, or taken effective action to
> work with the managing
improve the situation.
agents to find ways to
Because of this, Mr X and his family had lived for more than two
improve the security
years in unsatisfactory housing conditions.
and management of the
block;
> pay Mr X £750, which
would be credited
to his rent arrears,
to acknowledge the
impact on him and his
family from living in
unsatisfactory housing
conditions. In arriving at
this figure we took into
account that:
• Mr X’s flat was of a
reasonable standard;
• the defects were all in
the communal areas
of the block;
• the problems had
persisted for a
significant period;
• it was not certain how
much longer Mr X and
his family would have
to wait before they
were offered suitable
accommodation.
102
5. Remedy examples
Housing
Housing adaptations
Remedy
Mr A complained that the council had delayed arranging to adapt
We recommended the council:
his home. The investigation showed that it took eight months to
> pay Mr A £1,250 to
assess his needs and a further six months to carry out the work.
recognise the eight
This was within the time limits the council had set itself, but we
month delay in carrying
criticised the council for having time targets which al owed undue
out the adaptations to his
delay to occur.
home.
If the council had acted correctly the adaptations would have been
> review its resources,
completed eight months sooner. During this period Mr A could not
targets and procedures
get up and down stairs unaided.
so that cases were
normal y al ocated to an
occupational therapist
within three months of
referral.
Housing adaptations
Remedy
Ms A successful y bid on a council property and the council
We recommended the council:
assessed the property for adaptations to meet her disabled
> pay Ms A £500 to
husband’s needs.
acknowledge the
She complained that it took the council too long to arrange the
avoidable period of six
adaptations.
weeks that her household
was without the benefit of
We found that unless the family had been able to move into an
the adaptations.
already suitably adapted property there would always have been
some delay in the works being assessed, raised and completed.
But the council should have carried out the initial survey as soon
as Ms A’s bid was successful, rather than waiting until the day
before Ms A moved in. If it had done, the works would have been
completed sooner.
Until the works were complete, Mr A had to sleep in the living room
and could not access a bath or shower.
103
5. Remedy examples
Housing
Housing adaptations
Remedy
Mrs X had two strokes and she could not get upstairs, so she
We recommended the council:
needed a downstairs bathroom.
> pay Mrs X £500 to
She asked for adaptations but it took 10 months for the council to
acknowledge the
carry out assessments and make a formal recommendation to the
avoidable distress caused
housing authority.
to her by its error.
During this period Mrs X stayed with her daughter but she was
frustrated by the delay in being able to resume living independently.
Housing adaptations
Remedy
Mr and Mrs L applied to the council for help in adapting their
We recommended the council:
home, which they had rented for over 20 years, to enable Mr L,
who suffered a degenerative medical condition, to access bathing
> pay Mr and Mrs L £5,000
facilities. Two occupational therapists assessed him as needing an
to acknowledge the
extension to the house so he could be cared for and bathed. The
exceptional distress and
council’s assessment was that the extension was necessary and
inconvenience caused by
appropriate to meet the applicant’s needs. Planning permission was
the council’s error
granted for the extension.
> pay Mr and Mrs L £250
for their avoidable time
The council then refused the grant application, indicating that this
and trouble in pursuing
was because Mr and Mrs L were licensees, not tenants or home
their complaint;
owners. It offered alternative housing, and instal ed a stair lift
and a wet room, but continued to refuse the extension original y
> engage an independent
envisaged.
occupational therapist
to review Mr L’s current
Mr and Mrs L felt they were misled by the council into believing they
needs;
had to consider moving to a council-owned property, although they
> consider the occupational
did not want to move. The current arrangements made the home
therapist’s conclusions;
cramped, affecting the whole family. They did not think any of the
council properties offered had been suitable, and said it was unfair
> provide funding for any
they were being treated differently from a home owner.
provision identified;
> provide funding for
We found the council was at fault in refusing the grant as it did so
respite care for the
on grounds that were not permitted in law.
couple while any works
are completed;
> review its procedures;
> provide training to ensure
that staff are aware of
what is appropriate for
considering applications
for disabled facilities
grants.
104
5. Remedy examples
Housing
Housing al ocations and transfers
Remedy
Ms F placed a bid for a property and had the third highest priority
The council had already
out of those who bid for it. The council arranged a viewing but Ms F
apologised, made Ms F a
could not attend.
direct offer and awarded her
Both bidders with higher priority than Ms F refused the property.
