LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We found London Borough of Enfield, North London NHS Foundation Trust and North Central London Integrated Care Board failed to properly assess and review Miss X’s aftercare needs following her discharge from hospital in 2018. This caused Miss X significant uncertainty and distress. These organisations will apologise to Miss X for this fault, take remedial action and make a symbolic payment in recognition of the impact of these events on her.

Summary: We found London Borough of Enfield, North London NHS Foundation Trust and North Central London Integrated Care Board failed to properly assess and review Miss X’s aftercare needs following her discharge from hospital in 2018. This caused Miss X significant uncertainty and distress. These organisations will apologise to Miss X for this fault, take remedial action and make a symbolic payment in recognition of the impact of these events on her.

Summary: We found London Borough of Enfield, North London NHS Foundation Trust and North Central London Integrated Care Board failed to properly assess and review Miss X’s aftercare needs following her discharge from hospital in 2018. This caused Miss X significant uncertainty and distress. These organisations will apologise to Miss X for this fault, take remedial action and make a symbolic payment in recognition of the impact of these events on her.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s school admissions appeal panel refusing her appeal. It is unlikely we would find fault which caused Miss X to lose out on a school place.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to introduce parking restrictions on Mr X’s road. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault for us to challenge the Council’s decision and had Mr X wanted to do so, it would have been reasonable for him to challenge the validity of the parking restrictions at court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice and street signage because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: X complained the Council failed to require demolition work to reduce the size of their neighbour’s extension. X said the extension affected their amenity and was partly built on X’s land. We ended our investigation because it was unlikely to result in a finding of fault, a remedy for X or any other meaningful outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of fly tipping around the communal bins to the front of her property. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider this very late complaint now.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to put Mr X’s children on Child in Need plans and a Child Protection Plan. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its decision making process, and investigation would not achieve a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s alleged unsuitable offer of temporary accommodation. Any fault in the Council’s actions has not caused an injustice, as it offered Miss X different temporary accommodation which she accepted.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to deal with her complaint about the suitability of temporary accommodation including failing to advise her of her right to submit a suitability review request. She also complained the Council failed to protect her belongings and says this all caused distress. There was fault in the Council’s failure to advise Miss X of her review rights. It should now offer a suitability review and make a payment for the distress.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful blue badge application for the complainant’s child. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s response to her report about an incident involving another patron at a leisure facility. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable by us investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to investigate him for possible waste offences. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

Summary: Mr Z on behalf of Mr X and Miss Y says the Council failed to complete the remedy recommended by a previous Ombudsman investigation. We have found fault in the Council’s actions but do not recommend any further remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council not complying with a lease agreement. This is because it is reasonable for Mr B to take the Council to court.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint that her car was damaged by a pothole. This is because it is reasonable for Ms B to pursue her compensation claim at court.

Summary: Ms A complained about the way the Council has dealt with her daughter’s Education, Health and Care plan review as she came to the end of her college education. We found the Council is at fault and has caused an injustice to Ms A and to her daughter. The Council has agreed to carry out service improvements and make a payment to Ms A and her daughter in recognition of the impact on them.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s delay in considering his request for his mother (Y’s) residential care home fees to be paid through a Deferred Payment Agreement (DPA). He also complained of the Council’s poor communication in relation to this. The Council was at fault because it took 10 months to issue the DPA contract. The Council should make a payment to recognise the distress, frustration and uncertainty this caused. However, there is no fault in how the Council communicated with Mr X regarding the DPA.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a refusal to provide support for her relative, Mr Y, to move to independent living. The Council has since offered Mr Y a care act needs assessment. It is unlikely an investigation would achieve anything more.

Summary: Mr Z complains on behalf of Mr X and Miss Y that the Council failed to act on their homelessness application after they received a Section 21 notice. Mr Z says the Council also failed to communicate with Mr X and Miss Y and the key worker was rude. Mr Z says this caused Mr X and Miss Y a great deal of distress. We

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of her application to the housing register. She says the Council’s failure to properly assess her application has excluded her from being able to bid on properties. The Ombudsman finds no fault with the Council’s allocations policy. There was fault in its handling of Mrs X’s application, but this has not caused Mrs X significant injustice.

Summary: We have upheld Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council has considered her housing application. The Council has agreed to complete a new assessment. It would not be proportionate for us to investigate further.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the lack of consultation to changes to the trucks which collect the complainant’s recycling and missed collections. Complaints about events occurring more than 12 months ago are late and we have seen no reason why Mrs X could not have contacted us much sooner. And we do not consider Mrs X has suffered a significant personal injustice from intermittent missed recycling collections which are collected the following day.