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...
LG & SC Ombudsman (www.lgo.org.uk) has a 1.1 out of 5 rating on OK.one, based on 100 user reviews collected here. It is listed under Public & Local Services and its reputation is poor. 98% of reviews are 1 star, a relatively high share; The business has not yet replied to negative reviews; 62 of them were added in the last 12 months. Last updated 2026-09-05.
Most reviewers were let down by their experience overall. Consumers frequently highlighted the exceptionally poor service, pointing out that response times took many frustrating months or even years to arrive without proper updates or clear explanations. People frequently mentioned that communication could be improved, noting that some concerns felt overlooked and that greater transparency would be appreciated. Some reviewers were happy with the staff, noting polite interactions and isolated instances where investigations were handled smoothly and justice was successfully served. A few individuals also found the initial communication pleasant before encountering deeper procedural frustrations and template responses during their appeals.
Auto-generated from all reviews of this business. For reference only.Terrible useless service, they mark their own homework and when you try to get a service complaint they shut it down without considering it, which is outrageous, to protect themselves from their failings. There were procedurals errors in my complaint response but they don't care. Waste of time and energy and they should be defunded.
Refusing to investigate my complaint against council over education issues, totally a waste of time.
Just checked previous reviews that the LGO Ombudsman and local authorities share the same solicitors firm which is Bevan Brittan - it's true which makes all the reviews here correct - there is no objective LGO Ombudsman and they need to be investigated. Also check out each individual LGO so called Advisor and see that they work for the government in some way. It's all Totally biased in favour of the local authority. Give the council all the time in the world to respond, whilst what feels like threatening deadlines to the us as taxpayers that pay for them to investigate. My impression is that they don't even bother to read the proof that is sent by us as the public and already have predetermined responses to complaints and side with the council even when the council do not provide any evidence from their side. Horrible experience and do not trust what is supposed to be objective. UPDATE: Just put the LGO Ombuds draft response through an AI checker = 73% it's an AI response - no wonder it has so many contradictions and replies that don't make sense and references to do with things that don't exist. I am not sure whether to name the so called "Investigator" yet but this is deeply concerning. I wish there was there was a forum where we could take this further and to the government as I can see there is bias against us people.
Raised concerns with the Ombudsman about my local council who had made it impossible for me to use swimming facilities across 2 sites due to their frequent (alleged) breaches of their own public sector equality duty to disabled patrons. One complaint to the council elicited an apology for consistently doing something which they should not have been doing and this made swimming inaccessible for me. I raised concerns with the Ombudsman who took nearly a full year to investigate, found fault (not all faults though as there were clearly others) and then asked the council to apologise. I already got an apology from the council off my own back and decided it was nowhere near enough - which is why I went to the Ombudsman. So, the Ombudsman took nearly a year, heaven knows how many paid hours by a staff member to investigate and for what? To ask the council to say sorry. The Ombudsman service requires immediate closure as it provides no redress for people who complain and who have their complaints upheld. What a colossal waste of taxpayers money and time.
My experience of the LGSCO has seriously undermined my confidence in its ability to hold public bodies accountable. The Ombudsman accepted that provision specified in my child’s EHCP was not delivered. My child’s difficulties escalated, he was repeatedly suspended for behaviour associated with unmet SEND needs, and ultimately there was a significant breakdown in his ability to access education. Yet the Local Authority was found not to be at fault because it “reasonably believed” the provision was being delivered. On what evidence was that belief reasonable? The Local Authority has been unable to produce a meaningful audit trail showing that it monitored delivery: no evidence of systematic checks, verification of Section F provision, or meaningful challenge when a child with an EHCP was repeatedly being suspended and his education was visibly deteriorating. A statutory duty to secure provision cannot sensibly mean simply believing somebody else is delivering it without checking. I was also deeply concerned by the evidential approach taken. Assertions from the school appeared to be accepted despite evidence I supplied challenging them. Most concerningly, material relating to a safeguarding concern/outcome has been withheld from me, leaving me unable to scrutinise potentially relevant evidence while conclusions have nevertheless been reached about what occurred. The contradiction is stark: the provision was legally required; it was not delivered; the Local Authority was responsible for securing it; there is no meaningful evidence it monitored delivery; the warning signs included repeated suspensions and escalating difficulties — yet the authority was not at fault. If that amounts to sufficient oversight of a statutory duty, it is difficult to understand what meaningful protection that duty provides. My child was failed. The failure is acknowledged. Yet somehow nobody responsible for ensuring the provision was delivered is accountable for it. For an organisation intended to provide independent scrutiny and administrative justice, I find that outcome profoundly concerning.
Submitted a complaint following instructions of West Mercia Police. LGO sent it back to the Council, samew officer dealt with it after 6 months. Did not answer the complaint after 7 months. It is forwarded for allocation and within 48 HRS without any review of altered documents, switched documents and concealed versions with multiple diffent copies the LGO states it has been submitted too late. A total waste of 9 months. All to protect a Corrupt Counrt Council.
