LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to correct an issue with her ‘My Waltham Forest’ account. We found there was a failure to address the issue for a prolonged period. This meant she was not able to place bids for housing and her account was closed inappropriately because she was unable to re-register as required. We found Ms X did not miss out on housing as a result of the issue, but we recommended a payment to recognise the distress caused. We also found the Council placed Ms X in unsuitable bed and breakfast accommodation for too long and we recommended a payment to recognise this.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application. The Council has apologised and offered to pay him £100 for its delay in making a payment to his landlord and this is sufficient to remedy any injustice caused. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered whether to revoke his landlord’s licence to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about drainage and flooding issues because the courts are better placed to consider the issue, and it is reasonable to expect Mrs Y to approach the court about the matter.

Summary: The Council was at fault as it failed to issue Mr X’s child’s amended Education, Health and Care Plan within statutory timescales following their annual reviews, and its communication with him and handling of his complaint was poor. The Council was not at fault for failing to disclose information about support services and appeal rights. It will apologise to Mr X and pay him £250 to recognise the avoidable frustration and uncertainty caused by its faults.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his reports about gas safety in his private rented sector property. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a building control matter. This is because it is unlikely we could achieve a worthwhile outcome for the complainant.

Summary: X complained that the Council failed to properly respond to reports their rental accommodation suffered from disrepair and the landlord harassed and attempted to illegally evict X. We find the Council failed to properly consider its powers to tackle landlord harassment and retaliatory eviction, which caused X significant distress and risk of harm. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment to X and implement service improvements to remedy the injustice.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about information the Council provided to the complainant about parking permits before he signed a tenancy. This is because we have no power to investigate a council when it is acting as a landlord.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with an invoice it sent to Ms B for care charges. The Council has cancelled the charge and apologised to Ms B for its delay. An investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome or achieve more.

We found the Council failed to complete the recommendations made after it considered a complaint Ms X made through the children’s statutory complaints procedure. Her complaint to the Council was about matters including disabled adaptations to her home and a child and family assessment. We previously upheld other complaints from Ms X about other occasions when the Council failed to act on the recommendations from the children’s statutory complaints procedure which caused her frustration and uncertainty. We therefore have concerns about the Council’s governance arrangements to administer the chi

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed carrying out a review of her carer’s assessment. We find the Council was at fault for its delay in completing the review. This caused Mrs X upset and frustration. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to make a payment to Mrs X and implement a service improvement.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the alleged bias of the Council in its dealings with Mr X. The opinions formed by a social worker have already been provided to a court. A legal bar thus prevents us considering the views expressed and the way in which they were formed.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils decision that no breach of planning control exists on the site next to the complainant’s home. And that the Council failed to follow a decision made by the Planning Inspector. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed up properly update his entry in the electoral register when he changed his nationality. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. In relation to Mr X’s issues around his subject access request, the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to deal with that complaint.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice and traffic signs because the complainant appealed to the tribunal.

Mr X complained the Council delayed in updating his son’s Education, Health and Care Plan following an annual review. Mr X also complains his son did not receive support at school and relevant assessments have not been completed. We find the Council at fault for a delay in issuing an amended, final Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused Mr X distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Mr X a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about licensing because it is late without good reason to exercise discretion to investigate it now.

Summary: The Council was at fault when it failed to clearly inform Miss X about the conditions around payments from its homelessness prevention fund and delayed making a decision on her application for a reimbursement of costs she paid. The Council offered Miss X a symbolic payment to recognise the distress, frustration and uncertainty the matter caused her however, it failed to make this payment. The Council will apologise to Miss X, decide whether it will reimburse Miss X and pay her the symbolic payment it had offered to her. The Council revised its policy to make it clearer.

Mr X complained that the Council failed to provide sufficient support when he became homeless due to domestic abuse. Mr X considers the Council’s actions show it discriminated against him as he was not treated the same way as a woman fleeing domestic abuse. Mr X also considers the Council’s actions have caused the loss of his belongings, caused significant distress and put him at risk of harm and abuse.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s council tax liability. It is reasonable for him to use his right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

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 Ms X’s complaint about a charge for her late husband’s care. This is because the Council has now refunded the charge and apologised to Ms X. Further investigation by us would achieve nothing more.

Summary: Mx Z complained about the way the Council has dealt with their homelessness when they were fleeing domestic abuse. The Council was at fault for the delay in providing interim accommodation, in ending the relief duty, in reaching a decision on Mx Z’s homelessness and in responding to Mx Z’s complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to acknowledge the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused to Mx Z.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice from March 2024. This is because Mrs X has appealed to London Tribunals and applied to the court to cancel the Council’s escalation of the case. The Council reissued the penalty charge notice in February 2025 but has since said this was an error. Its cancellation of the PCN provides a suitable remedy for this issue and we would not therefore recommend anything more for Mrs X.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint the Council requested a charging order against Ms X’s property. That is because we cannot investigate a matter that has been considered by the courts.