LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about several Penalty Charge Notices that the Council issued. This is because investigation would not lead to a different outcome because the Council has cancelled them and reimbursed fees paid. It is reasonable to expect the complaint to

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice issued by the Council. This is because Mr X paid at the discounted rate of £55 and this amount is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax support or recovery of a housing benefit overpayment as such disputes can be appealed to a tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a ‘school street’ traffic restriction near where the complainant lives. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council decided to implement the restriction, or in the way it considered the complainant’s exemption permit applications.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a dropped kerb in 2022. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because it is a late complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s School Admissions Appeal Panel’s handling of her appeal against the refusal to offer her child a place at her preferred school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant further investigation.

Summary: The Council was at fault for refusing to consider Mrs B’s complaint properly under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. It will now do so.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s prevention of councillors raising concerns where there is already an open complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s action to justify an investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council allocated his family a property which is unsuitable for their medical needs. Mr X says his parents’ physical and mental health have deteriorated due to their current living conditions. We have found the Council at fault. To remedy the injustice caused the Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and ensure all necessary equipment is in full working order before allocating properties in future.

Summary: Mr X says the Council failed to consider his circumstances when refusing his application for a dropped kerb, relied on incorrect information and refused to consider his complaint. The Council failed to properly consider Mr X’s circumstances when refusing his application, included incorrect information in its decision letter and failed to process his appeal. An agreement to carry out a further appeal, send a reminder to officers, consider amending the Council’s guidance and refund of the application fee is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council charging for the first six weeks of Mr Y’s care home stay because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council handled a telephone call about a penalty charge notice. We are satisfied with the actions already undertaken by the Council in response to the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to redesign a pathway providing vehicular access to his property. This is because it is unlikely we could achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint that the Council is failing to maintain the road where she lives. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs B to pursue this matter at court.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council billed her daughter for £20,000 in care charges for the time she spent in supported living from 2015 to 2022. Ms X says her daughter cannot manage her own finances and it failed to tell Ms X about the care charges. The Council has accepted fault for failing to complete a capacity assessment of Ms X’s daughter or keep either Ms X or her daughter suitably informed about care charges. The Council has offered to remove £15,339.64 worth of care charges from 2019 to December 2022. This is a suitable offer to reflect the fault. The Council also agreed to apologise

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s housing benefit claim. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We have no remit to investigate matters that have been to court.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council decided he was not eligible for homelessness assistance. It was reasonable for Mr X to use his appeal rights to the County Court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to send Mr X’s parking contravention notice to the correct address. This is because Mr X has right of appeal to the traffic enforcement centre and it would be reasonable for him to use it.

Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council refused her application and appeals to provide transport for her son to attend college. We have found fault with the process. The Council has agreed to carry out a fresh stage two appeal, apologise to Mrs B and pay her £300 and to improve its procedures for the future.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing a parking penalty charge notice. It was reasonable for Mr X to appeal the penalty to an adjudicator at the London Tribunals which is the proper authority to consider parking penalty challenges.

Summary: Mrs C complains about the way the Council dealt with Mr B’s homelessness. She complains it did not consider his vulnerability or ask about how his disability might affect his communications with it. It gave him wrong advice about his ability to afford accommodation. It offered him a property, which it withdrew, and then told him he needed to move to another city. And later it said it did not owe him any duty. Our decision is there was fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to provide Miss X’s son with a virtual blue badge. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The injustice to Miss X is not significant enough to warrant an investigation and there is also not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice and related enforcement action. It is reasonable for

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to conduct an anti-social behaviour case review correctly. She also complains the Council communicated poorly and did not properly consider her requests for reasonable adjustments. We have found the Council at fault for not properly documenting the decision-making at the anti-social behaviour case review meeting and for failing to provide Mrs X with a proper right of appeal. We also found the Council at fault for its communication with Mrs X. We have made recommendations to remedy the injustice these faults caused. We have not found the Council at fa

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s parking permit renewal process. She said the Council took payment but then said her permit was cancelled. The refund the Council offered, and an apology is a suitable remedy.