LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: there was fault in the way the Council considered Ms X’s request for a review of its decision that it did not owe her a housing duty because she was not homeless. There was also fault in the way it considered her legal adviser’s request for accommodation pending the outcome of the review. The injustice to Ms X is the uncertainty about the outcome if these matters had been properly considered. She also suffered distress at a time when she was particularly vulnerable and in need of support.

Summary: Ms D complained the Council was at fault when it reviewed a decision that she was not liable to pay business rates on premises she has used since 2019, which meant she could not claim grants to support businesses impacted by COVID-19. We do not find fault in the Council’s decision that a third party was responsible for those business rates.

Summary: We will not investigate how the Council dealt with a complaint from Mr X. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We will not investigate complaint handling as a standalone issue or pursue a complaint purely to secure an apology.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr D’s complaint about the care and support he receives from the Council. This is because further investigation could not add to the Council’s responses.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Penalty Charge Notices. This is because Mr Y can reasonably be expected to use his right of appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the London Tribunals.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council has refused to cancel a penalty charge notice issued for parking on the pavement. We cannot lawfully investigate because Mr X used his right of appeal to a tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions relating to a building regulation completion certificate. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his representations against six penalty charge notices. This is because Mr X has used his right of appeal to London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Mrs X’s housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s request for more housing priority based on Mr X’s volunteering work. There is not enough evidence the Council is at fault.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide the Occupational Therapy outlined in her daughter, C’s, Education, Health and Care Plan after it was introduced in May 2021. We find the Council was at fault for failing to put the provision in place and failing to check it was in place. As a result, C missed out on Occupational Therapy provision for 12 months. The Council has agreed to review its processes and make a payment to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s repossession of the complainant’s garage. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council wrongly issued him with a Penalty Charge Notice for an alleged parking contravention. This is because it is reasonable for Mr B to make representations to the Council, and if needed, appeal to London Tribunals.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his concerns following receipt of a Moving Traffic Penalty Notice. The Enforcement Agent acting on behalf of the Council was at fault for not following guidance when Mr X told it he was vulnerable due to a disability. The Agent was also at fault for failing to properly consider Mr X’s request to pay off the debt in instalments. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr X in recognition of the distress caused by the Agent’s actions. It will also ensure the Enforcement Agent is reminded of its legal duties to vulnerable d

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax, council tax reduction and housing benefit. This is because it is reasonable to expect Ms Y to appeal to both the Valuation Tribunal and the Social Entitlement Chamber about the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council committed a data breach. This is because complaints about data matters, such as this, are best considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the handling of Miss X’s housing application. The Council wrongly gave Miss X a priority star for statutory overcrowding, but that did not cause significant enough injustice for us to take further action. The Council properly reached its decision about medical priority.

Summary: The Council’s delay re-assessing Mr X’s application to the housing register was fault. Mr X was in the wrong priority band for almost a year and missed offers of accommodation as a result. The Council has agreed to apologise, backdate Mr X’s application in the correct priority band, pay him £500, and act to improve its services.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has refused to acknowledge that its officer acted unprofessionally. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to address his immigration status whilst he was a looked after child. We find the Council is at fault for failing to deal with Mr X’s complaint through the statutory children's complaints process. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and investigate his complaint through the statutory complaints process.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed in assessing his housing application. Mr X said this meant he was not in the correct priority banding when he should have been. We find fault with the Council for delays in processing Mr X’s application and for how it dealt with his complaint. We recommend the Council apologise to Mr X, make a payment to recognise the injustice caused by the delays, and backdate Mr X’s priority banding.

Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed to take effective action to deal with anti-social behaviour from a tenant for over a year, including noise and harassment. I have found fault with the Council’s communication with Mr X. The Council has agreed to apologise.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with a woman’s homelessness case. This is because the woman had statutory review and appeal rights she could have used to dispute the Council’s homelessness decision in her case. In addition, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council regarding other matters to warrant our further involvement.

Summary: Ms N complains the Council has not given her enough priority on its housing register to reflect her medical need to move. She also complains about delays in dealing with referrals. The Ombudsman upholds the complaint because the Council delayed acting on her request to give her medical priority. And not acting on a referral from a Councillor. The fault caused some avoidable uncertainty and time and trouble. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to apologise and make a payment to recognise the injustice to her.

Ms X alleges administrative failings related to the Council’s failure to provide information requested under the Freedom of Information Act. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is reasonable for Ms X to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office as the most appropriate authority for her complaint.