LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the conduct of her local Councillor. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify further investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss X’s council tax payment plan. This is because it is reasonable to expect Miss X to use her right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to consider a complaint under the statutory children’s complaint procedures, relating to its involvement with her as a child. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault in that decision. Nor will we investigate the substantive issues Miss X is complaining about. Because we could not carry out a meaningful investigation due to the passage of time or achieve the outcome Miss X is seeking.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement with her when she was a child. This is because, given the passage of time, we do not consider there is a realistic prospect of reaching a sound, fair and meaningful decision.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s recovery of council tax arrears. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s offer of accommodation under its housing allocations policy. There is insufficient evidence of fault. If the Council decides to close the housing application it is reasonable for Mr X to exercise his right to have the decision reviewed.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council provided her with unsuitable interim and temporary accommodation for a prolonged period. Ms X also complained the Council failed to properly administer her homelessness application, delayed completing a suitability review, and communicated poorly. We have found the Council acted with fault. These faults meant Ms X lived in unsuitable accommodation for a prolonged period and experienced significant avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to provide a written apology to Ms X and pay a symbolic financial remedy to recognise the

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to taken enforcement action against a breach of planning control by the complainant’s neighbours. We have not seen sufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: Ms X complained that the Council delayed in processing her Section 202 review request about the suitability of the temporary accommodation offered to her. Ms X says this caused her distress. Based on current evidence we have found fault in the Council’s actions but do not recommend a remedy.

Summary: Ms X complained that the Council has not carried out its financial assessment for her father correctly. We found the Council is not at fault.

Ms X complained about how the Council responded to her brother Mr Y’s homelessness applications in 2023. We found several faults. There were months of delays by the Council and basic administrative errors. The Council repeatedly failed to respond correctly to Mr Y’s attempts to access support from its housing service. This meant that instead of being housed by the Council, Mr Y had to live with another of his sisters, Ms Z, despite her being seriously unwell and despite the impact of his mental health needs on their wellbeing. The faults caused Mr Y, Ms X and Ms Z significant stress and upset.

Summary: The Council was at fault as it failed to provide occupational therapy for Miss X’s child from September 2024 to March 2025 in line with their Education, Health and Care Plan, and it poorly communicated and handled her case. It will apologise and make a payment to Miss X to acknowledge the impact of the missed occupational therapy provision. It will also identify why it failed to arrange the occupational therapy provision and report back to us on the action it has taken to address this.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s council tax account. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Penalty Charge Notices because it is reasonable to expect Miss Y to go to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the London Tribunals to appeal the matter.

Summary: Mx X complains the Council did not deal properly with her daughter Y’s education because it did not provide alternative education and she says Y lost education provision. The Council did not properly consider whether it should provide s19 alternative education for Y. Y suffered loss of educational provision and opportunity for 3 months. The Council should apologise and Pay Mx X £1,800 for loss of education provision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decisions on a homelessness application. It is reasonable for the complainant to use the review/appeal procedure provided by the homelessness legislation.

Summary: Ms C complains about the Council’s decision to reduce her sister’s direct payment. I have found no procedural fault in the way the Council has reached its decision. It is however at fault for failing to address all Ms C’s complaints. To remedy the complaint the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms C and make service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her homelessness application in 2017 and its later decision to suspend her housing register application. This is because this complaint is late.

Summary: Miss B complained that the Council had failed to properly consult her or provide sufficient support when a relative (E) lived with her for three months. It also delayed in responding to her complaint about the matter. We found the Council should have contacted Miss B when it was aware E was living there, to discuss the arrangements and offer support. The failure to do so caused Miss B distress and financial hardship. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay her an additional £250.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council failed to provide a school place for her child who has an Education Health Care (EHC) Plan. Part of the complaint is late, and it was reasonable for Ms X to appeal to the SEND Tribunal if she disagreed with the content or provision in the EHC Plan.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council wrongly approved a planning application for a development next to her property. There was no evidence of fault in how the Council considered the planning application. The Council delayed in dealing with Mrs X’s complaint at stage two of its complaints procedure which caused frustration to her. The Council has apologised to Mrs X for the delay which was an appropriate and proportionate remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of housing issues. It is too late to investigate some of the issues raised. There are other bodies better placed to consider some of the other issues Ms X has brought to us.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint the Council has lost her personal belongings. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council provided an inadequate refuse service for her clinical waste. The Council was at fault for poor record keeping, failing to investigate Mrs X’s concerns appropriately and for providing inaccurate information about changes to its service. This caused Mrs X avoidable frustration and uncertainty for which the Council will apologise and pay £150. It will also update the information available to residents on what waste can go in general waste bins.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council was incorrectly taking into account the cost of her adult son’s residential college placement in the way it calculated his contribution to his care charges. We have ended our investigation. Mr Y’s financial contribution is calculated as zero, so the injustice is not significant enough to warrant any further investigation.