LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to invite the complainant to a meeting where he was arrested by the Police. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice (PCN). This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s school’s admissions appeal panel refusing her appeal. It is unlikely we would find fault which caused Miss X to lose out on a school place.

Summary: Miss X complained that the Council failed to properly help with her homelessness, had poor communication, and housed her and her young children in unsuitable accommodation, which caused them significant distress, uncertainty and affected their mental health. We find the Council at fault for its communication, complaint handling, and homelessness assistance which caused significant injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Miss X

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about parking permit pricing because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: The Council was at fault for refusing to accept a homeless application from Ms X when she fled domestic abuse to its area. The Council’s housing allocations policy is flawed because it excludes a group of applicants the law says must get reasonable preference. The Council was also at fault for failing to tell Ms X about her right to review its decisions. To remedy the injustice to Ms X, the Council has agreed to apologise, make new decisions on Ms X’s applications, and act to improve its services.

Summary: Mrs Z complained that the Council failed to act promptly after deciding her temporary accommodation was unsuitable. We have concluded our investigation with a finding of fault. Based on the evidence, the Council delayed completing the suitability review and in offering suitable alternative accommodation and failed to address identified safety adaptations. This caused avoidable uncertainty and left Mrs Z living in unsuitable conditions for longer than necessary. The Council has accepted our recommendations.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms C’s complaint about her housing situation. This is because the information does not indicate the Council was at fault for the way it has considered Ms C’s housing application. And, the Council has agreed to review the suitability of Ms C’s temporary accommodation.

Summary: We have upheld Ms X’s complaint because the Council failed to consider her complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Ms X.

Summary: Miss X complained that delays by the Council when it was dealing with her homelessness application led to her incurring court costs. There was fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to pay the courts costs to remedy the injustice caused by its delay.

Summary: The Council failed to properly assess the capacity of three family members to make a homelessness application when they told the Council they were suffering domestic abuse. The Council did not deal with the safeguarding referral appropriately or in good time, and did not offer the family social care needs assessments soon enough. It cannot show how it made the decision to offer a one-bedroom property and it took too long to deal with the complaint to it. The family missed out on interim accommodation, and they were caused distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise,

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council overpaid her for her services. The Council apologised, implemented service improvements, and reduced the amount it asked Mrs X to repay. An investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve anything further.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a footway crossing. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: The Council failed to properly assess the capacity of three family members to make a homelessness application when they told the Council they were suffering domestic abuse. The Council did not deal with the safeguarding referral appropriately or in good time, and did not offer the family social care needs assessments soon enough. It cannot show how it made the decision to offer a one-bedroom property and it took too long to deal with the complaint to it. The family missed out on interim accommodation, and they were caused distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise,

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council has dealt with her housing needs. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating and any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: We found fault by the Council on Mr Y’s complaint about it placing him in unsuitable temporary accommodation. The Council accepted it was unsuitable but failed to move him. It also failed to show it properly assessed whether the accommodation was suitable before placing him in it. The Council agreed to apologise for the failings, pay £1,050 for the distress called, continue to pay £150 a month until he is moved to suitable accommodation or refuses a suitable offer, and remind relevant officers of the need to assess, and record, the suitability of accommodation before placing applicant

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about complaint handling in a highways matter because we cannot achieve the outcome Mr Y is seeking.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about payment methods for parking charges. This is because we cannot add to the Council’s complaint response and in any case we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council increasing the cost of a resident’s parking permit. There is not enough evidence of fault or to show the Council’s actions caused Mr X significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about children services’ actions. We have upheld Miss X’s complaint as the Council has now agreed to follow the Children Act statutory complaints’ procedure and has agreed a proportionate way to resolve the complaint.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed in dealing with his homelessness application and review request. We found the significant delays in dealing with dealing with Mr X’s homelessness application and review request are fault. As is the delay in providing temporary accommodation having determined Mr X was in priority need. These faults have caused Mr X difficulties and distress and meant he lived in his car for longer than he otherwise would have. The Council has agreed to apologise and make payments to Mr X and take action to address its delays.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to pay Mr X’s costs as it was ordered to do by London Tribunals. This is because the Council has agreed to pay the costs, apologise to Mr X and pay him £100 for his time and trouble. This provides a suitable remedy for the complaint and it is therefore unlikely investigation would achieve significantly more for Mr X.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision not to authorise a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) for his adult child, Y. We ended our investigation because the Court of Protection is best placed to address his concerns.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X complaint about the Council's handling of his complaints about dog excrement in his street and about clearing his reports without actually clearing the mess. This is because the claimed fault has not caused any significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to apply an empty home premium to the complainant’s council tax account. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would add to the Council’s response. The complainant also could have appealed to a Valuation Tribunal.