LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mrs Q complains the Council delayed referring her daughter for an Adult Social Care assessment, in the time before her 18th birthday. And when it did make the referral it did not tell them and delayed responding to her contacts. We uphold the complaint. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

Summary: There is no evidence the late Mrs X was charged incorrect contributions towards the cost of her care. The Council has already apologised for the timing of its letter requesting outstanding contributions after her death.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed accepting a housing duty, provided temporary accommodation unsuitable for her family’s needs, and failed to address concerns about the condition of the accommodation. She also complained about the Council’s communication. We have found the Council at fault. We have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to pay rent arrears and a rent deposit owed by Mrs X’s tenant for whom it paid a rent deposit guarantee in 2015. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mrs X could not have complained to us sooner.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr B’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice for an alleged parking contravention. This is because Mr B appealed to London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council met her relative, Ms Y’s, care and support needs prior to her death. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council publishing incorrect information about liability for maintaining the road next to his home. Mr X said finding the Council did not maintain the road after he bought his home caused distress, anxiety and financial damage. We found the Council at fault for not providing accurate and timely information about the road, which information it knew Mr X and others would rely on when deciding to buy their homes. To put matters right, the Council agreed to refer Mr X’s and other residents’ complaints to its insurers to consider and resolve.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to apply the council tax premium. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

there is not a good reason for the delay in bringing the matter to the Ombudsman

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement case involving Mr X’s development. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaints about the Council’s adult social care support of Mr X because the matters complained about occurred between 2015 and 2018. Therefore, the complaints are late, and we decided not to exercise discretion to investigate these matters.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaints about the Council’s adult social care support of Ms X because we decided Mr Y was not a suitable representative and because the complaints are late. We will also not investigate Mr Y’s complaints about the Council’s carer’s assessments and poor communication because these complaints are late.

Summary: The Council was at fault for a delay in deciding what support Mrs X’s daughter should receive for her special educational needs. It should have done this by October 2022, but did not do it until July 2023. This means there was a corresponding delay to some of the support Mrs X’s daughter needed. The Council will offer symbolic payments to Mrs X and her daughter to recognise their injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in the process of completing the complainant’s son’s Education Health and Care Plan and in failing to make appropriate educational provision for him. This is because the complaint concerns matters which could have been the subject of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability), or are not separable from such matters.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. It is reasonable for Miss X to ask the Council to carry out a statutory review of her housing application decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to Mr X’s report of food poisoning from business premises in its area. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to prosecute a local trader. This is because the Council’s actions did not cause the complainant significant injustice. Also, we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants, which is to force the Council to prosecute the trader and pay the complainant financial compensation.

Summary: We uphold the complaint. The Council failed to offer a care home placement which met Ms Y’s needs, failed to revise her care and support plan or offer an appropriate personal budget. It also failed to offer a direct payment to be managed by her family. This caused a financial loss, avoidable distress and confusion. The Council will apologise, make payments to reimburse and take action described in this statement.

Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council dealt with two road traffic offences recorded against her and the enforcement action it took to recover the charges. There was fault by the Council for its poor record keeping and for providing Ms X with confusing information about the road traffic offences. This caused Ms X injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Ms X complained about how the Council dealt with her council tax bills and the enforcement action it took to recover the amounts owed. Ms X also complained about the conduct of the enforcement agent who visited her property. There was no fault with how the Council dealt with and recovered Ms X’s council tax bills. However, there was fault by the Council for its failure to follow its retention policy for enforcement agents’ body worn videos, but it caused no injustice to Ms X.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed responding to his appeal against its decision to charge council tax. Mr X also complained the Council sent bailiffs to his home to collect the debt while he was appealing against the Council’s decision. Mr X says this has caused him distress. The Council was at fault, but it has taken appropriate action to remedy any injustice caused by this fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s pursuit of payment for outstanding penalty charge notices he did not receive. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre to challenge the Council’s escalation of the penalty charge notices.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an error by the Council which led to it wrongly issuing a court summons for unpaid council tax. The Council has already provided a suitable remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a moving traffic penalty. It is reasonable for Mr X to us his right to file an Out of Time Statutory Declaration with the Traffic Enforcement Centre.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the storage of bins because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.