Review Time
Investigator ignored evidence and refused to investigate on incorrect facts
My experience with the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman was extremely poor and has seriously undermined my confidence in the service.
The issue was not simply that my complaint was rejected — it was the way the investigator handled it.
I provided a fully evidenced complaint about a council’s failure to comply with agreed Flood Risk Assessment safeguards, causing ongoing flood risk, loss of amenity and significant distress. I supplied:
• a detailed chronology
• documentary evidence
• written confirmations from previous Ombudsman investigators
• and a formal Council letter explicitly accepting my complaint for investigation after review
Despite this, the investigator refused to investigate on the basis that the issue had “already been investigated”.
This was demonstrably wrong.
The Council itself had confirmed in writing that the complaint was new and would be “thoroughly investigated” and a “comprehensive response” provided. Yet this key document was simply ignored.
The investigator:
• disregarded relevant evidence
• failed to address determinative submissions
• relied on incorrect factual assumptions
• mischaracterised the scope of the complaint
• adopted the Council’s position without scrutiny
• and provided reasoning that directly contradicted the documentary record
There was no meaningful engagement with the evidence I provided. It felt like the conclusion had already been decided and the facts were made to fit.
Most concerningly, the Ombudsman refused to investigate because it claimed the Council already had — while the Council said it had not and had accepted the complaint for investigation. Both positions cannot logically be true, yet the investigator did not address this contradiction.
The result is that neither the Council nor the Ombudsman has actually examined the substantive issue. The complaint has simply been pushed away on procedural grounds.
That is not independent oversight.
It is not impartial.
And it is not what the Ombudsman service exists to provide.
I expected a fair, evidence-based review. Instead, I experienced a process where key facts were overlooked and the investigator appeared to side with the authority being complained about.
Very disappointing and far below the standard of accountability the public should expect.
Investigator ignored evidence and refused to investigate on incorrect factsMy experience with the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman was extremely poor and has seriously undermined my confidence in the service.The issue was not simply that my complaint was rejected — it was the way the investigator handled it.I provided a fully evidenced complaint about a council’s failure to comply with agreed Flood Risk Assessment safeguards, causing ongoing flood risk, loss of amenity and significant distress. I supplied:• a detailed chronology• documentary evidence• written confirmations from previous Ombudsman investigators• and a formal Council letter explicitly accepting my complaint for investigation after reviewDespite this, the investigator refused to investigate on the basis that the issue had “already been investigated”.This was demonstrably wrong.The Council itself had confirmed in writing that the complaint was new and would be “thoroughly investigated” and a “comprehensive response” provided. Yet this key document was simply ignored.The investigator:• disregarded relevant evidence• failed to address determinative submissions• relied on incorrect factual assumptions• mischaracterised the scope of the complaint• adopted the Council’s position without scrutiny• and provided reasoning that directly contradicted the documentary recordThere was no meaningful engagement with the evidence I provided. It felt like the conclusion had already been decided and the facts were made to fit.Most concerningly, the Ombudsman refused to investigate because it claimed the Council already had — while the Council said it had not and had accepted the complaint for investigation. Both positions cannot logically be true, yet the investigator did not address this contradiction.The result is that neither the Council nor the Ombudsman has actually examined the substantive issue. The complaint has simply been pushed away on procedural grounds.That is not independent oversight.It is not impartial.And it is not what the Ombudsman service exists to provide.I expected a fair, evidence-based review. Instead, I experienced a process where key facts were overlooked and the investigator appeared to side with the authority being complained about.Very disappointing and far below the standard of accountability the public should expect.
⭐☆☆☆☆Escalation to Senior Management – Serious Safeguarding and Accountability FailureI am posting this to ensure senior management visibility, as my experience has revealed a serious breakdown in safeguarding accountability and transparency.I raised safeguarding concerns about my vulnerable parent. Manchester City Council acknowledged the concerns, carried out internal processes, and closed the matter. I then escalated to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.The Ombudsman has now refused to investigate, not because the concerns lacked seriousness, but because they say “no worthwhile outcome is achievable” and that unresolved family conflict places the matter outside their remit. They have directed that only the Court of Protection can resolve the situation.This outcome highlights a deeply troubling gap in the system: • Safeguarding concerns are effectively closed without independent scrutiny • Family conflict is used as a reason not to investigate, rather than as a safeguarding risk factor • The complainant is denied access to information, while being told they lack authority to challenge decisions • Responsibility is repeatedly deflected between institutions, leaving vulnerable people without effective protectionAt no point has there been meaningful accountability, transparency, or reassurance that safeguarding failures cannot recur.I am sharing this publicly so that senior leaders are aware that the current processes allow serious safeguarding concerns to be dismissed procedurally rather than addressed substantively.This is not about dissatisfaction with an outcome — it is about a systemic failure to provide effective safeguarding oversight.
Not only do they send template rejections, but their 'info@' email address is dead (550 error), and their 'intake' address is restricted. They have effectively insulated themselves from accountability. If you want to challenge a decision, they make it as technically difficult as possible.
