LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council handled her housing, including placing her and her family in unsuitable accommodation for too long, failing to tell her of her review rights, failing to update assessments, and delays. Mrs X said this caused unnecessary and avoidable distress and frustration. We find the Council at fault and this caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to award a severe disability premium on top of her housing benefit. This is because it is reasonable for her to appeal to a tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s historic complaint about his children being placed in foster care in 1990. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider it now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about misinformation given to the hospital, and about the care support of a relative. Decisions around the relative’s care and the complainant’s status to be involved in the decision making are with the Court of Protection. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider concerns of accuracy of personal data. So, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable from an Ombudsman investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs X’s housing. We cannot reasonably expect to reach a clear enough view now about events dating back over 20 years. On the more recent events, any investigation would not achieve what Mrs X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision Mrs X is not homeless or threatened with homelessness. It was reasonable for her to use her statutory right to request a review and then appeal to the county court.

Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of Y. Ms X said the statutory complaints process failed to address the injustice caused to Y by the Councils failure to provide support to them as a looked after child. There was no fault in how the Council investigated the complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. We therefore have no grounds to question or reinvestigate its findings and the Council provided evidence it carried out the recommendations made. However, the Council was at fault for delay in completing the stage 2 investigation and delay in holding the stage 3 review panel. T

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his brother’s (Mr Y) care and support package. The Council did not promptly share the outcome of its review with Mr Y’s family or warn them it would be recouping funds from Mr Y’s direct payment account. This caused distress and uncertainty to Mr Y’s family, for which the Council should apologise. The Council should also issue reminders to relevant staff to help avoid reoccurrence of the faults in this case. There was no evidence of procedural fault Council’s reviews of Mr Y’s care and support package.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his appeal against a penalty charge notice. This is because Mr X has used his right of appeal to London Tribunals and we cannot consider any complaint about the Council’s conduct during the appeal process.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. It would have been reasonable for him to take the matter to the Traffic Enforcement Centre.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. I am satisfied with the action the Council proposes to take.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council wrongly closed a file regarding her ex-partner. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant our further involvement.

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council decided what to include in a Disabled Facilities Grant to adapt his father, Mr Y’s, home to meet his needs. The Council was at fault for not including making two doorways wider in its list of works. We cannot investigate much of the rest of the complaint because Mr X complained to us too late.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s housing actions in 2018 and 2019. Miss X could have complained sooner and there is thus no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate these late matters.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s member conduct complaint as it is unlikely we will find fault by the Council or that any fault caused Mr X a significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his homeless application. He says the Council failed to consider his medical evidence. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint about the Council not taking action about pavement parking on his local high street. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal of his claim for compensation for personal injury and damage to his property. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to take the matter to court.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint that the Council wrongly charged Mrs X for her care, did not consider or respond to Mrs Y’s explanation that Mrs X was eligible for Section 117 aftercare, and delayed carrying out a reassessment of Mrs X’s needs. The Council has upheld Mrs Y’s complaint and remedied the injustice by apologising and providing a financial remedy. The Council has also taken action to improve services. It is unlikely we could add to this response for Mrs X and Mrs Y by investigating the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to suspend some parking bays. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council delay managing an empty property. The Council has accepted its delays and offered a symbolic payment to acknowledge the impact. We are satisfied with the Council’s actions. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve anything further. The complainant wants to claim for damage to his property. The relevant insurers or a court would be better placed to decide liability for damage to property.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s introduction of traffic enforcement cameras for a school street scheme. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to take action to address parking problems where he lives, which causes damage to the footway and obstructs the road. This is primarily because we are satisfied with the action the Council has already taken and proposed to take in response to the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. This is because the complainant has appealed to the Planning Inspector.