Sheffield Council in national top 25 for number of complaints about services
Sheffield City Council had the 22nd highest number in England of local government ombudsman complaints made against it in 2023-24.
Figures released by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman show that a total of 148 complaints were made against the council by dissatisfied service users.
The top three out of 361 local authorities were Birmingham City Council with 493 complaints, Transport for London with 422 and Surrey County Council with 324.
In South Yorkshire, Barnsley’s score was 50 complaints, Doncaster’s was 65 and Rotherham’s was 48. No complaints were registered against the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority, in line with most other combined authorities with elected mayors.
Broken down by category, the top three areas complained about in Sheffield were housing at 38, adult social care (23) and education and children’s services (22).
Another 20 complaints related to highways and transport, 15 to benefits and tax, 11 referred to planning and development, 10 to environmental services, public protection and regulation, six were about corporate and other services and three were in other categories.
Distress
The vast majority of complaints – 120 – were not decided by the ombudsman for various reasons, including being out of the ombudsman’s jurisdiction in some way or being closed after initial inquiries.
Of those decided, 20 were upheld by the ombudsman and four were dismissed. That equates to 3.5 upheld per 100,000 decisions – lower than the figure of 4.4 for similar councils.
As a percentage rate, the council scored 83% upheld, just above the average of 80% for similar authorities.
An online interactive map at https://www.lgo.org.uk/your-councils-performance shows statistics for local authorities and highlights upheld complaints.
Here are four examples.
1 Ms X complained that the council failed to make alternative education provision for her son, Y, when he stopped attending school and delayed issuing a final amended Education Health and Care Plan after an annual review in 2021 causing distress and uncertainty.
The ombudsman said: “We found fault as the council failed to provide Y with alternative educational provision and delayed issuing the final amended education health and care plan. We have recommended a suitable remedy so have completed our investigation.”
2 Miss X complained that the council-commissioned care provider failed to seek medical assistance for her mother and provided her with poor care. The council was at fault for the care provider’s poor record keeping, failure to seek medical advice after it said it would and for a missed visit.
Safeguarding
The council agreed to apologise to Miss X and pay her £300 to acknowledge the distress these faults caused. The ombudsman concluded: “There was no fault in the way the council investigated the concerns under its safeguarding procedures and it has taken appropriate action to prevent a repeat of the faults by the care provider.”
3 Mrs X complained that the council’s care provider, Valley Wood Care Home, failed to look after her late mother properly, causing avoidable distress.
Valley Wood’s care planning did not take account of all Mrs Y’s needs. The support it provided was not always in line with her assessed needs. It has been unable to provide Mrs Y’s medication administration records.
The ombudsman decided: “The council needs to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £250 for the distress she has been caused.”
4 The ombudsman ruled: “We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the council’s decision to remove her husband’s medical priority from their housing application. This is because the council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.”