LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Miss D says the Council failed to deal with disrepair in her temporary accommodation. I have found the Council at fault. It delayed assessing the disrepair and failed to take reasonable steps to ensure repairs were completed over a two year period. It left Miss D in unsuitable accommodation and caused significant distress to Miss D and her children. The Council has agreed to pay redress to Miss D for the faults identified.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council holding Miss X liable for council tax. This is because it would be reasonable for Miss X to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss C’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice for an alleged parking contravention. This is because it is reasonable for Miss C to put in formal representations to the Council, and if needed, appeal to London Tribunals.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council has failed to apply council tax reduction since 2023. It is reasonable for Ms X to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal if Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision on her entitlement.

Summary: Ms X complains on behalf of Miss V and Mr Z that the Council delayed providing support to them and their son, Y, while section 19 alternative provision has been in place. Ms X also says the Council has delayed making appropriate school-based provision and has delayed the annual review of Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan. We have found fault in the Councils actions for delaying in completing Y’s annual review and in putting in place tutoring for Y and for failing to provide the provision set out in section F. The Council has agreed to write to Miss V and Mr Z to apologise and pay th

Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council had failed to properly assess her homeless application for over a year. We found fault in the Council’s actions which caused prolonged uncertainty to Mrs B. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B and make a symbolic payment of £200.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the suitability of Ms X’s temporary accommodation. There is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice to justify an investigation into Ms X’s complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has not refunded a payment Mrs X made for a penalty charge notice that was wrongly issued as the Council is to investigate the matter and I consider this is an appropriate way forward at this stage.

Summary: Miss B complained that the Council had failed to find her and her children suitable accommodation since May 2023. We found there was service failure as the Council was unable to find alternative accommodation until June 2025. This meant Miss B lived in unsuitable accommodation for longer than was necessary The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss B and make a symbolic payment of £2100.

Summary: The Council was not at fault for refusing to pay Ms X its full fostering rate (including additional fees) from the date she became a kinship foster carer. This decision was in line with its policy – which says only fully approved foster carers get the full rate – and was not obviously out of step with case law and government guidance. The Council was, however, at fault for a significant delay in approving

Summary: Mr D complained about the Council’s handling of disrepair in his family’s temporary accommodation property, and they lived in unsuitable accommodation longer than they should have. We found the Council caused a service failure for delays in moving the family to a suitable accommodation from November 2024. It was not at fault for how it attempted to progress disrepair with his landlord, and parts of the complaint was late. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment to acknowledge the injustice its failure caused the family.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to provide permanent suitable housing for Miss X following 9 years in temporary accommodation. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s interaction with a Council concerning litigation. Any complaint about those aspects is now late and I have not seen good reasons why it could not have been raised to us earlier.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to appeal to the London Tribunals.

exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the suitability of temporary accommodation offered by the Council in 2023. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Miss X could not have complained to us sooner.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council housing her in the unsuitable accommodation. We found fault with the Council for its failure to review suitability of Miss X’s accommodation. We also found fault in the Council’s complaint handling. The Council’s fault caused injustice to Miss X. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to recognise Miss X's distress.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about two penalty charge notices because the complainant has used her right to submit a witness statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre. We therefore have no power to consider the complaint.

exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that a breach of a section 106 legal agreement has not occurred. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the matter.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how trading standards dealt with his concerns about a faulty appliance. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing Mr X a significant injustice.

Summary: Miss X complains on behalf of Mrs Y that the Council did not deal properly with a safeguarding investigation. The Council didn’t properly communicate with Miss X about what was being investigated. Miss X suffered uncertainty and avoidable distress. The Council should apologise to Miss X and pay Miss X £200.

Summary: Mr Q’s representative complained on his behalf about the Council’s handling of his application for Housing Benefit. They complained the Council had significant delay, did not keep him properly updated, and incorrectly refused his claim. We cannot say whether the Council’s refusal of his claim was the correct decision because it has been appealed to a tribunal, however we find the Council at fault for delays, poor communication and poor complaint handling which caused significant uncertainty, frustration and time and trouble. The Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a failure to provide him with information about disabled facilities grants. Any injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about defects to grant-aided works carried out in 2021. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Miss X could not have complained to us sooner.