LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a delay at stage two of the children’s statutory complaints process. This is because the Council apologised for the delay and has now completed the second stage of the process. An investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve anything further.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to the complainant’s safeguarding referral. Part of the complaint is late and there is no good reason the complainant could not have come to us sooner. It is unlikely an investigation would find fault with the Council for more recent events.

Summary: Ms X complained that changes to the Council’s housing allocations policy unfairly affected her qualifying date and lowered her bidding position. We find no fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of his housing application. He says he should be awarded a higher banding priority because he is overcrowded. This is because

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice (PCN). This is because the Council has cancelled the PCN and we could not achieve significantly more.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s use of advertising affecting Miss X. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and an Ombudsman investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to replace bins at three bus stops, remove an unused storage box, or keep the public pathway clear of commercial bins. This is because the claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed taking action in response to her concerns about damp and mould in her temporary accommodation. The Council was at fault. It delayed taking action to repair the property. It did not redecorate the property when it told Miss X it would. It also did not give Miss X a new right of review in relation to the suitability of the property. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and pay her £750 for the distress, frustration and uncertainty it caused her. It will also redecorate the property.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council allocated funding agreed in an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. This complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice and the way the Council approached road sign placement. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to use his right of appeal to London Tribunals. Additionally, there is not enough significant personal injustice to justify investigating a complaint about road sign placement.

Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council dealt with her Council Tax account and issued her with a summons. The Council has accepted it was at fault. It has already apologised to Ms X and offered her a payment in recognition of the distress caused which is suitable action for it to take. So, we have ended our investigation into the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s policy to allow considerate cycling in its parks. There is insufficient evidence of fault and if Mr X and Mr Y believe the Council’s actions are unlawful, this is better considered by a court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about whether the Council was responsible for checking the condition of a flat it used for homelessness temporary accommodation. This is because there is not enough significant direct personal injustice to Mr X.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about damage caused by a tree growing in the garden of a Council social housing property. This complaint is not within our legal remit.

Summary: We found fault by the Council on Miss Z’s complaint about it failing to transfer her to alternative accommodation after deciding it was unsuitable in March 2023. The Council failed to move her from the property, show a record of its decision about unsuitability at the time it made it, send her a copy of the decision, or act to address the causes of its concerns while she remained in it. These failures caused avoidable injustice. She remained in an unsuitable property which did not meet their needs. The Council agreed to send her a written apology, pay £4,050 for the time she spent in

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to consider her complaint about historical allegations of abuse. The significant passage of time means it is no longer possible to complete a robust investigation or provide a meaningful remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the priority the Council awarded on its housing register because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement..

Summary: We found fault on Mr Y’s complaint about the Council failing to act on his reports of the condition of his temporary accommodation. Records were not made, retained, and checked about previous problems with the same property. It failed to carry out a housing needs assessment before he moved in or act promptly on his reports. Nor did it keep its suitability under review, and it failed to follow its own complaints procedure. The Council agreed to send Mr Y an apology for the failings, pay £3,850 as he lived in unsuitable accommodation, a symbolic £100 payment for increased electricity co

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a subject access request. The Information Commissioner is better placed to consider the matter.

Summary: Mr Y complained on behalf of Mr X who owns a business. Mr Y complained about how the Council handled Mr X’s business rates account. There were some faults by the Council which caused injustice to Mr X’s business. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the suitability of temporary accommodation provided by the Council under its homelessness duty. It was reasonable for Miss X to appeal against the Council’s review decision if she wished to challenge it.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about comments made by the Council within a suitability review decision, about having to stay in unsuitable temporary accommodation unnecessarily, and that the Council should pay for her moving costs. This is because the claimed fault has not caused significant enough injustice. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council has failed to award her the correct priority on the housing register as it has failed to properly consider the domestic abuse and homelessness she experienced. We found there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Miss X’s priority on the housing register.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about Adult Social Care. Mrs X complained about the staff working with her late relative. The complaints are late and there are not sufficient good reasons for the delay in bringing these matters to the Ombudsman.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about penalty charge notices issued by the Council. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to London Tribunals.