A fake ombudsman designed to bury the maladministration and incompetence of local government. They pose as being independent and impartial. In reality they specialize in the perversion justice. Even by the low moral standards of British public life this organisation is a shocker. A bunch of social deviants.
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) is a completely toothless organization that serves as little more than a shield for negligent local authorities. Instead of conducting independent, thorough investigations into administrative fault, their investigators routinely look for the quickest legal loophole—usually Section 26(6)(a)—to dismiss complaints at the assessment stage without reading the evidence. They consistently fail to distinguish between substantive legal decisions (which belong with tribunals) and severe administrative fault (such as councils refusing to update correspondence addresses, failing to manage records, or continuing aggressive enforcement while formal disputes are pending). The LGSCO treats these distinct administrative failings as an "overlap" with tribunal jurisdiction, effectively granting local councils complete immunity for atrocious customer service and procedural abuse. When you point out clear material factual misunderstandings, investigators simply reissue the exact same generic refusal template without addressing a single argument raised
So it appears the LGSCO are perfectly ok with LA's not handling a complaint under the statutory Children's Act complaint and wait 6 months to tell you this. It gets handled under the Corporate complaints procedure with no independent scrutiny. LGSCO- we are not investigating therefore case closed. 3,012 complaints received about Children's Services and only 345 investigated. Listen to what parents are saying LGSCO- where is the accountability?
I submitted a complaint about our planning council not keeping records in January 2026 and as off 22 July 2026 haven’t received a reply or any response!
I spent all of 2025 fighting with the council, literally 14th January until Christmas. Stage 1 was delayed by months, stage 2 was compromised because the investigator asked the person being investigated for legal advice! I was about to give up but on the 7th January 2026 I submitted my LGSCO complaint. This really was a last chance saloon for me; I'm sure you can relate. They got back to me 8 days later to say I had got through the intake stage onto the assessment stage. Great! But here is the kicker: "We'll get back to you in 20-22 WEEKS, we'll contact you, don't contact us!". I waited patiently and 18 weeks later (May 2026), they had looked at my case and were going to investigate. My borough has 108,000 residents & how many people got to the LGSCO Investigation stage last year? SIX! If you are at this point it means something has gone catastrophically wrong in your life, you have had to battle through the local authorities Stage 1 & Stage 2 internal complaints process, The LGSCO Intake Stage, Assessment Stage & now you are in one of the world's most exclusive (and depressing) clubs which they can kick you out of anytime they like. But this still doesn't mean you will actually get an investigation! On 20th May they told me they had a backlog and didn't have anybody to assign my case to. "we'll get back to you in 8 weeks". Eight weeks went by and this morning I got an email. Sorry we still haven't started the investigation, we will get back to you in ANOTHER EIGHT WEEKS! I'm looking at 11th September 2026 & I read online they can take 24 weeks to investigate your case. Best case scenario for me is getting my case upheld in late February 2027. .... and don't forget this whole mess started with an email to the council on 14th January 2025! Lot of work for an apology letter and a symbolic payment of a few hundred quid.
Purpose of the organisation seems to be to construct a narrative to reject a complaint without having to invest time investigating it. Presumably to try and clear their backlog. Responses fail to address the points made in submissions, they reframe the argument to suit their purpose then shut you off with no comeback. Waste of time really, no wonder local authorities act with impunity and little regard for statutory duties. LGSCO should be scrapped and save the taxpayer some money, they provide no value.
I made a complaint about the City of Doncaster Council's failure to supply me, as an LPA, with a capacity assessment that they claimed to possess under their duties to supply information under Section 4 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. I saw that the LGO had incorrectly ruled that a complaint made by another service user that they had not been supplied information to assist them as as a carer could be investigated by the Information Commissioners Office (the ICO). I therefore clearly stated to the LGO that this was not the case. I had made a complaint to the council who refused to respond to it claiming it could only be sent to the ICO. I pointed out that the ICO could only deal with complaints about failures t supply information under the Data Protection Act 2018, GDPR, the FOI Act or the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR). Although the GDPR entitles a public body to share information where it is a public duty, it does not obligate the public body to share that data. The obligation comes from the separate legal duty, which in my case was the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Unlike the DPA 2018 and the GDPR, where there is a legal defence for not disclosing data requested as subject access requests, no such defence exists under section 4 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 where it is clear the information could assist the carer or LPA with their duties. The ICO simply cannot investigate failures to comply with Mental Capacity Act 2005. Despite this being pointed out to them, the council still refused to look at my complaint. I then went to the LGO. Despite stating very clearly that I could not take my complaint to the ICO, the ICO recorded that the council had claimed that I had referred the complaint to the ICO and also claimed the ICO had deemed that the council had "acted appropriately" with regards to not providing me with the capacity assessment. I have had never made such a referral and the ICO, therefore, had never made such a finding. Unfortunately the ICO accepted this information as being factual without sharing it with me to comment on it first. The council, according to the LGO, had also claimed that I had been given a redacted version just after I had requested a copy of the capacity assessment. Again that was simply untrue. Rather than address the complaint, the council simply lied about it and the LGO rewarded them for doing so by deciding not to investigate the concerns further and closing the case. The LGO also made claims about how the ICO could look at such complaints that were clearly monstrously false and demonstrated an alarming misunderstanding of the role of the ICO. I wanted a copy of the assessment as I feared that they had lied about what they had assessed. When I finally got a copy of the assessment, well over 6 months after it had been conducted, my suspicions were born out. The assessment also contained evidence of abuse of my mother that I suspect the council were trying to hide. I complained that the council had not conducted the capacity assessment they had claimed to conduct and this complaint was upheld. The LGO also stated that I had been given a redacted copy of the assessment I had requested by the council and was only asking for an unredacted copy. I can only assume that the coucnil had lied about that as well. I had not been given a redacted copy. The LGO took this as fact and used it in additional grounds as to why they should not investigate.