£100.
The council arranged a further viewing, which Ms F was able to
We recommended it:
attend. Ms F had the highest priority of those invited to attend and
> pay a further £500 to
was told she would be offered the property should she choose to
acknowledge the benefits
accept it. However, the bidder with the second highest priority was
of the property she lost.
offered the property and accepted it.
The council explained this situation arose because the officer
attending the viewing mistakenly believed that Ms F was still third in
priority as the paper work he had was incorrect.
Ms F felt obliged to accept the alternative property the council
offered as she had health problems and had been living in a refuge
for 19 months. Although the flat is of a similar size and standard to
the one she lost it does not have all the same amenities and is not
in the same location. It is not in her first area of choice and does not
have a garden, carpets or cooker. Ms F had to live without a cooker
for seven months and had to borrow money from friends to buy
flooring and carpets which she is repaying.
Housing al ocations and transfers
Remedy
Miss C and her mother Mrs C complained the council did not
We recommended the council:
properly consider medical and other information in support of their
> pay £250 to acknowledge
housing application.
Mrs C and Miss C’s
Miss C had been assaulted in the property in which they live.
avoidable distress arising
The council failed to deal with her request for increased priority
from its failure to handle
properly. It did not seek any medical information or put the case to
the situation sensitively
its occupational therapy team as its policy required. It also failed
and in accordance with
to communicate the outcome of a medical questionnaire she
its procedures.
completed. There was a delay deciding to give her an increase in
housing priority.
We did not conclude Mrs C would have received a housing offer
but for the fault. She had some priority already and had never
placed any bids for properties. Mrs C and Miss C had made their
own situation worse by not returning promptly a housing application
form.
105
5. Remedy examples
Housing
Housing al ocations and transfers
Remedy
Mr and Mrs R lived in a small two bedroom flat with their four young
We recommended the council:
children. The two youngest children slept in their parents’ bedroom.
> elevate Mrs R’s priority to
The room shared by the older children was exceptional y small
the highest priority band
(only 6.7 sq m). The council’s al ocations policy al owed staff to
> pay £1,000 to
exercise discretion to adjust the number of bedrooms required by a
acknowledge the
household if the bedrooms in the property were particularly smal .
significant distress,
Mrs R argued the bedrooms were so small that the family should be
inconvenience and time
treated as requiring two bedrooms to relieve the overcrowding and
and trouble she and her
should therefore be placed in the second highest priority band for
family were caused,
rehousing. She asked officers to visit the property to see how small
> pay a further £20 per
the bedrooms were but they declined to do so stating it would have
week until they were re-
no effect on her priority.
housed
After Mrs R complained to us the council checked the size of the
children’s bedroom and assessed it as being only large enough for
one child over five or two children between one and five. It therefore
concluded the family were lacking two bedrooms and placed
Mrs R’s application in the second highest priority band. It backdated
this to when the third child was born. We concluded that if the
council had considered the size of the bedroom when Mrs R asked
it to, the family could have been re-housed much sooner.
The family were living in crowded conditions for much longer than
necessary and Mrs R was suffering from depression.
106
5. Remedy examples
Housing
Housing al ocations and transfers
Remedy
Mr A asked for a housing transfer on health grounds, after a period
We recommended the council:
of harassment by a neighbour.
> issue Mr A with its
The council did not inform Mr A of the outcome of its housing needs
housing needs decision
assessment and did not advise him of his right to request a review
in writing, and include the
of its decision.
necessary information
The council’s record keeping of contact with the police about the
about how to request a
harassment was poor. But the police did not support Mr A’s request
review
for re-housing so the poor record keeping did not affect his housing
> review its record keeping
situation.
practices and ensure its
officers are reminded
of the importance of
adequate record keeping.
Housing al ocations and transfers
Remedy
Mr and Mrs S were living in a ground floor bedsit and successful y
We recommended the council:
bid on a council property. When they viewed it they found it had
> place them in gold band,
no damp proof course. It was also unsuitable for Mrs S’s medical
eligible for two bedroom
needs, as she has a condition which affects her ability to use stairs.
properties, for a further
The council misled Mr and Mrs S into believing they had to take the
three months.
property or they would not get another. When they complained, the
> pay them £750 to
council accepted it should not have offered the property at al , and
acknowledge the
that it had misled them. It offered to remedy this by giving them gold
three-month-period
band priority for a further three months.
they had already
By this time Mrs S was heavily pregnant and, because of her
spent in unsuitable
medical condition, could not cope with moving house; and the gold
accommodation.
band priority was only for one bedroom properties, which would be
too small for the family as soon as the baby was born.
