LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: The Council’s delay providing suitable temporary accommodation by 21 months was fault. The Council was also at fault for how it dealt with issues of disrepair and noise nuisance. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X £4,500, make ongoing payments of £200 a month until it makes Ms X a suitable offer of accommodation, and take action to improve its service.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint about the Council charging him for his care. This is because the Council’s actions have not caused Mr C a significant enough injustice to warrant an ombudsman investigation.

Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it decided Mr X’s banding on its housing register. The Council was at fault for the time taken to process his housing register application but this did not cause Mr X injustice.

Summary: We uphold X’s complaint that the Council delayed in considering their complaint within its children statutory complaints’ procedure. The Council has agreed to do so without further delay.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to carry out work to address damp in Ms X’s privately-owned property. This is because Ms X can take the Council to court if she believes it is responsible for the damp and so the complaint falls outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage to Mr Y’s car following highway maintenance. This is because the courts are better placed than us to consider the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s compliance with the terms of a lease Mr X holds with it. It is reasonable for him to seek a remedy in the courts who are best placed to determine a legal dispute.

Summary: We found fault by the Council on Mr J’s complaint about it failing to act against a nearby restaurant after making reports of odour and noise nuisance over many years. There were periods of delay and poor communication with Mr J during the Council’s investigation. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about Mr X’s council tax liability payments. It relates to payments he made to enforcement agents up to 2019, and there is not a good reason Mr X did not complain to us sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mrs Y to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and then the London Tribunals.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council’s Housing Decision Panel failed to properly assess her housing transfer application. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered Ms X’s transfer application. But we found the Council’s housing allocation policy is unclear as it relates to transfer applications based on welfare grounds. We also found the Council used confusing words when it dealt with Ms X’s application and when it communicated with her. This caused Ms X distress, confusion and time and trouble chasing the Council for clarification on her housing case. The Council will take ac

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice for a parking contravention. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre to challenge the Council’s escalation of the case and would have been reasonable for him to appeal to London Tribunals to challenge the penalty charge notice itself.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has delayed repairing the complainants fence. This is because the Council has been arranged for the work to take place in November and further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council does not do land registry checks before issuing council tax liability orders. This is because there is insufficient of fault by the Council and we could not achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

Summary: A homeless woman complained that the Council had offered her unsuitable accommodation. But we will not investigate this matter as the woman has statutory review and appeal rights she can use to challenge the suitability of the Council’s offer, and we cannot achieve the outcome she is seeking in this respect.

Summary: There was no fault in how the Council investigated a potential odour and noise nuisance. For this reason, we completed our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s complaints team failing to respond to the complainant’s request for information. This is because the Council’s complaints team has now apologised for its failure to respond but confirmed another team did respond to the complainant’s concerns. So, there is nothing further to be gained by investigating.

Summary: Ms B complained about the service she received from the early help service. She complained it wrongly made a social care referral and now she has a social worker. She said the situation caused her stress and anxiety. The Council upheld part of Ms B’s complaint when it carried out its complaint investigation. It found a support worker should not have shared personal information about herself with Ms B. We are satisfied the Council has taken action to remedy any injustice to Ms B caused by this fault. We did not find any other faults with the Council’s actions.

We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council backdating collection of fees for her late mother Mrs Y’s care home placement. Letters the Council sent in 2021 created incorrect expectations for Ms X around the fees Mrs Y had to pay. The Council also delayed in advising Mrs Y of the correct fee, which was fault. But neither issue gives grounds for us to expect the Council to waive part of Mrs Y’s care fees.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the way the Council’s housing management service investigated the complainant’s reports of noise nuisance from a neighbour. This is because we have no power to investigate a council when it is acting as a landlord.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a cancellation of housing benefit as there is a right of appeal to a tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice as it is reasonable to expect Miss X to have appealed against it to the independent parking tribunal. The complaint is not therefore within our remit.

Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of Ms Y. He complains about a delay in providing care and support to Ms Y, providing reablement rather than direct payments without agreement from Ms Y and providing a care plan and direct payments which do not meet Ms Y’s needs. The Council is at fault as it delayed in progressing Ms Y’s assessment and did not consult Ms Y when providing reablement and ensure it met her needs. This caused avoidable distress to Ms Y which the Council has agreed to remedy by apologising and making a payment of £300 to Ms Y. The Council will also remind officers of the need to m

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to take enforcement action against the complainant. This is because the complainant had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: Mrs Y complains on behalf of her daughter, Miss Z, about the Council’s failure to ensure a timely transition when the provider of Miss Z’s residential setting terminated her placement. Mrs Y also complains about the Council’s failure to communicate and consult with her at key times. In our provisional view, we find significant delay by the Council caused injustice to Mrs Y and Miss Z which the Council should remedy with payments of £600 and £300 respectively.