LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her housing register application because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about allocation of parking bays. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Council’s licence application process, or the Council’s complaint handling. The claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her child’s 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 Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with his concerns about health and safety. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision not to provide her with a home care package. She said the Council relied on incorrect information in making this decision. The Council was not at fault. It carried out Mrs X’s social care and needs assessment in line with relevant law and policy.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her homelessness and housing register applications. This is because further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse him a Blue Badge. This is because

Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it handled Mr X’s complaint about its homelessness service. There is no evidence of improper complaint handling.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council assessed her liability for council tax because it is reasonable to expect her to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision about Mr X’s housing priority. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating.

Summary: The Council is at fault in its handling of homelessness applications where the applicant has a valid section 21 notice to leave a private tenancy. The Council has agreed to act to prevent injustice to current applicants. The actions already identified by the Council are appropriate steps to improve its services.

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

Summary: We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint about Council costs incurred recovering a Council Tax debt. It is unlikely we would find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council pursuing recovery action for an unpaid penalty charge notice when the complainant had a ‘breathing space’ agreement in place. The Council proposed satisfactory action to address the complaint, in accordance with the complainant’s desired outcome.

Summary: The Council was at fault in its handling of Miss X’s homelessness. It took too long to provide interim accommodation, provided unsuitable accommodation and delayed accepting duties. There was no fault in the Council’s application of its housing allocations policy to Ms X’s case. To remedy the injustice the Council has agreed to apologise, make payments and act to improve its service.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council’s investigation of a complaint he made through the statutory children’s complaint process, was flawed at both stage two and stage three. The Council was at fault as the statutory complaint procedure was flawed. The Council will apologise to Mr X for the avoidable frustration and uncertainty he was caused and conduct a new investigation of his complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s rejection of Mrs X’s blue badge application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council's decision making to justify an Ombudsman investigation.

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

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to address damp and mould in Miss X’s temporary accommodation and delay providing alternative accommodation once a review found it was unsuitable. This left Miss X and her baby at risk of harm from damp and mould, which is an injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise, make payments, and act to improve its services.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s homelessness situation. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons to decide to investigate now. Further, it was reasonable to expect Mr X to exercise his review rights.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the administration of a discretionary grant. This is because there is not enough evidence of the Council causing the complainant significant enough injustice to warrant it, and it would be reasonable to pursue any discrimination claim in court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a complaint about councillors’ conduct. This is because there is not enough evidence of its or the councillors’ actions causing the complainant specific significant injustice which warrants investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the suitability of temporary accommodation. It was reasonable for Miss X to use her statutory right of appeal to the county court. It remains open to her to seek permission from the court to submit a late appeal.