LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council took matters about her grandchild to court under false pretences. The law prevents us from investigating anything that is or has been the subject of court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice for stopping in a box junction. This is because the complainant could have appealed to the tribunal.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to resolve disrepair issues with Miss C’s social housing. We have no power to investigate complaints about the Council acting in its capacity as social landlord. We will not investigate Miss C’s more recent complaint because it is premature.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about adaptations made to her home. The law says we cannot investigate complaints about how the Council has maintained the property when it is acting as a social landlord.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council will not pay to implement parking restrictions. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Ms X complained there were failings in the way the Council dealt with her homelessness application causing distress and inconvenience. We found fault as the Council delayed making a decision on whether it owed Ms X a main housing duty after the relief duty ended. We have recommended a suitable remedy in this case so we have completed our investigation.

Summary: Ms X complained that she was wrongly detained under the Mental Health Act, that the doctor involved in the assessment did not speak to her, and that information in her notes was wrong. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint as it is late, and we have seen no good reason to investigate it now.

Summary: Miss X complained that her child, Y, missed education when moving from another Council’s area. There was fault by the Council, as it delayed arranging the provision in Section F of an Education, Health and Care Plan when Y moved into its area. An apology, a payment to Miss X and a review of procedures to make sure the fault does not recur, remedies the injustice.

Summary: We will not Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to award him additional points under its housing allocation scheme. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because the complainant could have followed the statutory process and appealed to the tribunal.

Summary: Ms E complained about the way the Council dealt with her homelessness application. She said the Council failed to communicate with her, to follow the correct process and then offered her properties which were not appropriate for her needs. Ms E says the Council has caused her mental and physical health to deteriorate due to the stress it has caused her. We found the Council at fault. The Council has agreed to apologise, and make a symbolic payment in recognition of injustice caused to Ms E.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to award Mr X medical priority for housing. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a homeless application. It was reasonable for the complainant to appeal against the decision that she was non-priority homeless. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing any significant injustice in the way the Council processed the application.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the removal of her sibling’s child from their care. The law prevents us from investigating anything that is or has been the subject of court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council wrongly issued him with a Penalty Charge Notice for an alleged parking contravention. This is because it is reasonable for Mr B to put in an appeal to London Tribunals.

Summary: Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of housing offers made to her, she says the Council issued different contractual agreements. Ms X also says the Council failed to review the suitability of her property. Ms X says this caused her distress and frustration. We have found fault in the Council’s issuing of housing offers and failing to review the suitability of the property offered to Ms X. The Council has agreed to issue Ms X with an apology, pay her a financial payment and complete a suitability review and service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions following reports of breaches of Building Regulations. The complaint is late, and we have seen

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 B’s complaint that the Council wrongly issued him with a Penalty Charge Notice for an alleged parking contravention. This is because it is reasonable for Mr B to put in an appeal to London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to accept Ms X onto its housing register. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council conducted its statutory children’s complaints investigation. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. We will not investigate some of Mr X’s complaint because the injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement. We will not investigate the rest of Mr X’s complaint because another body is better placed.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s legal proceedings in a business rates matter. We have no power to investigate the taking of court action and only a court can decide liability for business rates.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council not providing her with enough care hours and about the Council’s refusal to allow her food expenses to be considered disability related expenditure. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage Mrs X says the Council caused to her vehicle. The matter is best dealt with as an insurance claim, ultimately through the courts if necessary.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council unlawfully processed and shared his personal data. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider this complaint. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s complaint process because it does not meet the tests in our assessment code.