LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council providing incorrect planning advice in 2023. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a housing application. The injustice claimed is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s assessment of her housing application. This is because the Council has agreed to review Mrs X’s housing application. This is an appropriate remedy and investigation by us would not be proportionate.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice for an alleged moving traffic contravention. This is because Mr B appealed to London Tribunals which found the contravention took place. And, the Council considered Mr B’s mitigating circumstances when it responded to his representations.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because it is reasonable for Miss X to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court and to London Tribunals.

Summary: Miss X complained that the Council failed to carry out a suitability review of her temporary accommodation. We found the Council at fault and it has agreed to a suitable remedy.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to take any action against her landlord when he evicted her from her privately rented accommodation without notice. We find the Council was at fault for failing to complete a robust investigation when Miss X reported her landlord had illegally evicted her. This caused Miss X frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X, make a payment to her and implement service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a refused ‘right to buy’ application. It is reasonable to expect Miss X to take the Council to court.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of her housing application. She says the Council has failed to provide her with the correct information and mismanaged her application. We found the Council at fault, which caused Mrs X injustice. The Council should make payment and apologise to Mrs X.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council unfairly issued him with six Penalty Charge Notices. Mr X used his right of appeal to a tribunal, so we have no power to do so.

Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council handled her homelessness and about the suitability of the accommodation it provided. Miss X also complained about how the Council handled her housing allocation. The Council was at fault. It failed to handle her homelessness properly. It used incorrect terminology in its communication causing confusion and uncertainty. It delayed accepting the main housing duty resulting in a delay in Miss X having a right of review. The Council should apologise to Miss X, make a symbolic payment to her and provide an update about ongoing service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a Council social worker who is allocated to Miss X’s grandchildren. This is because we could not add anything further to the Council’s investigation. Other complaints by Miss X relate to court proceedings and the law prevents us from investigating these matters.

Summary: We will not investigate the Council’s handling of Mr X’s concerns about the wrongful serving of notices. This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council’s refuse collection service repeatedly failed to return the bins back to the respective properties. He says this has been going on for ten months. The Council’s refuse collection service caused undue distress to Mr X by not returning the bins to the property. It also failed to properly address Mr X’s concerns at stage two of the complaints process. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr X for the undue distress. It should continue to monitor the situation and provide evidence it has done so.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed processing her housing application, request for medical priority and an additional bedroom. We found the Council was at fault causing Miss X distress and uncertainty. The Council has already apologised and backdated her priority banding. This is a sufficient remedy, and the Ombudsman cannot add anything further.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about failure to secure suitable education and special educational needs provision as set out in an Education, Health and Care Plan while a child was out of school. Mrs X appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) about the suitability of the school named in the Plan. The non-attendance at school is linked to the subject of Mrs X’s appeal. The Tribunal agreed the school was suitable. We will not investigate the rest of Mrs X’s complaint about attendance warnings because there is not enough evidence of fault by th

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing Mr X’s housing benefit claims. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to have used his right of appeal.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement with her when she was a child and as a care leaver between 1999 and 2013. This is because the complaint is late.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice to justify an investigation.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of her housing application and its delay in assessing her application for medical priority. She also complained of poor communication and complaint handling. The Council is at fault for delay in handling of Ms X’s housing application and not processing her medical evidence. It is also at fault for poor communication, complaint handling, and record keeping. This caused Ms X avoidable uncertainty and frustration, and she has spent significant spent time and trouble trying to resolve the situation. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X,

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council rejecting his application to join the housing register and about delays in the Council progressing his medical assessment to consider his need to live in the Council’s area. This because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused by the accepted fault.

Summary: We found fault on Mr Y’s complaint about the Council failing to properly consider his review requests about his banding and his temporary accommodation’s suitability. It did not show it properly made the decision about his banding following an independent medical advisor’s recommendation. Nor did it show it properly investigated his concerns about the suitability and condition of his accommodation. There were failures to tell him about how to challenge decisions. The Council agreed to send a written apology, pay £200 for the avoidable distress caused, review his banding, review suitab

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to discharge its homelessness duty and evict Ms X from temporary accommodation following an offer of accommodation which she refused as being unsuitable. It was reasonable for Ms X to appeal to the County Court against the Council’s decisions and she has now commenced proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about liability for Council tax as it has been appealed to a Valuation Tribunal.

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