LGO Individual Decisions

this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council has unfairly developed its policy on Special Guardianship allowances, which has impacted the children in her care. The Ombudsman find no fault in how the Council decided to implement a new policy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council responded after the complainant reported concerns about a tree. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Coujcil and because the complainant could make an insurance claim.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the support the Council provided to her during a fostering placement and the length of time it took in making a decision about her future as a foster carer. The Council had acknowledged there was fault and had implemented learning points. The Council agreed to remedy the personal injustice to Mrs X by apologising to her and making a payment to reflect the distress its failures caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a child protection assessment in 2020. There are no good reasons the late complaint rule should not apply.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance. This is because the courts are better placed to consider the complaint.

Summary: There was fault by the Council as it failed to place Miss X on the direct offer housing list. Miss X has not missed offers of housing, but her application has now been placed on the direct offer list and backdated to when police advice was received.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her neighbour’s planning application and her report of a possible breach of planning permission. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council affecting its decisions.

We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his and his insurer’s claim of liability against the Council for damage caused to his property by its trees, and about the Council not responding to the claim or his complaints. We cannot make findings on legal liability. Should the Council reject the claim, it would be reasonable for Mr X and his insurers to pursue at court the rulings on legal liability they seek. We do not investigate complaints about councils’ internal complaints processes or correspondence where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council overcharging Mr X for council tax. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to use his right of appeal to the Valuations Tribunal.

Summary: We did not find fault with the way the Council considered Ms X’s complaint through the statutory complaint process.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his reports of disrepair in his privately rented accommodation. The Council was at fault for closing his case too soon and for taking too long to deal with his report initially. The Council also took too long to respond to Mr X’s complaints and to consider if it needed to take further enforcement action against his landlord. This caused Mr X injustice which has been exacerbated by his existing mental health conditions. The Council will apologise and make an enhanced remedy payment to Mr X.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council had failed to deliver improvements to its affordable housing monitoring procedures. We found no fault because the Council has effective procedures for carrying out its functions.

Summary: There was fault in the late Mr Y’s care, which was not delivered in line with his care and support plan as care calls were much shorter than they should have been. The Council has already identified fault and taken some action by apologising to the family and ending its contract with the Care Provider. The Council will make a payment to reflect the avoidable distress described in this statement.

Summary: The Council’s delay assessing Ms X’s change of circumstances forms and related evidence was fault. This caused Ms X avoidable frustration and uncertainty for over nine months. To remedy this injustice, the Council should apologise, pay Ms X £500, review her priority and act to improve its services.

Summary: Miss B says the Council delayed telling her she needed to complete a new housing register application, failed to consider her family’s medical needs when awarding her a housing band and failed to respond to her complaint. The Council wrongly closed Miss B’s housing register application, wrongly told her she would need to complete a new application, failed to respond to her correspondence and failed to respond to her stage two complaint. An apology, payment to Miss B, review of this case to identify what went wrong and an action plan to address that, reminder to officers and a review o

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant being prevented from voting in the 2016 EU referendum and the 2021 Greater London Authority election. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to have contact us sooner, and we have no power to investigate complaints about the organisation/conduct of elections.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about changes to the swimming policy in a local leisure centre and the Council’s complaint handling. The injustice to the complainant is not significant enough to warrant an investigation and we will not look at complaint handling as a standalone issue.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about problems with Miss X’s accommodation. It is reasonable to expect Miss X to use her rights to take court action.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay by the Council in issuing the variation to Mr X’s HMO (House in Multiple Occupation) licence. This is because the complaint is a late complaint and so falls outside our jurisdiction and because there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to Mr X’s concerns of overgrown ivy affecting his property. This is because Mr X has a legal remedy against the Council for the damage he claims.

Summary: Mr B says the Council failed to move him to a different property when environmental health condemned the property he is living in, failed to consider his medical conditions when awarding him priority on the housing register and failed to respond to contact from his representative. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered Mr B’s banding or in its communications with his representative. The Council failed to follow up on disrepair issues at Mr B’s property and misled him about what it intended to do. An apology, payment to Mr B and an inspection of Mr B’s property is

Summary: Ms X complains that the Council placed her in unsuitable accommodation in March 2022 and has not addressed her concerns. The Council is at fault for not informing Ms X of her right to

Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council failed to carry out a review of a planning application it considered in 2016, despite promising to do so. The Council has now resolved the matter by completing its review. We will not investigate how the Council considered the planning application or about any conclusions it reached in its recent review. This is because the permission was granted too long ago, and I see no good reason to exercise discretion and investigate this now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a social worker telling Mr X to inform his employer about a child protection matter. The complaint is late, and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate it now. We also could not achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking even if the complaint were not late.