LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to properly consider the problems that arose in his assessment when he appealed its decision to refuse him a blue badge. We find fault with the Council’s response to his appeal and have agreed another assessment considering Mr X’s reasonable adjustments.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council failed to keep accurate records of her housing application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of significant injustice to Ms X to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainant’s application for a Blue Badge for her son. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice. This is because the Council has since cancelled it, and any remaining injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a blue badge. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a safeguarding referral. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to properly provide for her child, Y’s, special educational needs. The Council failed to arrange all the support it said Y should receive, failed to properly oversee their education and communicated with Miss X poorly. This led to Y missing out on significant education and caused both Miss X and Y avoidable distress. The Council agreed to apologise, ensure Y is receiving all the support in their Education Health and Care plan and pay Miss X a financial remedy. It also agreed to review how it oversees none-school-based education packages and issue r

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on a homelessness application in 2022. this complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Miss X could not have complained to us sooner. We will not investigate Miss X’s compalint about being evicted from her temporary accommodation in 2024. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s blue badge application process. This is because the Council’s actions did not cause Mr X significant enough injustice for us to investigate. The Council also properly reached its eventual decision.

Summary: On behalf of Company J, Mr X complained about how the Council assessed Company J’s application for use of sports facilities. We have found the Council at fault because it did not properly assess Company J’s application, and for failures in complaint handling. This caused uncertainty for Mr X and Company J. We have also found the Council at fault for failing to contemporaneously document how it assigned resources for successful applicants. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and Company J. The Council has also agreed to improve its procedures to prevent these faults occurring i

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the suitability of Mr X’s temporary accommodation. He successfully used his right to request a review, and the Council agreed to offer the family alternative temporary accommodation.

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

Summary: The Council was at fault for delays completing statutory reviews of its decisions about Ms Y’s homelessness and housing allocations. It was also at fault for wrongly recording the gender of one of Ms Y’s children. This meant she could not bid for the size of property she needed, which is an injustice. The Council was further at fault for making its offer of a remedy conditional on Ms Y not pursuing her complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise, make payments, backdate Ms Y’s housing application and act to improve its services.

Summary: We have upheld Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his housing register application. The Council has agreed to take appropriate action to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council Tax liability and late billing. This is because Ms X has the right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal and it was reasonable to expect her to use this right. Additionally, parts of the complaint are late and there is not sufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to change council tax account. This is mainly because there is not enough evidence the Council acted with fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we can achieve no worthwhile outcome for Mr P’s liability for council tax, and it would be reasonable for him to ask a court to decide whether the Council has complied with the law on adjustments for his disabilities in the way it has handled the matter.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr K’s complaint about the Council limiting him from taking part in a committee meeting. This is because neither the underlying matter nor the Council’s handling of his complaints about it caused him injustice which is serious and avoidable enough to warrant us investigating, and it would be reasonable for Mr K to apply to court on any question under the Equality Act 2010.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the suitability of her temporary accommodation and her housing register priority banding. The Council is currently conducting a suitability review and if Ms X is unhappy with the outcome, she has a right of appeal through the courts. It has also agreed to review its housing priority banding decision, and it is reasonable to allow it to complete this process.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to pass on a social housing tenancy to Mr W and its later related decision to remove discretionary additional priority. We cannot investigate complaints about the management of tenancies by social housing landlords.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a lack of accessible social housing in the Council’s area. This is because we could not achieve the outcome she seeks. The Housing Ombudsman is better placed to deal with her complaint about the broken lift in her housing association property.

this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X complaint about a change in her health assessment. She says in one assessment she was noted to have a permanent and substantial disability/severe long-term limited illness but in another assessment, she was found not to. She also complains the Council lost some documents she sent in. This is because the claimed fault has not caused any significant injustice. In addition, there is another body better placed to consider the complaint.