LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice he received because he could have followed the statutory process and appealed to the tribunal. There is insufficient evidence of fault with how the Council dealt with concerns raised about the actions of the enforcement agents, and the police are better placed to consider Mr X’s allegations of assault.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council installing an overflow pipe in a neighbouring property. This is because the neighbouring property is a council house and we cannot investigate complaints about the management of social housing.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her housing case, the actions of an occupational therapist, and that her representative was excluded from meetings and being involved. This is because the accepted fault did not cause any significant injustice. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault, and an investigation would not lead to any further findings or outcomes.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to add her child’s birth certificate to her housing application. The Council was at fault. It failed to add the birth certificate which meant Ms X was unable to bid on suitable properties for nearly two years. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and make a payment to acknowledge the distress the delay caused. Additionally, the Council agreed to prioritise offering Ms X a suitable two-bedroom property as soon as possible.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Ms T’s housing benefit claim. This is because the Council has agreed to remedy the injustice.

Summary: The Council was at fault for not providing Ms X with a face-to-face appointment as part of her housing application despite Ms X informing the Council she needed this because English was not her first language. The Council was also at fault for a significant delay in processing her housing application and its poor complaint handling. This led to a 15 month delay in the Council approving Ms X’s application to join the housing register. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment and backdate the priority of Ms X’s housing application to remedy the injustice caused. It has also a

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr B’s complaint that he suffered injuries after slipping on a wet floor in a Council-owned housing block. This is because we cannot investigate complaints about the management of social housing by councils.

Summary: We will use our discretion not to investigate this complaint about parking enforcement because the Council has responded to the complainant and he wants to close the complaint.

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

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her application to be re-housed to a larger property. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the removal of Mrs X’s car by the Council. Mrs X had a statutory appeal right which it was reasonable for her use. In addition, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s interactions with her to justify an investigation.

this complaint about the Council’s provision of parking enforcement for a location near Mr X’s home. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the council which has caused any injustice to Mr X.

Summary: We will use our discretion not to investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Disabled Persons Freedom Pass because the complainant now has a pass.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about pest control treatments because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to help her family including support for her daughter with suicidal ideation, not providing suitable education and leaving the family in a house where they were at risk. The Council was at fault for failing to consider the complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. It will now consider Ms X’s concerns through the statutory procedure as well as apologising and making a payment for failing to do this originally.

Summary: Mr X complained that for many months the Council had failed to consider his application for a change of his priority banding on medical grounds. We found fault with the Council for its significant delay to consider Mr X’s application and its failure to send its decisions to Mr X in writing and tell him about his right to ask for a review. The Council’s fault caused injustice to Mr X. The Council has agreed to apologise, backdate Mr X’s higher priority banding and make a symbolic payment to recognise his uncertainty and distress. The Council has also agreed to carry out some service im

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to properly consider medical evidence and a disclosure of domestic abuse she provided as part of a homelessness application. We do not find fault with how the Council considered Miss X’s application. However, we find fault with how the Council communicated with Miss X, causing uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X, make a symbolic payment to recognise the uncertainty caused, and complete a new review of Miss X’s case.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an allegation of racial discrimination while Mr Y was at a leisure facility. This is because the Council have already investigated and responded and further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome. Nor can we achieve the outcome Mr Y is looking for.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice for an alleged parking contravention. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs B to make formal representations, and if needed, put in an appeal to London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his reports of disrepair and failure to offer temporary accommodation. The complaint is later and there are no good reasons to investigate now.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her application for rehousing. Part of the complaint is late. There is insufficient evidence of fault in its management of her housing register priority banding and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider her complaints about access to information and rectification of records.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an increase in the amount of the charges for permits to park in a controlled parking zone. This is because the complaint is late and I have seen no good reasons to exercise our discretion to investigate it.

Summary: The Council delayed registering Mr X’s housing application and delayed reviewing his medical priority. This was fault. The Council was not at fault for how it decided Mr X’s housing priority. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr X for the uncertainty and frustration caused by the delay.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council abused her. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax liability because there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.