LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council dealt with the disrepair issues at her temporary accommodation. The Council was at fault for its failure to properly deal with and resolve the disrepair issues Miss X reported to it. The Council’s faults caused Miss X distress, worry, inconvenience, frustration and she and her child continued to live in accommodation with recurring disrepair for a significant period. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: Mr B complained the Council failed to move him from unsuitable accommodation, wrongly closed his homeless application, failed to tell him about his right to request a review, delayed awarding medical priority and delayed responding to his complaint. The Council delayed providing Mr B with suitable accommodation, failed to follow the right process when closing his homeless application, failed to tell him about his review rights, failed to properly consider his medical priority and delayed responding to his complaint. That meant Mr B stayed in unsuitable accommodation for longer than ne

Summary: Ms Z, on behalf of Mr X, complained the Council wrongly removed housing register priority points affecting his bidding for available properties. There was fault in respect of the number of points awarded between September 2023 and February 2024 however there is no evidence this meant Mr X missed out on an available property. A symbolic payment for the distress caused is agreed.

Summary: Mr C complained on behalf of a resident’s association about how the Council dealt with a planning application for works to a wall and balustrades. He said this result in the loss of several mature trees and impact residential amenity and the local environment. We found no fault in the way the Council considered the planning application and the objections it received. It therefore reached a decision it was entitled to make.

Summary: Mr X complained about delays in dealing with his homelessness application and the suitability of accommodation he was offered. We do not find fault with the process the Council followed when making its decisions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the management of social housing, antisocial behaviour, parking issues and highway disrepair. Part of the complaint is late, we cannot investigate the Council’s actions as a social landlord, the courts are better placed to consider a personal injury claim, and we could not add to its response about parking enforcement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about suitability the Council’s offer of interim and temporary accommodation under its homelessness duty. The complainant has asked for a review of suitability under the s.202 review procedure and has further rights of appeal to the County Court.

Summary: We have upheld Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her homelessness case. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council handled her application to join its housing register. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not having paid Miss X direct payments to hire a personal assistant. We will not reconsider matters we already decided in 2024. Given this, investigation of later events would not achieve a meaningful outcome, and we could not say any later fault by the Council caused injustice.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of their homelessness application. We found the Council was at fault for issuing a decision letter which was unclear. This caused frustration to Mr and Mrs X for which the Council has already apologised. The Council has agreed to a service improvement to prevent further fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council entering his property without prior permission. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council assessed Miss X’s individual needs when giving her housing register application suitable priority. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant further investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council handled her application for a discretionary housing payment. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council. incorrectly stopped her council tax support. It is reasonable for Ms X to ask the Council for a review and then appeal to the Valuation Tribunal if she is unhappy with the Council’s decision.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a homelessness application and provision of interim accommodation. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Ms X could not have complained to us sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a parking penalty because it is reasonable to expect her to approach the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax because there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal, the matter is out of time and partly relates to a body out of jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered reports of breaches of planning control and building regulations. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. And we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s issue and handling of a penalty charge notice. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to take the matter to court.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council failed to consider residents views before approving a planning application, did not consult her before approving the construction management plan and has failed to take enforcement action. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed considering the environmental health concerns she raised about her previous property. Ms X is also unhappy with how the Council considered her application for social housing and said it did not give her the correct priority points. Ms X said this impacted her mental and physical health. The Council did accept some fault and offered Ms X £250. There was fault in the way the Council delayed making decisions about Ms X's homelessness and did not suitably act to resolve the condition of the property. There was also fault in the priority points allocatio

Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed to honour its offer to make a payment to him in recognition of the injustice caused by fault in its handling of his late partner’s housing application. We found the Council was at fault in raising Mr X’s expectations in relation to the payment.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s housing. Parts of the complaint are late without enough reason to investigate them now. It is unlikely we could reach a clear enough view or achieve anything significant on some points now. The Council has not yet had a reasonable opportunity to deal with some other potential points of complaint. The law prevents us investigating the Council’s management of Mr X’s social housing.

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.