LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to refuse his child, Y, travel assistance to and from college. The Council was at fault. It failed to consider Y’s individual circumstances, their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and disability when it made its decision and it did not properly explain to Mr X its reasons for refusing travel assistance. It did not follow its appeal process. Furthermore, the Council’s travel assistance policy for post-16 is unclear and its wait time for an assessment for independent travel training is not reasonable. The Council has agreed to apologise

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a parking penalty charge notice as since Miss X appealed it to London Tribunals, the matter is no longer within our remit.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed in completing a review of her child’s Education, Health, and Care Plan. The Council accepted it was at fault for the delay and apologised. Following our investigation it also agreed to provide a financial remedy to recognise the avoidable distress caused to Ms X by the delay, and issue a reminder to staff about statutory review timescales.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council issuing him a Fixed Penalty Notice for spitting. This is because Mr X can raise a defence against the issuing of the notice in the magistrates’ court should he wish to challenge it.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council had not transferred his appointeeship. There is nothing to suggest Mr X has been cause a significant injustice.

Summary: The Council was at fault for repeated failures to consider the suitability of temporary accommodation it provided Mrs X and her family. The properties were unsuitable and Mrs X experienced avoidable financial loss and her children’s education suffered as a result. The Council has agreed to apologise, make payments, and act to improve its services.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council removed her from its housing register after deciding she no longer qualified for priority based on overcrowding. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council told her she was eligible for a four-bedroom property but then changed its mind, and she had to pay for two properties. Miss X said this had a significant financial impact and caused distress and frustration. We find the Council at fault and this caused injustice. The Council has agreed to make a payment to remedy this.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council moving him into unsuitable temporary accommodation because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed completing an Occupational Therapy (OT) assessment required for his Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) application to carry out adaptations to his house. Mr X says this has delayed the adaptations and put him at a risk of harm as his house does not meet his needs. The Council was at fault because there was an eight month delay carrying out the OT assessment. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the distress, frustration and uncertainty the delay caused.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s management of its finances because this affects all or most of the people in the Council’s area. An investigation solely into the Council’s handling of Mr B’s complaint is not justified.

Summary: The Council overcharged Mrs Y for the care and support it provided to meet her needs and failed to explain how the charges were calculated. It also delayed responding to the complaint Mr X made on her behalf and the complaint response was inadequate. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and Mrs Y and make a payment to acknowledge the uncertainty and frustration they were caused. It has also agreed to revise the invoices and provide training or guidance to staff about responding appropriately to complaints.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council pursuing her for outstanding care charges for her late husband. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the provision of suitable accommodation. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a Council’s involvement with a property management company. We could not achieve what he wants and any contractual dispute between Mr X and the property management company are private matters which are better considered by a court.

Summary: Miss X, on behalf of her mother Mrs Y, complained the Council failed to provide suitable alternative accommodation following a suitability review in July 2024. Mrs Y and her family have been in unsuitable accommodation longer than they should have because the Council has failed to offer alternative accommodation. A symbolic payment to recognise the distress caused is agreed.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax banding and liability because there is an appeal to a Valuation Tribunal and part of the complaint is against a body out of jurisdiction. Nor is there evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to consider her son’s circumstances when refusing his application for school transport assistance. There is conflicting evidence about whether the Council followed its policy, the Council failed to follow Government guidance and failed to explain its reasoning when writing to Mrs X to tell her its decision. An agreement to carry out a further appeal, apology, payment to Mrs X, changes to the Council’s transport policy and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his application for a vehicle crossover. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils refusal to provide school transport for the complainant’s child. This is because the Council has decided to offer transport under exceptional circumstances. Therefore further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his parking permit. This is because the injustice he claims stems from several penalty charge notices issued by the Council and it would have been reasonable for him to challenge these by appealing to London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the suitability of Mrs X’s temporary accommodation. She successfully used her right to request a review and the Council agreed to offer the family alternative temporary accommodation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council recorded and shared inaccurate information in a report to the courts and failed to respond to the Information Commissioner’s request for information. The law prevents us from investigating what happens in court, including the preparation and contents of court ordered reports. The Information Commissioner is better placed to deal with how the Council responds to its requests for information.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to ensure her child (Y) received the specialist provision set out in their Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council failed to ensure Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) was in place between December 2023 until February 2025. This caused Mrs X distress, frustration and uncertainty and meant Y’s needs went unmet for longer than necessary. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise this.