LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Miss B complained the Council failed to properly consider whether to award school transport for her daughter. The Council failed to properly consider Miss B’s representations, the discretionary element of its policy and failed to arrange a stage two panel to consider the case. That leaves Miss B with some uncertainty about whether her daughter would have secured school transport. An apology, payment to Miss B and training for officers is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to apply to the court to take the process back to an earlier stage.

Summary: We have found the Council at fault for failing to inform Mrs X of her review rights when it offered her temporary accommodation. This caused Miss X and her children to be without suitable accommodation for over a year. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Miss X to remedy her injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to correctly inspect Ms X’s neighbour’s electrical wiring. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax liability because there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled Mr X’s homelessness application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care assessments and not being eligible for support. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s process, so we cannot challenge the Council’s eligibility decision even though the complainant disagrees with it. The Council has apologised for communication errors and has offered a further assessment. We are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken and it is unlikely we could achieve anything further.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about several Penalty Charge Notices. If not already done so, it is reasonable to expect Ms X to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about three Penalty Charge Notices because there is not enough evidence of fault in the issuing of two of the penalties, and for the final penalty, we are satisfied with the actions already taken by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide assistance when he was homeless and unemployed in 2020-2021. The complaints are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction because they are considered late complaints. We have not exercised discretion to consider these late complaints because Mr X has not provided evidence to show it was not possible for him to have complained sooner.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a housing benefit overpayment. Mr X has appealed to the Tribunal and the law does not allow us to investigate where an appeal right has been used.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a Council officer during a telephone call with the complainant. We consider there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a call Mrs X made to the Council’s housing needs service out of hours and delay assessing her homelessness. The Council has already accepted fault and offered an appropriate remedy for delay assessing homelessness and responding to the complaint. It is unlikely investigation into the handling of the call would achieve anything further.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council is failing to maintain the road outside his home and this is causing damage to his property. This is because it is reasonable for Mr B to put in a claim to the Council’s insurers, and if needed, take the Council to court.

Summary: We have upheld Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled his request for a housing suitability review. The Council has agreed to a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: Ms Y says the Council failed to act to safeguard Ms X and failed to carry out a needs assessment or provide Ms X with support. The Council accepts it failed to follow the right process when dealing with the safeguarding concerns raised and the request for a care assessment. That meant Ms X missed out on care support and a move to a safer property for more than two years and Ms Y experienced significant distress. An apology, payment to Ms Y and procedural changes are satisfactory remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Ms X’s contact with the Council. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about homelessness advice given to Mrs X’s tenant in 2022. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mrs X could not have complained to us sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council tax exemption because there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal. Further, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council dealt with her homelessness application. She said she is homeless, and this impacted her mental health. There was fault as the Council did not provide Miss X with accommodation after accepting a duty to her and communication was poor. Miss X lived in unsuitable accommodation for 18 months. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a financial payment.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council responded to concerns about anti-social behaviour in a park. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about privacy concerns at a supported living property. This is because we cannot add to the previous investigation or achieve the outcome she wants.

Summary: Miss B complained the Council mishandled her homelessness application. I have found fault by the Council because it failed to take any action on the case for nine months, did not update the Personalised Housing Plan and failed to inform Miss B about her right to review. The Council has agreed to pay redress and make service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council allowed a children’s park to be built in a residential area. This is because the complaint is made late and I see no good reason to exercise discretion and consider it now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Ms X’s homelessness application and the support provided when she was fleeing domestic abuse. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Ms X.