LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: The law prevents us investigating this complaint about Mrs X’s homelessness and housing applications. This is because Mrs X took court action on the key points. Even if the court action did not include one point - the Council’s review of its homelessness decision - Mrs X could reasonably have used her court appeal right on that.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Fixed Penalty Notice that the Council issued Mr X for littering. This is because the Council has cancelled the fine so further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council considered her housing application. The Council was at fault for significant delay in deciding on Miss X’s application, failing to tell Miss X of her right to ask the Council to review its decision and for failing to act on one of her review requests. This caused Miss X avoidable frustration. To remedy her injustice, the Council will apologise, invite Miss X to make a new housing application and pay her £300. The Council will also issue a staff reminder.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about when the complainant became eligible to receive council tax support. This is because this decision carries a right of appeal to a statutory tribunal which it would be reasonable for the complainant to exercise. We have no jurisdiction to investigate in these circumstances.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide his child Y with the provision set out in Y’s Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan, delayed updating the Plan and delayed setting up direct payments to secure provision for Y whilst it sought a school place. The Council was at fault. It failed to review Y’s Plan when Y stopped attending school, delayed arranging alternative provision to meet Y’s needs and the provision arranged did not meet all Y’s needs. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and make payments to acknowledge Y’s missed provision and the distress, frustration and unce

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in determining his client’s planning application. This is the issue carried a right of appeal which it would have been reasonable for Mr X/his client to use. Mr X has now appealed against the Council’s decision to refuse his client’s application and we cannot therefore investigate any concerns about the Council’s handling of the application or his complaint. This is because doing so would overlap with the appealable issues and the issue does not in any event cause Mr X significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about leisure centre membership fees and additional costs. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault or significant enough injustice to warrant investigating.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant does not qualify for housing under the homelessness rules. This is because the complainant is using her appeal rights.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s priority on the housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s responses to homeless applications since 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: We will not investigate this complaint about a homelessness application. The complaint is late without good enough reason to investigate it now. It is also unlikely investigation would find enough evidence of fault by the Council with the application. It would be disproportionate to investigate the Council’s complaint-handling by itself.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an adult social care package and the associated costs. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council assessed the care and support needs and decided the necessary care package. The complainant did not know the cost of the package until after it started. The complainant accepted the care knowing they might have to pay for it; the Council confirmed the cost three weeks later, so there is no significant injustice to justify an investigation. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would add to the Council’s investigation or reach a different o

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse an application for a blue badge. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the application.

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s children’s social care service. Most of the complaint is out of time. And the rest is about professional misconduct, which is a matter for the professional regulator, not the Ombudsman.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss Q’s complaint about the way the Council handled a retrospective planning application, enforcement and appeal. Miss Q has used her right to appeal the planning decision and matters about application and appeal fees are over 12 months old.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has not removed a tree. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Ms X complained about the support the Council provided with her housing. There was fault with how the Council took too long to decide Ms X’s priority under its housing allocation scheme, how it managed her homelessness application and communicated with her. The Council agree to review the duties it owes Ms X, apologise and pay her a financial remedy. It also agreed to review how it manages housing register reviews and issue reminders to its staff.

Summary: Mr X complained about the standard of care delivered to his family member, Mr Y, by a provider acting on behalf of the Council. We found fault because the Council failed to act decisively to investigate Mr X’s complaint. This caused avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. To remedy the injustice caused by the fault, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to the family, issue reminders to relevant staff and review some of its processes.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council has declined to accept that it placed her grandchild with her and that she is, therefore, a family and friends carer. She says that, as a result, she has been denied financial support to which she is entitled. We did not uphold Mrs X’s complaint. However, we found the Council was at fault in failing to have a policy on family and friends foster carers as required by law. The Council has agreed to publish a written policy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about matters relating to Gunnersbury Park and the Council’s response to complaints Ms X has made in relation to its running and use. This is because an investigation cannot achieve the outcomes she seeks.

Summary: Ms B complained that the Council failed to properly consider her medical assessment in connection with her application for alternative housing. We have found fault in the actions of the Council. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms B, pay her £250 and invite her to submit another medical assessment. It has also agreed to give training to staff on dealing with medical assessments.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to end interim accommodation provided to Mr X and its decision that he is non-priority homeless. It was reasonable from r X to ask for a further review of the decision and appeal to the court if it is unsuccessful.

Summary: The complainant (Ms X) said the Council had failed to provide her son Y with suitable education since 2018. We found fault with the Council’s failure to consider Ms X’s complaint under the children’s statutory complaint procedure and in the way the Council dealt with Ms X’s corporate complaint. The Council’s fault caused Ms X injustice. We could only investigate whether the Council provided suitable education to Y between January and mid-March 2023. We did not find fault in the Council’s actions at this time. The Council has agreed to apologise, carry out the children’s statutory comp

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about housing allocations because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s School Attendance Support Service. It is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response and the law prevents us from considering matters discussed in court.