LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the council handled his parking permit application because it is not warranted by the alleged injustice.

Summary: The Council was at fault because of a lengthy delay in making a decision the complainant had applied for the wrong type of landlord licence, and then threatening him with a significant fine for not holding the correct licence, without considering the fact the complainant had followed the Council’s own advice in making his application in the first place. The Council had already offered an appropriate remedy, but it has now also agreed to formally apologise to the complainant for this.

Summary: Mrs D complained the Council failed to correctly assess her housing need. I have upheld the complaint because the Council failed to show how it assessed the case. The Council accepts there is fault and will provide a full explanation of its decision to Mrs D, advise of her right to a review and pay redress for time and trouble.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a complaint about the conduct of a councillor. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to decline an Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment and the delay in providing a decision. This is because it would be reasonable for her to use her right of appeal to a tribunal and there is not sufficient injustice in a short delay to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to make the complainant a suitable offer of housing within a reasonable timescale. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs Y’s complaint about the Council’s failure to name a school on her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because she has used her right of appeal to a tribunal about the same matter.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in carrying out an occupational therapy assessment. This is because the Council has already taken suitable action to remedy the matters.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision Miss X is not eligible for housing assistance. It is reasonable for Miss X to use her statutory right of appeal to county court.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because Miss X used her right to appeal to a tribunal, and the Council’s recovery action began in court with a charge certificate.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaints about the Council’s refusals to: discount her council tax, provide a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG), and reimburse fines paid. This is because the first complaint has already been responded to by the Ombudsman and the remaining complaints are late.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about court reports the Council has produced about his children. The law prevents us from investigating anything that is the subject of court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a dropped kerb. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaints about delays in the annual review of her child’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan, the decision to name a specific school within the EHC Plan, or her concerns about the Council’s consultation with schools. This is because Mrs X had a right to appeal to a Tribunal and it was reasonable for her to use that right. For the remainder, an investigation is unlikely to achieve any additional outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the Right to Buy process. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to use the alternative court remedy which is available.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that Ms X was intentionally homeless in 2024. It was reasonable for her to ask for a review of the decision if she wished to challenge it. We will not investigate her complaint that the Council has delayed processing her housing application. There is insufficient evidence of any fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Ms X’s Council tenancy and ‘right to buy’ application. The law prevents us investigating the tenancy matters. The refusal of the ‘right to buy’ application is too closely related to the tenancy point for us to consider it. It is also reasonable to expect Ms X to use her right to go to court.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the suitability of the property offered to her by the Council as its final offer under the main housing duty. This is because it was reasonable for Ms X to have used her right of review at the time. In addition, an investigation would not lead to any worthwhile outcomes.

Summary: We have found fault with the Council for its poor communication with Mr X about his adult son’s (Mr Y’s) care contributions. This caused Mr X and his family avoidable distress. The Council agreed to remedy this injustice.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council cutting down trees in his garden. This is because we cannot investigate complaints about the management of social housing by councils.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his dropped kerb application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault affecting its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his request to pay a penalty charge notice at the discounted rate. This is because the Council’s actions did not cause Mr X significant injustice.

Summary: Ms X complained about miscommunication by the Council’s contractor when her car was removed and placed in a compound. The misinformation caused delay as a result of which the storage costs increased and Ms X was no longer able to pay the release fee. The vehicle was destroyed by the contractor against the Council’s instructions and without a final warning being sent to Ms X. We found the Council was at fault. To remedy the injustice caused it has agreed to apologise to Ms X and make a payment to her.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s refusal of his dropped kerb application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council delayed arranging transport for her father, Mr Y, to attend a day centre. She says this prevented him from having cultural, social and cognitive stimulation. We find the Council at fault which caused Mr Y and Ms X injustice. The Council has agreed to make a payment and apologise to Mr Y and Ms X and take service improvement action.