LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s housing application. This is because part of the complaint is late and because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Miss B complained the Council did not provide suitable temporary accommodation between June 2020 and July 2021. She also complained the Council delayed contacting other councils to source suitable temporary accommodation. We found the Council at fault for delays offering Miss B suitable temporary accommodation and responding to her complaint. The Council will apologise and make a financial payment to remedy the injustice caused to Miss B and her child by its delays.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council forced his wife to leave home, his son to attend school rather than be home educated and failed to communicate with him appropriately. There is insufficient evidence of Council fault and no injustice. Investigation will not achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to respond to his concerns about the care of his two children, who were in foster care. The Council was at fault for failing to follow its safeguarding procedures and for failing to tell Mr X the outcome of its investigation. This has caused Mr X avoidable uncertainty and put him to avoidable time and trouble. We are satisfied with the Council’s proposed remedy. The Council agreed to apologise and make a personal remedy payment to Mr X and act to prevent recurrence.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a council tax bill as Ms X can appeal about it to the Valuation Tribunal if she considers the Council’s calculation is wrong. The Tribunal is best placed to make a determination on this matter.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council delayed paying housing benefit to which he was entitled. We are satisfied the Council has paid the benefit and it has agreed to pay Mr X £100 to remedy any injustice caused by the delay.

this complaint about the Council’s refusal to issue Mr X with a new parking permit. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Ms X complains about a 2019 Council decision on a planning application which will affect her property. We will not investigate the complaint because the complaint is a late complaint and so falls outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to notify her it had started a safeguarding in respect of her father and failed to complete the investigation and explain the reasons for this decision. The Council closed the safeguarding investigation prematurely in error, which is fault. It has now completed a retrospective safeguarding investigation reaching a decision that is unlikely to have been different even if it had been completed sooner.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council delayed responding to his request for a review of its decision not to pay solicitor’s costs. He also says the reasons the Council gave were incorrect. He says it has caused financial loss and time and trouble. We consider there is fault by the Council in its decision making, and avoidable delay. We have recommended a remedy.

Summary: Ms C complained the Council failed to rehouse her despite her urgent need to move, misunderstood the occupational therapy recommendation, failed to consider her medical evidence, denied offering her a property when it had done so, delayed considering her complaint, failed to properly address the complaint and wrongly amended her bidding date. There was some miscommunication about the occupational therapy recommendation but that did not affect Ms C securing a property and there were issues not addressed in the complaint response. There is no evidence of fault in the rest of the complai

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to follow its policy to collect contaminated recycling within 48 hours. Mr X also complained the Council’s definition of contaminated waste is too wide. The Ombudsman found fault with the Council. The Council agreed to the Ombudsman’s recommendation to create a policy for contaminated recycling waste, complete a period of monitoring of Mr X’s block of flats recycling collections, apologise to Mr X and pay him £150 for the frustration and inconvenience caused.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council rejected his application for the housing register and did not correctly apply its allocations policy. This meant his application was refused rather than assessed. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for how it handled communication about Mr X’s application and his complaint. The Council has agreed to pay financial remedy in recognition of the distress caused to Mr X and consider service improvements. The Ombudsman does not fault with the Council for how its allocation policy was applied.

Summary: Mr C complains the Council failed to respond to his housing register application in a timely manner. He complains the Council failed to fully consider whether he should be awarded priority on medical or overcrowded grounds. We find the Council at fault. This caused Mr C distress and uncertainty. To remedy the injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr C, make him a payment and review its decision. The Council has also agreed to make several service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to let a commercial property to the complainant. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint about noise and dust nuisance caused by nearby construction works.

We will not investigate this complaint about the Council deciding to grant planning permission for development near the complainant’s home. The complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is nothing to suggest fault affected the Council’s decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice. Mr X appealed against it to London Tribunals and so the matter is no longer within our remit.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about changes to the boundary fencing at a local school. This is because the complaint is late and there are not good reasons to investigate the complaint now.

Summary: The Council was at fault for saying it would end Ms X’s temporary accommodation and its duties towards her without providing a proper decision letter or notice. The Council has agreed to pay Ms X £500 for the distress she was caused. This is a suitable remedy so we will not investigate this complaint. We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaints about the suitability of her accommodation as she has a right of appeal to court.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because Miss Y has already used her right to appeal.

Summary: Mr X complained that the Council’s planning enforcement team failed to respond to queries he made in 2020. When he complained in 2021 he says the Council began a vindictive and retaliatory planning enforcement investigation against him. We found there was a failure to respond to Mr X and some confusion caused by the way it responded to the complaint. This warranted a remedy. We found the Council’s actions when following up a separate planning enforcement complaint were appropriate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to withdraw the complainants use of a disabled parking bay This is because the events happened too long ago and I see no reason why the complaint could not have been made sooner.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because Mr Y has already appealed to the Traffic Enforcement Centre.

Summary: Mr A complains the Council failed to properly investigate his complaints of a statutory noise nuisance, which forced him to move house and incur costs. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for failing to follow its noise policies, and for delaying investigating Mr A’s noise complaints. This caused Mr A distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to pay financial sum to Mr A in recognition of the distress and uncertainty caused. The Council has also agreed to implement service improvements.