Mr and Mrs S remained in an overcrowded property unsuitable for
Mrs S’s medical condition and with damp in the two downstairs
rooms.
107
5. Remedy examples
Housing
Housing allocations
Remedy
Mr P complained that the council’s al ocation scheme did not give
We recommended the council:
sufficient priority to people whose existing accommodation was
unsuitable for them because of a disability.
> pay £450 to Mr P
to reflect the three
Social housing in the council’s area was provided by housing
months avoidably
associations and Mr P complained that he had not been nominated
spent in unsuitable
for suitable properties and continued to live in unsatisfactory
accommodation,
accommodation.
> review its al ocation
He also al eged that the council’s scheme did not comply with the
scheme to give suitable
law. We concluded that the council’s al ocation scheme gave undue
weight to the required
prominence to secondary criteria rather than essential (statutory)
criteria.
criteria and that Mr and Mrs P, who both had physical disabilities,
had to wait for a suitable offer for three months longer than they
should have done.
108
5. Remedy examples
Other
Mr P has mental health issues and has spent time in prison.
Remedy
When he was recal ed to prison from a hostel the council agreed to
We recommended the council:
store his belongings. Later, while on release, he went to the storage
firm to col ect his belongings to pass them to a friend. He could not
> pay £450 to Mr P
do so.
to reflect the three
months avoidably
There was some dispute about whether Mr P could not col ect his
spent in unsuitable
belongings because the offices were shut or because the council
accommodation,
had not paid all the fees.
> review its al ocation
Mr P returned to prison with his belongings still in storage and the
scheme to give suitable
council served seven days’ notice that it would destroy them.
weight to the required
When Mr P’s support worker contacted the council on the seventh
criteria.
day, he found the council had destroyed Mr P’s belongings three
days earlier. It was not certain whether Mr P could have prevented
the destruction of his belongings if the council had waited for the full
seven days.
And although Mr P said it would cost £10,000 to replace them,
the only records of the goods indicated there were three electrical
items, and several boxes with unknown contents. .
Mr C submitted a tender for a contract to carry out work for the
Remedy
council. The council had gone to some lengths in the tender
We recommended the council:
documents to explain what weight would be given to various factors
when awarding the contract.
> apologise to Mr C
When considering the tenders it introduced other factors which
> pay him £500 to
were decisive in the decision making. In particular it gave
acknowledge the
considerable weight to whether the applicant had undertaken
avoidable time and
similar work on a similar scale before. The council accepted it had
trouble arising from its
not been clear.
fault.
We found that if the tender documents had been clear, Mr C would
have known he could not meet the requirements and would not
have submitted a tender.
So because of the council’s fault he had wasted time in submitting
a bid. Mr C said it had taken him a long time to compile the tender
document as it was complex.
The council provided information from other applicants on the time
it had taken them to prepare their tenders and we concluded that
one day of professional time was a proper reflection of the injustice
to Mr C.
109
5. Remedy examples
Other
Mr Q’s company provided services in connection with licensing and
Remedy
other matters for companies in the leisure industry.
We recommended the
We found an officer of the council acted inappropriately in his
council:
dealings with a particular application and also wrongly besmirched
the company’s reputation in comments made to other clients of the
> pay Mr Q £250 to
company.
acknowledge the impact
on his company’s
The officer told some of the company’s other clients that the council
reputation with each
would not deal with Mr Q and went directly to the client even
of the clients it had
though Mr Q was the client’s appointed agent. We recommended
contacted direct (a total
the council pay Mr Q £250 to acknowledge the impact on his
of £1,000).
company’s reputation with each of the clients it had contacted direct
(a total of £1,000).
Mrs K’s house is on a corner, so it faces a side road and a main
Remedy
road. When the council consulted about relocating bus stops in
the area, it consulted those living on the main road. But it did not
The council quickly consulted
consult Mrs K as her address was the side road. When the council
the police and highways
relocated the bus stops, one was positioned next to Mrs K’s home
authority and identified a new
and she was affected by noise and anti-social behaviour from
position for the bus stop.
passengers using the stop.
