LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in making decisions on his housing register application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s delay responding to her queries about her housing application banding. This is because the Council has upheld the complaint, apologised for the delay and provided explanations. Further investigation by us would therefore not be proportionate.

Summary: There was fault by the Council because of a delay in processing the complainant’s housing register application, and then enabling him to bid on properties once it had verified the application. However, the Council has already provided a suitable remedy for this. There was no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision on the complainant’s priority and bedroom entitlement. We have therefore completed our investigation.

this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. we will not consider events which took place more than 12 months before we received the complaint. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the current priority assessment which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council handled her housing application. She said the Council failed to process her application in a timely manner and failed to activate her bidding number. The Council was at fault. It delayed Ms X’s housing application by two years, which meant she missed out on opportunities to bid for social housing sooner. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and make a payment to acknowledge the distress and frustration this caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a blue badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the SEN provision made by the Council for Ms X’s child. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of a homelessness review of suitability. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate how the Council dealt with Miss X’s complaint about a seagull nest on the roof of her block. This is because we could not add to the Council’s investigation or achieve anything more.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about her homelessness application. It was reasonable for Miss X to use her statutory right of appeal to the county court.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council failed to deal with her applications to join their housing register. Part of the complaint is late without good enough reason to investigate it now. On the part that is not late, we have not seen enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about welfare payments because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council delayed in repairing her kitchen window. This is because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council refused to increase her priority banding. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: Ms D says the Council delayed moving her from unsuitable temporary accommodation. The Council accepts fault in this case and has agreed to pay Ms D redress and make service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax enforcement because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Mr X has a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal about the application of an empty homes premium and a right of appeal to a Land Tribunal against an Empty Dwelling Management Order.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about housing allocations because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay by the Council in providing Mr X with an update about his application to buy his home under the Right to Buy scheme as Mr X can serve a legal notice on the Council for a response.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her homelessness application. In relation to the parts of the complaint we could consider, it is unlikely that further investigation would lead to a worthwhile outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s offer of unsuitable temporary accommodation because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice he received for an alleged moving traffic contravention. This is because it was reasonable for Mr B to put in an appeal to London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the information provided about a property before she bid on it, nor the Council’s consideration of whether it was suitable for her. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justly our involvement. In addition, Ms X had rights of review and appeal in relation to the suitability of the property and it was reasonable for her to exercise them.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not complete a carer’s assessment for her and about how it has handled Miss Y’s care needs. We find the Council at fault for not completing a carer’s assessment for Miss X and for delays in arranging Miss Y’s care, causing uncertainty and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise, offer Miss X a carer’s assessment and make a payment to recognise the injustice.

Summary: Miss Y complained about the response to her reports of issues at the temporary accommodation the Council provided for her. We have found fault, causing injustice, because of delays by the Council’s agents, for which the Council is responsible, in responding to Miss Y’s reports of issues with the cooker at the accommodation. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising to Miss Y and making a payment to reflect the upset caused.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to properly consider her housing application and the evidence she provided. We do not find fault with how the Council considered Miss X’s application. We find the Council at fault for delays in considering Miss X’s review request, causing uncertainty, but the Council has already acted to address this.