I am incredibly frustrated by the LGSCO’s refusal to engage with the substance of my complaint. I specifically asked for clarification on whether they decline jurisdiction even when the issue is systemic maladministration and a lack of transparency in methodology.Instead of a reasoned answer, they simply sent me a second boilerplate rejection letter that ignored my question entirely. It feels like a 'box-ticking' exercise where they look for any reason to deflect the case rather than investigating administrative failure. If your case has any complexity or doesn't fit into a standard pigeonhole, don't expect them to actually read your correspondence.
LGSCO are responsible for having forced me down to a point in my life where I dread night time, and even the start of a new day due to constant noise.There now exists a continuous disregard by governmental organisations to ignore illegal exploitation of people running business's from their homes.This is destroying what was once the right of every living person, to enjoy the peace and quiet of their own homes. For over a decade I have suffered 24/7 machinery noise followed up by outrageous slamming and banging from neighbours working from home and enjoying tax free cash.My neighbours House/Factory, is completely ignored and even possibly condoned by both the council and their so-called (HE) noise services.Instead of helping me, they made me their victim by reversing complaints to make me the one that got investigated.Years ago you could at least phone the police and there intervention tended to have a more lasting effect.However, these days you have to rely on what can only be described as a complete denial service from council organisations.Even turning to the Ombudsman is now a completely pointless act.First you have to subscribe to their limited service, and I say limited because they even tell you off if you send them information they haven't requested.This information would normally provide proof such as accusations made within council replies.Its difficult to correspond clearly, and signing in is also compulsory.You have no clear way to send them anything other than the start and end rejection of your complaint by the BCC.Therefore no details of wrongdoings are included, which is clearly designed for them to simply shut you down.Its bad enough that people are already suffering, but this ridiculous lack of clear communication puts an even greater strain on people.I'm personally disgusted and its about time councils and their so-called backup services were privatised.The contemptuous and cavalier attitudes that I have experienced would leave me with a strong opinion that random drug testing should be carried out on governmental service employees. Just as they do in many sports, which clearly makes the suggestion nothing outrageous!I'm well aware that there are people out there suffering much worse than myself, so all I can say is stay strong my friends, club together, and we'll keep on fighting for our justice!The Ombudsman service was once quite good, but LGSCO now appears to be shielding councils along with their unfit for purpose services!
This body should be abolished, as its existence is merely another box-ticking exercise. There is no proper engagement or independent assessment. It is obvious that even in clear cases involving multiple breaches and maladministration by councils, the LGO either rejects complaints or delivers decisions in the councils’ favour. The professionalism and qualifications of the investigators are also in question. Public money should be directed elsewhere instead of being used to maintain these so-called Ombudsmen.
Absolutely shit they blocked communications with myself due to them failing service level agreement, take advantage of people disabilities, think they are above the law, add extra time on your case when they already added time due to a back log absolutely useless needs a complete overhaul and the current staff sacked
The LGO presents itself as an independent watchdog. In reality, it functions as a protective buffer for councils rather than for the public.In my case, Sheffield City Council failed to engage with the vast majority of medical and professional evidence submitted about my disabled mother, relied on demonstrably incorrect facts, and ultimately told me they would “no longer reply” or accept further evidence. This is something the Ombudsman has previously ruled unlawful in other cases.Rather than scrutinise this behaviour, the LGO chose to defend it. They repeatedly reframed my complaint as a disagreement with a housing decision, even though the core issue was that evidence had never been properly considered in the first place. When I challenged this, I was told that “it is not for us to consider medical evidence” – missing the point entirely. The problem was not their clinical judgment; it was their refusal to examine whether the council had ignored evidence at all.The Ombudsman also accepted a council narrative about a housing “bid” based on redacted system logs that did not actually show who placed it, while dismissing my documented challenge to that claim. Safeguarding concerns, ignored correspondence from MPs, and a disregarded Pre-Action Protocol letter were effectively brushed aside as out of scope.Even when the Ombudsman acknowledged that Sheffield had given unlawful advice to external applicants, they treated this as a one-off mistake and declined to consider whether others might have been affected. That choice prioritises institutional convenience over public protection.If you are seeking genuine accountability, robust evidence handling, or meaningful scrutiny of council behaviour, this is not the service you will receive.
Terrible, biased service. People who have no knowledge of mental health and discrimination against disability under the Equality Act 2010. All of these ombudsman services are the same. None are independent and ALL of them side with the authority, energy supplier, or whosoever else. Grow some compassion and put yourself in the shoes of the complainant, because it's never easy to have to complain. It's a stress, but we do it because an injustice has happened with the said authority or organisation. And if you just look at your score on TP, it's terrible. You are clearly not running an effective service. Bunch of jobsworths.
Claim your business profile now and gain access to all features and respond to customer reviews.
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, We are the final stage for complaints about councils, all adult social care providers (including care homes and home care agencies) and some other organisations providing local public services. We are a f...
taqiacademy.com
ivyexec.com
jobtoday.com
schoolofsport.org.uk
selfmastered.com
expat.com
safecircle.com
blog.reddit.com
heartofenglandcoopfunerals.co.uk
cyberdefentech.com