We decided this was a fair
remedy for the complaint.
The council interviewed Mrs L under caution after her dog was
Remedy
al eged to have bitten another dog. Mrs L provided corroborating
evidence of her version of events.
We recommended the
council:
The council did not investigate the incident further before
deciding to prosecute her. It then delayed for nearly four months
> apologise to Mrs L
in progressing the prosecution, and withdrew the charge the day
> pay £250 to acknowledge
before the case was due in court.
the avoidable stress its
We found that if the council had investigated the al egation
fault had caused.
properly, it was unlikely it would have recommended the case for
prosecution, and Mrs L had suffered unnecessary stress as a result
of the council’s fault.
Mr J had mobility difficulties and applied for a Blue Badge for
Remedy
parking. He could walk, but very slowly, to manage his breathing.
We recommended the
The council acknowledged this but decided that he did not qualify
council:
for the scheme. We found the council’s decision was not in line with
> offer Mr J a fresh mobility
the Department for Transport’s guidance or the information on the
assessment with a
council’s own assessment form.
different assessor.
110
5. Remedy examples
Other
Mr and Mrs D own several ‘houses in multiple occupation’
Remedy
(HMOs). The council proposed an accreditation scheme for HMOs
that would enable a local agency to confirm to its clients that
We recommended the council:
accommodation was suitable.
> review the accreditation
Mr and Mrs D participated in the scheme but they disagreed with
scheme to remove any
the council about the work required to meet fire safety standards.
ambiguity about the
So they left one of their HMOs at what they considered to be the
relevant standards and
appropriate standard.
guidance
The matter went to tribunal and the tribunal shared Mr and Mrs
> apologise to Mr and Mrs
D’s view. The council did not appeal against this decision but it
D
disagreed with it.
> refund the inspection fee
After the tribunal’s decision, the council failed for six months to
for the property
clearly set out its position on the al eged defects in Mr and Mrs D’s
> waive the accreditation
HMO and the work needed to remedy these defects. So Mr and
fee for the following year
Mrs D could not arrange the minor remedial work necessary for
>
the property to be accredited. They were also put to considerable
carry out the minor
time and trouble in corresponding with the council to try to establish
remedial work necessary
what work needed to be done.
for the property to be
accredited
> pay Mr and Mrs D
£250 to acknowledge
the avoidable time and
trouble its fault had
caused them.
We could not conclude Mr
and Mrs D had lost income as
a result of the fault, because
they had still been able to
let the property, but they
had lost the benefit of the
property being accredited
under the scheme and
let to vetted occupants.
So we recommended a
further payment of £400 to
acknowledge this.
111
5. Remedy examples
Other
Mrs H’s garden was next to land owned by the council
. The council
Remedy
wrongly cut back plants growing on her land. Mrs H was distressed
when she returned home to find her plants had been damaged.
We recommended the council:
The council accepted it was at fault and apologised. It reviewed
> pay Mrs H £150 to
its procedures to prevent such a mistake occurring again and it
acknowledge the distress
also offered to replant Mrs H’s land or make a payment to cover
caused to her by its fault.
such replanting work. Mrs H’s late husband had raised many of the
damaged plants so they had sentimental value to her.
112
5. Remedy examples
Planning
Ms C says the council failed to tell her of a planning application for
Remedy
an extended balcony and roof terrace next to a house she owns
and did not properly consider the development’s effect on her
We recommended the council:
property’s privacy.
> obtain and plant on
The council accepted it was at fault for not sending a letter. It
Ms C’s property a
apologised to Ms C and paid her £100 to acknowledge her lost
semi-mature tree that
opportunity to comment.
would provide some
screening. The council’s
But a balcony by its nature encourages people to sit out on it and
involvement would save
they do so looking towards Ms C’s garden. So if Ms C had objected
Ms C the inconvenience
to the potential overlooking, it is probable the council would have
of investigating suitable
considered this point more before deciding the application, and
species and obtaining and
would more likely than not have asked the applicants to give some
planting the tree.
thought to screening.
Mr and Mrs W wanted to close their pub because of fal ing trade
Remedy
and incorporate the bar into their private accommodation.
We recommended the council:
They explained their ideas to a planning officer on three occasions
> pay them £1,000 to
but were never told of the council’s policy on the conversion of
acknowledge the
public houses to residential use. This said that permission would
increased duration of
only be granted if there was evidence that the premises had
their distress and anxiety.
been realistical y marketed as a pub and the business was not
economical y viable.
