LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We upheld a complaint from Mr C, finding he experienced repeated problems with waste collection over a thirteen month period. This caused him injustice as he experienced avoidable inconvenience and frustration. The Council accepted these findings. At the end of this statement we set out the action it has agreed to remedy that injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s advice to Mr X’s tenant regarding his possession action and rent arrears. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council offering unsuitable permanent accommodation to Mrs Y. This is because part of the complaint is late and there is insufficient injustice to justify investigating the parts of the complaint made in time.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to properly investigate her complaints about breaches of planning conditions near her home. The Council accepted it had not properly investigated Miss X’s concerns or communicated with her. The Council then failed to carry out further action it said it would. These failures caused Miss X avoidable frustration, time and trouble, and some additional cost. The Council agreed to properly investigate Miss X’s concerns, apologise and pay her a financial remedy.

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to make inquiries when Miss X gave it reason to believe she might be homeless. The Council was also at fault for telling Miss X to approach a different Council, inadequate record keeping and refusing to deal with Miss X’s complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise, investigate Miss X’s case, make a payment to her and act to improve its services.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on a homelessness application. It was reasonable for Miss X to use the review/appeal procedure available under the homelessness legislation.

Summary: We have upheld Miss X’s complaint because the Council delayed progressing a complaint through stage two of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint by completing its stage two investigation without further delay, apologising to Miss X and making a payment to her to remedy the time and trouble she has been to.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to assist Miss X with her housing problems. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. It was reasonable for her to ask the Council for a review if she disagreed with its homelessness decision.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s actions in relation to her housing. We found fault because the Council failed to consider aspects of Miss X’s case in a timely or adequate manner. It also failed to investigate her complaints within the timeframe it should. This caused Miss X avoidable distress and uncertainty. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Miss X, and issue reminders and share guidance with relevant officers.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to reject Miss X’s Right to Buy application. It is reasonable for Miss X to apply to the courts for a determination of the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his requests to find alternative accommodation for Council tenants living in his private rented property. This is because it is reasonable for him to take court action in relation to the matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax liability because there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax liability because the matter has been remedied.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision in response to his suitability review request and the Council’s failure to offer a proper remedy. We found fault with the way the Council reviewed the suitability of Mr X’s accommodation. This fault caused injustice to Mr X which lasted for a few months and was more significant because of Mr X’s individual circumstances. The Council agreed to apologise, complete the remedy it has already offered to Mr X and make an additional distress payment.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to consider his review request about its homelessness decisions. He said he had no accommodation because of the Council’s actions. We have ended our investigation as the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Mr X should complete the Council review and if he disagrees with the decision, it is reasonable for him to appeal to the County Court.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council serving a notice to quit to vacate temporary accommodation. We cannot investigate complaints about matters which are subject to court proceedings. We will not exercise discretion to investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s review of his homelessness case decision. 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 have found the Council at fault for failing to consider new medical information in relation to Mrs X’s housing register application. This delayed Mrs X being able to bid on properties and caused her avoidable distress. The Council has agreed to apologise, backdate Mrs X’s priority, make a distress payment and provide information about properties Mrs X potentially missed out on.

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, about the Council’s handling of the reaggregation of council tax collection from houses in multiple occupation. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about matters related to Mr X’s child. The law prevents us considering the conduct of court proceedings. Mr X can reasonably take court action if he believes the Council has not provided court orders and if he wants changes to his child’s living or visiting arrangements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on a homelessness application. It was reasonable for Mr X to ask the Council to review its decision under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996 Part 6.

Summary: We found no fault on Mrs Y’s complaint about the Council failing to move her to permanent accommodation. She was on its housing register but failed to bid for properties which became available. While the Council failed to show it told her it had discharged the full housing duty it owed, this caused no injustice to her. This was because the tenancy agreement she signed did not include the Council as the landlord, but a private limited company.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s publication of false information. We do not consider the complainant has suffered enough personal injustice to warrant our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to transfer her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan to another Authority. This is because the Council apologised and an investigation is unlikely to achieve any additional outcome, and because we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants.

Summary: We found London Borough of Enfield, North London NHS Foundation Trust and North Central London Integrated Care Board failed to properly assess and review Miss X’s aftercare needs following her discharge from hospital in 2018. This caused Miss X significant uncertainty and distress. These organisations will apologise to Miss X for this fault, take remedial action and make a symbolic payment in recognition of the impact of these events on her.

Summary: We found London Borough of Enfield, North London NHS Foundation Trust and North Central London Integrated Care Board failed to properly assess and review Miss X’s aftercare needs following her discharge from hospital in 2018. This caused Miss X significant uncertainty and distress. These organisations will apologise to Miss X for this fault, take remedial action and make a symbolic payment in recognition of the impact of these events on her.