Very Poor! Would leave a zero if i could. These are the people you go to to hold councils accountable. It is no wonder the council were not afraid of my complant to them theyy knew it would never be upheld. Total waste of time and money. The excuse given is "not enough money in the pot to warrant investigting the complaint. Well what the hell are they there for? Very let down, total waste of time and as ineffective as oxygen in space.
Took over a year to tell me they were refusing to investigate corrupt employee D.Rufus at Lambeth Council. I provided evidence of false accounting, fraud, data breaches, malice and discrimination. For example, D.Rufus falsified my earnings info. I provided an actual statement from HMRC to prove rufus claimed I earn 3x more. No substantive reason was provided for turning a blind eye to misconduct in public office. Received the standard templated response. LGO effectively enables corruption within councils.
Didn't bother to read case or evidences. Looked at Local Council letter and closed case.
This organisation doesn’t bother to consider legitimate evidence and dismiss cases in favour of the council. This is why councils are getting away with corrupt activity. Everything is rigged against victims of councils’ negligence and misconduct. All this ombudsman does is waste your time and try to prevent you from taking corrupt councils like Barnet Council to court.
Do not waste your time. I can add little to what has already been said in other reviews. I spent months gathering and presenting extensive evidence, believing the facts were clear and difficult to dispute. Our case handler admitted there was a lot of information to get through and he wasn’t and expert. As a result information was dismissed, overlooked, or ignored. Throughout the process, the Council appeared to be favoured at every stage, despite the fact their evidence was often vague, inconsistent, and, in some cases, inaccurate. There is little value in the draft decision stage when the outcome appears to have already been determined. The case handler did not return to the Council to challenge or verify the information it had provided, despite concerns being raised about its accuracy. 5 pages of objections, stating inaccuracies from the draft decision , were raised and we had a final decision within 3 hours As a result, the draft decision felt more like confirmation of a pre-existing conclusion than an opportunity for genuine review or reconsideration . Rather than receiving an impartial assessment, the experience felt like institutional gaslighting. What was most disappointing was not only the Council’s response but also the Ombudsman’s apparent unwillingness to properly scrutinise it. This was not my understanding at the beginning of the process of how an Ombudsman operates . I was very wrong and feel very let down Based on my experience, I do not believe this organisation operates independently. It appeared far more inclined to support the Council’s position than objectively assess the facts presented. Given the significant public funding it receives, serious questions should be asked about whether it is delivering the accountability and independent oversight taxpayers expect.
Simply a huge waste of time. Selectively responded to one element of my complaint (and supporting the council's deluded version of events) whilst ignoring the rest in its entirety. The investigators deliberately interpret and misinterpret whatever you send them, either that or lack plain, simple English reading comprehension. Could not/were incapable of answering my question of why the council changed its decision based on the exact same information always available to them for ~3+ years (which I asked the investigator at least four times). Challenged them repeatedly on several points and could/would not answer me. Kept stating they would not investigate anything prior to a certain date but didn't bother investigating anything after that date either. A huge 🥱 and I feel very sorry for others in desperate need contacting these useless people for resolve. A huge waste of money 🫤 and box-ticking exercise, but I'm sure we would all prefer their salaries being spent to better society than for them to essentially do nothing, and for them to get productive jobs! In summary Ombudsman is just as bad as those who "answer" to it, council and ombudsman are two peas in a pod when it comes to their lanyards and so must be protected at all costs 😬
Good for nothing, few times reported incidents to them about Council Highways damaged to my property and driveway as the council would not take no responsibility, Ombudsman is good for nothing, anything to do with Authority they don't want to know and close the case file. Not competent to take up any challenge, they are just existing as face value, not a real service, just ticking the Boxes, no action.
Housing Ombudsman
Financial Ombudsman Service
SculptHer4.5
Pricecruncher
Refills4.5
Apex Trader Funding3.9
Reframe: Drink Less & Thrive
Ria Health3.8100 reviews matching
