LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: It came to our attention that the Council’s Removals and Storage procedure did not properly reflect the requirements of the Housing Act 1996. The Council agreed to review and amend the procedure to make sure it does reflect the relevant legislation. It has also agreed to review requests from 10 households which did not receive removal or storage assistance to ensure the correct test was used.

Summary: We have upheld Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her housing register application. We will not investigate further because the Council has agreed to take appropriate steps to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to deal with her complaints of nuisance caused by a House of Multiple Occupation next to her home. We find no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters. So, we have completed our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the suitability of temporary accommodation. There is a right of review by the Council, and it is reasonable to expect Miss Y to follow this.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that a Council owned tree damaged his property. This is because it is reasonable for Mr X to take the matter to court.

Summary: Miss X complained that the Council told her it would no longer store her belongings it had looked after since 2022, and threatened to dispose of them if she did not move them at a significant cost to her of £1,000 plus VAT. We found fault in the way the Council reached this decision but it has now agreed to continue to store the belongings and pay the cost of returning them to Miss X in due course. We are satisfied this action together with an apology provides a suitable remedy to Miss X.

Summary: We found fault by the Council on Mr Y’s complaint about the way it dealt with his application for post-16 Travel Assistance and appeals. It failed to properly consider them and give full reasons for its decisions. It also fettered its discretion. This caused distress as Mr Y does not know if the outcome would have been different but for the fault. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused. This included sending an apology, arranging a fresh appeal hearing, and issuing fresh guidance to relevant officers.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint, made on behalf of his mother Mrs Y, about the Council’s decision to refuse permission for a wider vehicle crossover, and about the Council’s crossover policy. There is insufficient significant personal injustice to Mr X and Mrs Y from the matters complained of to warrant investigating. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s adoption of its crossover policies to justify us investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council decided to approve a planning application for a new property close to the complainant’s home. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the decision-making process to justify an investigation. Also, we cannot achieve the outcomes the complainant is seeking.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council decided to approve a planning application for a new property close to the complainant’s home. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the decision-making process to justify an investigation. Also, we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about matters relating to a missed bin collection. This is because the matter has not caused Ms X any significant personal injustice which is serious enough to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her housing case when she told it she was at risk of becoming homeless due to rent increases. She said the Council failed to provide a decision letter and withdrew support despite her being in an unaffordable property. We find the Council at fault for failing to make a timely decision regarding the duties it owed Miss X which caused her injustice. The Council agreed to apologise, take corrective action and make a symbolic payment to acknowledge the injustice.

Summary: On behalf of her daughter, K, Mrs B complained the Council failed to complete an annual review and provide the provision detailed in her daughters Education, Health and Care Plan. We have found the Council at fault for a delay in issuing the final Education, Health and Care Plan and a delay in transferring the Education, Health and Care Plan to a new Council. This caused distress, frustration and uncertainty for K and Mrs B. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to K and Mrs B to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council imposing a limit on disability related expenses in her financial assessment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the time taken for the Council to re-house the complainant. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to not to award Miss X full housing benefit. This is because Miss X has used her right to appeal against the decision, so we have no remit to investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage to the boundary fence. That is because it is reasonable for Mrs X to seek a remedy through insurance, or the courts.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the support offered with home to school transport. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: There is some evidence the Council failed properly to consider Mrs X’s needs before she was discharged from hospital and did not give sufficient weight to the concerns expressed by her family. As a result the family made private arrangements for Mrs X to stay in a care home where she was later assessed as needing nursing care from the date of her admission. The Council has agreed to reconsider the date from which the financial assessment was calculated and offer a consolatory sum to Ms Y and Ms Z.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council’s planning administration fees are unlawful. There is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it made the decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged delay by the Council in meeting Ms X’s child’s special educational needs. The complaint is late, and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate these matters now. Even if that were not so, Ms X exercised her right to appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. The content of the child’s Education Health and Care Plan, and how the Council assessed the child’s needs in deciding that content and the school placement, are matters that we could not investigate.

Summary: Mr D complained about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application and the behaviour of Council officers. We found no fault on the substantive parts of the complaint. However, there was a delay to share its non-priority decision. The Council’s apology was enough to acknowledge the limited injustice this caused Mr D.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about being issued a fixed penalty notice for fly-tipping. This is because Mr X can raise a defence against the issuing of the notice in court.

Summary: We have found fault with the Council for the delay in issuing a formal homelessness decision letter. This delayed Miss X’s right to review and caused her avoidable distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise for this delay and pay Miss X £300 for the distress caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with child protection matters concerning Mr X’s children. This is because the complaint is made late, and I see no good reason why it could not have been raised sooner. Also, the issues raised have been, or could reasonably have been mentioned during court proceedings.