LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint that her temporary accommodation is unsuitable. This is because it is reasonable for Miss B to challenge the Council’s decision at court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs M’s son B’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This is because Mrs M appealed to the SEND Tribunal. We cannot investigate a complaint about matters someone has appealed.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Mr X’s concerns about his housing. This is because the Council has appropriately remedied the injustice caused to Mr X by faults in how it dealt with his housing. An investigation of Mr X’s complaint would not achieve anything more for him.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because the complainant could have followed the statutory process and appealed to the tribunal.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to properly support her child, Y’s, special educational needs. There was fault in how the Council failed to keep Y’s alternative education under review and how it decided to withdraw school transport. As a result, Y missed out on education for over a term and this caused Miss X avoidable inconvenience and distress. The Council agreed to apologise, pay Miss X a financial remedy and issue reminders to its staff.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly removed him from its housing register. We ended our investigation because the Council has reinstated Mr X on its housing register and further investigation could not achieve a different outcome.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice. This is because Mrs X has applied to the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court to challenge the Council’s escalation of the case.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s lack of support when Ms X became homeless, which meant she stayed longer than she should in accommodation she could not afford and was evicted by her landlord. We asked the Council to remedy the injustice caused by its delay in arranging alternative accommodation and it has agreed apologise and to make a payment to Ms X.

Summary: We cannot investigate most of Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to issue her with a Penalty Charge Notice because she appealed to a court. We will not investigate the remainder because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

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

Summary: Miss B complained about the Council’s failure to provide her family with suitable accommodation when they were homeless. We find that the Council provided unsuitable bed and breakfast accommodation for far longer than the legal limit and failed to properly explore alternative housing options. It also delayed carrying out a suitability review after it placed the family in alternative accommodation. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Miss B, as well as making service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr Y’s adult social care. Part of the complaint is late. Another part relates to functions of the NHS rather than the Council, and there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions relating to NHS functions. The Council has agreed to take early action to remedy injustice arising from fault we would likely find if we investigated the remaining complaints, and it is therefore not proportionate to investigate further.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council housing register application. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint. Nor is there evidence of material fault in how the organisation made its decision, so we could not question the outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to pay a private landlord for rent arrears and property damage caused by a tenant placed there by an agency. It was reasonable for Mrs X to seek a remedy against the tenant and the agency in the courts for the breaches of an assured shorthold tenancy agreement.

Summary: Miss Y complained about the way the Council dealt with her homelessness application and provision of interim and temporary accommodation. We have found fault by the Council, causing injustice, in failing to:

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of her homelessness case. There was fault in the way the Council did not move Mrs X and her family when it decided her temporary accommodation was not suitable, told Mrs X to wait for a bailiff to evict her, delayed accepting the relief duty and incorrectly applied its policy in backdating an application. This frustrated Mrs X. She lived in unsuitable accommodation and incurred additional travel expenses. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment and provide guidance to its staff.

Summary: Ms X has complained about the Council’s handling of her homelessness application and issues of disrepair in her property. Ms X also says the Council failed to act when she received a Section 21 notice meaning she returned home to find she and her children could not access their property or belongings. We have found fault in the actions of the Council for delay in handling Ms X’s homelessness application and failing to act after she received a Section 21 notice. The Council has agreed to issue an apology to Ms X, pay her a financial payment and complete service improvements.

Summary: Miss X complained about the way the Council housed her and handled her housing application. She said it affected her mental health and money, and made her feel distressed and uncertain. We find the Council at fault and this caused injustice. The Council will say sorry. The Council already offered Miss X a payment. The Council will keep that offer open to Miss X.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council assessed her request for a Discretionary Housing Payment. Mrs X says this caused her distress and financial losses. We have found fault in the Councils actions for failing to confirm if Mrs X received either Housing Benefit or Universal Credit before making its decision. The Council has agreed to issue an apology and pay Mrs X a financial payment.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X complaint about the Council’s handling of her housing benefit and homelessness case. This is because the Council has offered a suitable remedy for the delays and because it is reasonable for Ms X to use her right of appeal. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s communication. That is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. We will also not investigate his complaint about the Council’s decision to end the main housing duty. It is reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the county court if he disagrees with this decision.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her housing application. She said her son, Y, needs his own room. Miss X said the Council refused to increase her banding and she cannot bid for properties in her current banding. There was fault in the way the Council delayed completing the review decision. This frustrated Miss X and caused her uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment and provide guidance to its staff.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint about a statutory nuisance. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. Parts of the complaint are late, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify investigating, and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Council’s decision to end its duty to relieve Miss X’s homelessness. It was reasonable for Miss X to use her statutory right of appeal to the county court, and there is also not a good reason for the delay in bringing the matter to the Ombudsman.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about matters related to his relatives’ proxy and postal votes in the 2024 general election and the Council’s handling of his complaints. We could not add to the Council’s investigation or achieve a different outcome.