They applied for planning permission which, without the marketing
evidence, was never likely to be granted. There was strong local
feeling about the pub closure and Mr and Mrs W were subject
to a great deal of personal animosity causing them considerable
distress.
The council's failure to tell Mr and Mrs W of the policy before their
application for planning permission meant they suffered distress
and anxiety for longer than would have been the case if they had
been properly informed.
113
5. Remedy examples
Planning
Mr A lives next to a pub. The council granted planning permission
Remedy
for an overflow car park at the rear of the pub and attached a
condition requiring the pub to provide a gate to control the flow of
We recommended the council:
traffic and prevent use of the narrow lane between Mr A’s home and
> pay Mr A £2500 for loss
the pub. The council failed to require the gate to remain closed or
of amenity and his time
locked and so there was nothing to prevent the gate from being left
and trouble pursuing the
open and traffic driving past Mr A’s sitting room window.
complaint
We found the council was at fault for failing to require the gate
> consider taking
to remain closed and so Mr A was subject to noise from passing
enforcement action
traffic.
against the owner
Mr A also complained to the council about the pub letting out rooms
of the pub regarding
overnight despite having no planning permission in place to do so.
unauthorised
We found the council had failed to investigate his concerns.
provision of overnight
accommodation.
The council accepted it was at fault and said it would negotiate with
the owners of the pub to ensure the gate was closed. However, the
Council accepted it had no powers to require the owners to do so.
We said Mr A would be caused some disturbance as a result of
living next to a pub. However, there was potential for this to be
increased due to traffic passing very close to his sitting room
window. In reaching a view on a remedy for loss of amenity we
considered the cost of instal ing triple glazing to Mr A’s window.
Mr R complained the council al owed his neighbour to build a two
storey and single storey extension facing his sitting room and
Remedy
bedroom windows. The two storey extension was 8 metres from
We recommended the council:
his windows and the single storey extension was 6 metres from his
> pay Mr R £1500 to
windows.
acknowledge the loss of
We found the council had failed to properly consider the impact of
amenity caused to his
the extensions on Mr R’s property. The council said the extensions
home. We recommended
would have no impact on Mr R’s home but failed to explain why this
the council pay Mr
was.
R a further £250 to
The council had no policy on separation distances between
acknowledge the time
properties. However, we found it likely the council would not have
and trouble he was put to
al owed the extensions in their current form and would likely have
pursuing his complaint.
asked Mr R’s neighbours to submit amended plans. This may have
involved moving the single storey extension further away from the
boundary and either painting it or erecting a fence to break up the
appearance of the brick wal .
Amendments to the plans would have resulted in small changes
and so we recommended a remedy for loss of amenity at the lower
end of the scale.
114
5. Remedy examples
Planning
Mr D lived next to land which was being used as a haulage site
Remedy
without planning permission.
We recommended the
Mr D complained to the council about this and it failed to take action council:
against the owner of the site. The site eventual y became immune
from enforcement action because of the council’s delays.
> Pay Mr D £70,000 to
acknowledge the impact
Mr D now lives next to a haulage site with no controls to protect
of its failure to take
his amenity. The site operates 24 hours a day 7 days a week with
enforcement action on
HGVs arriving at all hours and driving within a few metres of Mr D’s
his residential amenity
bedroom window. The vibration and noise from vehicles and their
brakes often wakes
Mr D during the night and the early hours of the morning.
We found the council would likely have found that the land was
suitable for light goods vehicles and would have sought to have
taken enforcement to restrict the use of the land and hours of
operations.
We asked the District Valuer to calculate the loss of value to Mr
D’s home comparing the impact of the uncontrol ed use by HGVs
with acceptable control ed use by light goods vehicles. The District
Valuer said the uncontrol ed HGV use had caused a £70,000
reduction in the value of Mr D’s home compared to the acceptable
use that may have been al owed.
We considered the District Valuer’s advice and given the significant
and enduring impact on
Mr D’s amenity and quality of life caused by the uncontrol ed HGV
use we decided to recommend the council pay Mr D £70,000.
The council was at fault for failing to get the required agreement
Remedy
from a developer for an access road to a new housing development
We recommended the council:
during the planning application process.
