LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: There was fault by the Council in complaint handling, poor feedback about safeguarding concerns and a failure to respond promptly to a request for a change in care provider. This caused Ms Y avoidable distress. The Council will apologise and pay Ms Y £500.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council granting planning permission for an extension to a flat below the complainant’s home. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence to suggest fault has affected the planning application outcome, the Council has offered a satisfactory remedy for its delays in responding to the complaint correspondence, and we cannot consider any parts of the complaint about the Council’s actions as freeholder of the building.

Summary: Ms H complained the Council did not take enforcement action about a breach of planning conditions and a noise nuisance. It also delayed responding to her. The Ombudsman upholds the complaint, because of some fault in the Council’s communications with Ms H. The Council has agreed to apologise.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council has failed to assist or support her in finding suitable accommodation. She also complains there were delays and errors in the way the Council dealt with her application to join the housing register. The delays and failings in the way the Council has dealt with Miss X’s application to join the housing register and her requests for assistance amount to fault. This fault has caused Miss X an injustice.

Summary: Miss K complained the Council abruptly moved her without enough notice to another temporary accommodation. She also said the new accommodation was unsuitable. We found the Council at fault for failing to give Miss K enough notice about the move and properly consider the impact this caused her. The Council agreed make payment to Miss K to acknowledge the distress and additional removal costs its short notice caused her. It also agreed she can request for a suitability review if she wishes to do so now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council wrongly sending Mr X a summons for council tax. The Council has offered a payment to Mr X in recognition of its fault, and we cannot add to that. I do not consider the Council’s contact with Mr X about a single person discount caused him sufficient injustice to warrant our involvement.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about penalty charge notices as Ms X appealed against them to London Tribunals. Ms X’s complaint about a refund for a parking permit is made late to us and there are not good reasons to investigate now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to properly consult with residents when making a Tree Preservation Order in 2016. This is because the events happened too long ago, and I see no good reason to exercise discretion and investigate them now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about costs associated with a Liability Order for council tax arrears because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: There was delay by the Council in putting in place alternative education when a child was unable to attend school due to ill-health or ‘otherwise’. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment and make service improvements.

Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered a planning application or planning enforcement complaint. The complaint is not upheld.

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

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council has not responded to his subject access request. This is because the Information Commissioner is in the best position to consider this complaint.

Summary: Miss X complains about the Council’s conduct and treatment of her in relation to her children. She says Council officers were at fault in their preparation of a welfare report of her children which was ordered by the Family Court. Miss X also complains the Council failed to provide evidence of domestic abuse which would have supported her application for legal aid. We found the Council failed to properly consider and respond to Miss X’s request for evidence of domestic abuse. This caused Miss X an injustice and so we have recommended a number of remedies. We cannot investigate the iss

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s conduct in the course of child protection action. This is because our intervention would not add anything significant to the investigation the Council has carried out.

Summary: Ms B complains that she has been on the Council’s housing register for over 10 years. She has bid for properties, but only been shortlisted once. She also complains the Council has refused her applications for extra priority. The Ombudsman finds no fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s housing allocations scheme. There is no evidence we would find fault in the Council’s actions.

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

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about damage caused by the Council’s failure to maintain a roof at a Council-owned property. This is because we cannot investigate complaints about the management of social housing by councils.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council should not have repossessed his garage because it failed to collect direct debits for his garage rent. He says it also did not allow him access to his garage rent account online. We found there was no failure to collect direct debits. The Council did fail to resolve the issue with Mr X’s online account, but we found this did not cause the repossession so the fault we identified did not cause injustice to Mr X.

Summary: There was fault by the Council. It has not evidenced that it made sure the property it procured for Mr B was in a reasonable condition and suitable for him. It did not advise Mr B of his rights and how to raise issues about the property, and did not give him the support he needed to resolve these issues. This caused Mr B uncertainty and frustration and impacted on his wellbeing. The Council has agreed to improve its service. It should also apologise to Mr B and make a payment to him.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council commissioned care provider’s actions when her mother went missing at the care home. The Council and care provider investigated the concerns, identified faults and put actions in place to prevent the faults recurring. The Council has already apologised to Miss X. In addition, it has agreed to make a payment to Miss X and Miss Y to acknowledge the distress caused by the faults and to ensure its contract monitoring team continue to monitor compliance with the care home’s action plans.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s failure to remove scaffolding on a neighbour’s property. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.