LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this personal injury complaint. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs B to take the Council to court.

Summary: We have found no fault with how the Council applies its street entertainment policy or licensing regime to control noise from amplified noise. It takes enforcement action where necessary and possible.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about poor communication she experienced with a coroner’s officer. This is because their actions were not an administrative function of the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council are responsible for damage to property while work was carried out to a nearby tree. This is because it is reasonable for the complainant to pursue their compensation claim through the courts.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council handled her application for a disabled parking bay. This is because the Council has already investigated and replied to Ms X, and we could not add anything to that investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to his Subject Access Request. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better suited to consider the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about moving traffic penalties because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that Councillors did not respond to her emails. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Penalty Charge Notices because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Tribunal and then the London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint Mrs X made about the Council’s responsibility for bus lanes and cycle lanes. We cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X is seeking.

Summary: Mr B complained how the Council handled his application to rejoin the housing register. He says the Council has not properly considered his medical evidence and mobility issues, and it has taken too long to complete its review. He also complained the Council has failed to provide him with adult social care support despite his repeated requests. We find the Council was at fault for its significant delays in dealing with Mr B’s review request. It was also at fault for how it handled Mr B’s requests for adult social care support. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address t

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about parking penalty charge notices as it is reasonable to expect the complainant to have followed the appeal process provided in law to challenge them.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the allocation of parking permits as we do not have the legal remit to do so.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in receiving a postal vote. This is because we do not have the power to investigate the matters complained about.

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to respond to a homelessness referral, wrongly telling Mr X he had to give up his tenancy in order to proceed with a homeless application and failing to accept homelessness duties to him. The Council has agreed to apologise, proceed with Mr X’s homeless application, make payments to him, and act to improve its services.

Summary: We will not investigate X’s complaint about a failure to send them all relevant information when they made a subject access request. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider that complaint. We will not investigate the Council’s delay in reviewing its decision that X did not meet the criteria for medical priority or communicate with them about it because the Council has already made an appropriate offer to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Business rates because there is no evidence of fault by the Council and it can be a subject of legal action in the courts.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about her child being removed from her care and an adoption order being made because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been subject to, and decided in, court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s enforcement agents sending correspondence to a different family member concerning recovery of a traffic penalty in 2022. 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.

Summary: Ms X complained about the length of time the Council took to make and fit a replacement external door at her home. We found fault because the Council did not submit measurements it took for the door which then led to avoidable delays in the new door being made and fitted. Ms X suffered avoidable distress and frustration. To remedy the injustice caused by this fault, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Ms X and issue reminders to officers.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a homelessness case. It was reasonable for Mr X to ask for a statutory review of its decision to discharge the homeless duty. Following this he would have had an opportunity to challenge the review decision by way of an appeal to the courts.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about disrepair in her home. That is because we cannot investigate the Council where it is acting as a social landlord. We will not investigate her complaint that her mother cannot safely access the garden. The Council has agreed to progress the access issues through a Disabled Facilities Grant. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: X complained about the service they received from the Council’s building inspector after X applied for building regulations approval for their development. We did not investigate this complaint further because we were unlikely to provide a remedy X wants or reach a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a book display in Ms X’s local library. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.