LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to process a management transfer application. We cannot investigate complaints about the actions of a social housing landlord.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about council tax reduction and the Council’s recovery of arrears. The complaint about events before September 2023 is late and there are no good reasons why it could not have been made sooner. If Mr X disagrees with the calculations of his council tax since September 2023, he can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to investigate their concerns or obtain the necessary licence in respect of crane equipment at a neighbouring site oversailing her property. We find the Council’s delays in investigating and responding to Mrs X’s concerns and correspondence are fault. This fault has caused Mrs X an injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his re-housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council decided what priority she should have on its housing register. The Council was at fault. This caused Mrs X avoidable distress and uncertainty. To remedy her injustice, the Council will apologise and pay Mrs X £200. The Council should also review the information it gives staff and medical advisors about medical assessments.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council gave her the wrong priority on its housing register. We will not investigate this complaint because Miss X made it too late. Other matters Miss X complained about did not cause her a significant personal injustice.

Summary: The Council was at fault, because a management agent acting on its behalf gave the complainant the wrong key for a property it had allocated to him. However, the Council has addressed this issue appropriately. The Council was also at fault because it attempted to contact the complainant with an incorrect email address, but this did not cause an injustice. There is no fault in the other elements of this complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the suitability of interim accommodation provided by the Council after she made a homelessness application. The Council has already accepted the location of the initial interim accommodation provided was not suitable and has offered an appropriate remedy. There is no evidence of fault in how it responded to her concerns in her current accommodation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s investigation of complaints about a council tenant’s behaviour. We cannot investigate complaints about tenancy management by social housing landlords.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council taking Mr X to court for issues in connection with a property he rents out. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We have no remit to consider matters that have been to court.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his care placement. He says he is unhappy living there due to problems with another resident and the care provider. Mr X also complains the Council is ignoring his request to move. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to take enforcement action over a reported noise and neighbour nuisance. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a homeless hostel’s approach to substance misuse. That is because the Charity running the hostel is not within our jurisdiction. The Council has provided advice about how to report anti-social behaviour. Further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We have found fault with the Council for failing to secure suitable accommodation for Miss X when she was homeless after fleeing domestic abuse. This caused Miss X prolonged uncertainty and distress. The Council has agreed to remedy Miss X’s avoidable injustice by securing suitable accommodation, an apology and a payment.

Summary: Mr P complained about the lack of support he received from the Council when he was threatened with homelessness. We upheld the complaint, finding the Council failed to always follow the law and Government guidance, communicated poorly, and made mistakes in its handling of Mr P’s case. We consider this caused Mr P avoidable distress. The Council has accepted these findings and agreed to remedy Mr P’s injustice, with actions detailed at the end of this decision statement.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council sending the complainant’s mail to the wrong address. This is because the complainant is a leaseholder of the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to implement recommendations from a noise survey. The Council has considered the recommendations to reduce the noise. However, it has advised it does not have the finances available to implement them. Further investigation will not lead to a different outcome, and we cannot require the Council to implement the recommendations.

Summary: Miss X complained about how she was treated by the Council. She said there had been a lack of support for her as her niece’s foster carer; the Council has not paid her the correct fostering allowance; she is unhappy with the Council’s complaints response; and the Council agreed to put things in place at a meeting but then went back on its word. We find the Council was at fault for the lack of support provided to Miss X. This caused Miss X significant distress. We make several recommendations to address this injustice caused by fault.

Summary: Miss X complains about poor communication and information handling by London Borough of Islington (the Council) and Whittington Health NHS Trust (the Trust). We will not investigate her complaints. An investigation is unlikely to find fault in the Council’s communication with her before it started an assessment. The injustice to Miss X from any poor information handling is not enough to justify an investigation by the Ombudsmen and the Information Commissioner may be better placed to consider these issues.

Summary: Miss X complains about poor communication and information handling by London Borough of Islington (the Council) and Whittington Health NHS Trust (the Trust). We will not investigate her complaints. An investigation is unlikely to find fault in the Council’s communication with her before it started an assessment. The injustice to Miss X from any poor information handling is not enough to justify an investigation by the Ombudsmen and the Information Commissioner may be better placed to consider these issues.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her a Blue Badge. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mrs F complained about the Council’s handling of the Education, Health, and Care plan process for her son following an annual review. The Council accepted it was at fault for causing delays in the process and how it communicated with her, and proposed a remedy to Mrs F. We found the Council was at fault, but its remedy was not enough. The Council will apologise and make payment in line with our recommendations to Mrs F to acknowledge the injustice its faults caused her.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about support the Council provided installing a new cooker. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a housing benefit overpayment and a lack of response to the complainant’s emails. This is because the Council provided a satisfactory response, and the complainant could have used his review and appeal rights.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council’s actions delayed the sale of a house he leased to it. It is reasonable for Mr X to take court action if he feels the Council is liable for extra costs he incurred.