LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice. This is because it would have been reasonable for Miss X to appeal.

Summary: The Council was at fault for refusing to consider Mr B’s complaint properly under the Children Act 1989 complaints procedure. It will now do so.

Summary: Miss Y complained about the way the Council dealt with the information she provided about risk areas for her homelessness application. We have found fault by the Council, causing injustice, in failing to: update the information Miss Y provided about her risk areas, record this in one place and properly check its case notes; properly handle its contact with her about a potential accommodation offer; and its poor complaint handling. To remedy this injustice the Council has agreed to: apologise; make a payment to reflect the distress caused; and service improvements.

Summary: Miss H complains that, after applying to the Council as homeless, it kept moving her and her son, sometimes to unsuitable accommodation. And she missed out on properties, as the Council had not updated her housing register application. She also complains the Council’s communications were poor. We uphold the complaint because the Council kept Miss H’s family in hotel accommodation for too long and did not advise her of what the law says about this, including a delay in advising her of her rights of appeal. Its fault over her housing register application also meant she missed out on pro

Summary: The Council took too long to decide on Ms X’s application for disabled adaptations to her Council tenancy. The Council failed to include Ms X in its consideration of the possible options, wrongly refused some works because it decided others were infeasible, and included irrelevant factors in its decision making. The Council has agreed to apologise, start the works to provide a step-lift, discuss other adaptations options with Ms X, make a new decision, and make a payment to Ms X. It should also act to improve its services.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s discharge of a planning condition. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner. We will not investigate his complaint about the delay in enforcing a court order for noise nuisance. We have no jurisdiction not investigate complaints which have been subject to court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s personal injury claim. This is because this complaint does not meet the tests in the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code on which complaints we investigate. it is reasonable to expect Mrs X to go to court to determine the Council’s liability.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax liability as Mr X can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council breached a section 114 notice by serving an Order for Recovery and incurring a charge of £9. This is because we have no power to investigate part of the complaint because the complainant appealed to the tribunal and because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action for an overgrown hedge and delays in complaint handling. We find fault which caused Mr X avoidable uncertainty and frustration. The Council should review its decision, apologise to Mr X and make a symbolic payment for injustice caused to him.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mrs X’s concerns about works to the adjoining Council property. This is because we cannot investigate complaints about the management of social housing by councils.

Summary: Miss D complains the Council refused her application for a home loss payment. We intend to discontinue the investigation because Miss D can pursue her case in court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide a headstone for the complainant’s relative. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council responded to reports of anti-social behaviour. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council actions. Also, we will not investigate the complaint about a refusal to provide information as it is reasonable to expect the complainant to contact the Information Commissioner’s Office on this point.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision she is not homeless. Ms X has the right to ask for a review of that decision, which she is exercising. If she is unhappy with the review decision, she can appeal to the county court on a point of law and it is reasonable for her to do this.

Summary: Mr B complained on behalf of his mother Mrs C, that the Council failed to identify that the soffits and fascia on the roof of her property needed repairing or replacing before carrying out grant-funded work to install external wall insulation. We consider the Council has made a reasonable proposal to resolve the situation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a reported data breach in 2022. This is because the complaint is late and there is no good reason to investigate now.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about damage to his mobility scooter. This is because an investigation is unlikely to achieve a worthwhile outcome.

Summary: Miss B complained that the Council failed to take prompt or effective action to ensure disrepair in her privately rented property was resolved. We have not found fault with the actions of the Council and consider some of the events are too old to consider now.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council area is poorly maintained. This is because the law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that affect most of the residents in a Council area.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement in Miss X’s family’s case. The Council’s involvement was court-ordered, and the law prevents us from investigating what happens as part of court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council administered a Disabled Facilities Grant. That is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage caused to a headstone and delays in responses to complaints. Further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. We cannot determine liability for damage. And complaints about events which occurred more than twelve months ago are too late.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to Ms X’s reports of fly tipping close to her business. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council placed her in unsuitable, unaffordable temporary accommodation when she became homeless. We have found the Council to be at fault because it made assumptions about her benefit entitlement and did not respond adequately to some of her concerns about disrepair. To remedy Mrs X’s distress and inconvenience, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to her. It will also remind staff of the need to properly consider affordability and respond promptly to reports of disrepair.