> pay two thirds of the cost
Buyers of the new properties therefore did not have adequate
of rectifying the access
access to the public highway and faced costs in rectifying this.
road problems.
We did not recommend the
full cost because the problems
with the access road could
have been identified (and
perhaps resolved) during the
buying process, and buyers
of the new properties might
have had to pay more for their
properties to cover the cost of
the relevant approvals had the
developer properly obtained
115
them.
5. Remedy examples
Planning
Mr M complained that the council did not take account of the
Remedy
potential effect on his property when it gave planning approval for
seven houses to be built on an adjacent site.
We recommended the two
parties:
There was a well known history of flooding around the site and
parts of his land became flooded after the development was
> jointly fund a full flood
complete.
risk assessment to see
if Mr M’s property was
Fol owing consultation with the Environment Agency, the council
now more vulnerable to
had required the new houses to be built to a minimum floor level
flooding than before the
so they would not flood. This involved raising the site level by the
development and, if so,
addition of one metre of soil. But the council and the Environment
pay for works to al eviate
Agency did not communicate effectively and we saw no evidence
that additional risk.
that either had given any thought to the increased flood risk to the
neighbouring land.
> The council also paid
Mr M £500 and the
We concluded that there was fault by both the council and the
Environment Agency paid
Environment Agency.
£250 to acknowledge the
anxiety their faults had
caused.
Mr J asked the council whether he needed planning permission to
Remedy
replace a camper van with a caravan to store goods in and sleep in
We recommended the
during the lambing season.
council:
The council wrote to Mr J saying he did not need planning
> pay Mr J £1,000 to
permission because the proposed use related to agriculture. But
acknowledge the
two and a half years later the council said that the caravan was
inconvenience its wrong
unauthorised development, because it was in position all year
advice caused him.
round, not just during the lambing season.
We did not recommend that
The council served an enforcement notice on Mr J. He did not
Mr J was al owed to store the
appeal or remove the caravan and the council prosecuted him. The
caravan on site all year as this
council agreed its advice to Mr J had been incomplete and that this
was a matter for the Planning
had caused Mr J inconvenience. Mr J could recover some, but not
Inspectorate to decide.
al , of the cost of the caravan when he sold it.
116
5. Remedy examples
Planning
Ms B complained that the council changed a planning condition
Remedy
after her neighbour submitted a re-application, resulting in
The council accepted this was
unacceptable overlooking of her bedroom.
wrong and negotiated with
The council had original y recommended a condition preventing a
the neighbour to fit a window
window being opened in a way that would al ow a view into Ms B’s
restrictor.
bedroom.
We decided this was a
When the neighbour made a revised application, to meet building
satisfactory remedy, because
control requirements, the council changed the planning condition
it met the intention of the
for the window, even though the relationship between the properties
original condition and
had not changed.
protected Ms B’s privacy.
The house had been empty
since completion so Ms B
had not suffered harm as a
result of the changed planning
condition.
Mrs N lives next to a community centre. The council granted
Remedy
planning permission for the centre to extend its car park. But it did
The council negotiated
so without taking proper account of the objections to the proposal it
with the community centre,
had received.
which agreed to have the
The council accepted its fault and offered to build a new fence on
replacement fence on its
Mrs N’s land between her garden and the car park. But because
property.
her garden is already smal , Mrs N wanted the existing fence to be
The council also undertook to
replaced instead.
review the soft landscaping
scheme for the development,
and review whether there
were any legal limits on how
many cars could be parked in
the car park.
We decided these actions
amounted to a satisfactory
remedy for the complaint.
117
5. Remedy examples
Planning
Remedy
We received a complaint from Mrs L, a member of a local bat
We recommended the council:
group, about a council’s failure to consider the impact of a new
housing development on a rare species of bat.
> pay £1,000 to the local
bat group to enhance or
We found fault with the way the council had considered the
promote the environment
planning application and its impact on the local bat population as
for bats.
it had not required a bat survey to be carried out before granting
planning permission.
> in consultation with
its ecology service,
provide 8 to 10 suitable
hibernation bat boxes on
land within its control.
118
Local G
L
o
ocal G v
o ernmen
v
t and Social Car
ernmen
e
t and Social Car
Ombudsman
O
PO Box 4771
Coventry
CV4 0EH
Phone: 0300 061 0614
Web: www.lgo.org.uk
V10
Twitter: @LGOmbudsman
01/2021
Document Outline
