LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of an application for an Out of Borough payment. This is because the Council has already offered a payment to remedy the injustice caused and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision it was not liable for a personal injury claim after Miss X said it was negligent. This is because Mrs X has an alternative legal remedy through the courts, and it would be reasonable to expect her to use this alternative remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled his homelessness application. This is because it was reasonable for him to challenge the Council’s statutory review decision by appealing to the County Court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to move Miss X from her temporary accommodation due to the actions of her neighbour. It is reasonable for her to ask the Council to review the suitability of her accommodation under the Housing Act 1996 Part 7.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way London Borough of Wandsworth and South West and St George’s Mental Health NHS Trust detained him in hospital for mental health treatment. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. We are unlikely to find fault in the way Mr X was assessed before being detained. There is another organisation who is more suitable to consider the rest of his complaint.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way London Borough of Wandsworth and South West and St George’s Mental Health NHS Trust detained him in hospital for mental health treatment. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. We are unlikely to find fault in the way Mr X was assessed before being detained. There is another organisation who is more suitable to consider the rest of his complaint.

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

Summary: Ms B complained the Council recorded inaccurate information about her late brother, Mr C, when he was assessed under the Mental Health Act. Ms B also complained the Council shared this incorrect information with her, meaning she was not aware of the reasons he was admitted to hospital. Ms B said this caused her and Mr C’s family great distress and meant Mr C did not get the care and treatment he needed. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the Council because it is unlikely we could add to the response she has already received from the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the way the Council managed her transfer of care from another council and its management of her direct payment pre-paid card. This is because an investigation would not lead to any worthwhile outcomes.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his housing register application because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions since December 2023. We will not consider the period from 2020 to December 2023 because the complaint about that is late and there are no good reasons to investigate now.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to comply with a previous decision made by this Office in 2005. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise our discretion to investigate it now.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of two penalty charge notices. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to take the matter to the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s actions with a referral it received about her child, and it also falsely told her a home visit was mandatory. We are satisfied with the Council’s acknowledgement and apology with some fault it identified, and this is appropriate for the injustice caused.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his aunt, Miss Y’s finances. We found fault in the Council’s failure to send a deputyship referral. We also found fault with the Council’s communication about financial information and record keeping. This caused Miss Y’s family frustration and uncertainty. The Council will apologise for this and make service improvements.

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 Mr X’s complaint about the education provided to his son. Mr X appealed to a tribunal and so the case is outside our jurisdiction with no discretion to investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council providing insufficient information about ending its homelessness prevention duty when Miss X found accommodation. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about backdated Child Arrangement Order payments. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the decision-making process.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that his car was damaged by a raised kerbstone which the Council had failed to repair. This is because it is reasonable for Mr B to take the Council to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s review 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 decision to refuse a housing application because it was ineligible under its allocations policy. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about historic housing benefit overpayments. This is because it is a late complaint and because there were appeal rights the complainant has used or could have used.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult safeguarding. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement and any decisions made by the Court of Protection are outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: Mr Y, a solicitor, complained on behalf of Ms X about the Council’s handling of her homeless application in 2022. We find the Council at fault, which resulted in Ms X signing a tenancy she could not afford. The Council has apologised, made a suitable payment to Ms X, and provided her with a direct offer of social housing, which is satisfactory to remedy the injustice caused.