LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly insisted he take court action to obtain possession of his property before it would accept his tenant as homeless and provide them with emergency accommodation. We have not found fault by the Council.

Summary: Miss F complained the Council failed to ensure her temporary accommodation was suitable prior to a move in date. I have ended my investigation as Miss F had a statutory right to request a review of the suitability of the accommodation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to address issues which have affected Mrs X’s ability to access her allotment plot. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide alternative educational provision for her child when they were unable to attend school. She complained the Council delayed its decision not to do an education, health and care needs assessment, and complained about delays handling her complaint. Mrs X said there was a huge impact on her child of the missed education, and said it caused unnecessary and avoidable distress and frustration. We find the Council at fault, and this caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council had failed to carry out an assessment of her son Mr C’s needs or provide support to enable him to access the community. We found the Council delayed for six months in carrying out a care needs assessment for Mr C and a carer’s assessment for Mrs B. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B, pay her £300, complete the assessments and improve its procedures for the future.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to award school transport assistance to Mr X’s child because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not taking planning enforcement action against a report of a breach of planning control. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to ensure repairs are dealt with in Ms X’s home which she rents from a social housing provider. Her complaint has been referred to the Housing Ombudsman Service who have decided to investigate her case.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint against Sutton Council to end its housing duty and provide the complainant with accommodation. This is because the issues subject to his complaint have been, and are currently, subject to legal proceedings in court. He will also have a further right of appeal in County Court on the conclusion of these proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s bin staff not always returning her wheeled bins to the front of her property and not always closing the lids. There is insufficient significant injustice caused by the matters complained of to warrant an investigation and an investigation would not result in a different outcome.

Summary: The Council did not compel Mr X to accept care or tell him there was a compulsory care order. The Council recognises it could have taken a decision sooner about Mr X’s capacity to make his own decisions about his care and offers to credit some months of care to his current debt. It also recognises the distress caused to him by the delay in responding to his complaint and offers £250 to him.

Summary: Mr X complained about the consultation process the Council carried out which resulted in parking restrictions on the road outside his property. The Council published incorrect and misleading maps of proposals which gave the impression Mr X was not affected, and so he did not comment. It also delayed handling his complaint on the matter. However, the Council considered similar concerns to those of Mr X in deciding to implement the restrictions. Therefore, the fault did not affect the overall outcome. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £200 to recognise the frustration

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s treatment of Mr X. The matters complained of are not separable from matters that either formed or could reasonably have formed part of court proceedings.

Summary: There was delay by the Council in authorising a deprivation of Mr Y’s liberty which was fault. The fault did not cause Mr Y distress. The Council will apologise to Ms X, make her a symbolic payment to reflect her avoidable distress and time and trouble complaining and take action described in this statement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a building control matter. This is because it is unlikely we could achieve a worthwhile outcome for the complainant.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a refuse operative swearing at the complainant. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The Council has already provided a satisfactory response to the complaint.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to act to prevent frequent surface water flooding on the road outside his property causing flooding to his property. Mr X also complained the Council failed to clean the road of debris after flooding events and failed to provide responses to his complaint. We found fault with the Council for its delays in handling Mr X’s complaint and escalating its investigations into the flooding. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £200 for the distress, frustration and inconvenience caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the provision given during an Education Health and Care Plan appeal and how the Council conducted itself during that appeal. We cannot investigate issues subject to an appeal and it is unlikely we would find fault in the provision offered in the meantime.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to act on the agreed actions in a Children in Need plan put in place for her daughter, C. The Council has delayed carrying out the agreed actions in the plan and offered in response to the complaint. The Council should make payment to remedy the impact on Mrs X and C and make changes to its policies and procedures.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the provision of education to his child. It is unlikely we could achieve a significantly different outcome.

Summary: We found fault with the way the Council responded when Miss X approached it as homeless. There were delays throughout the process that caused Miss X distress and frustration. The Council agreed actions to remedy the injustice to Miss X.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a Council officer’s inappropriate behaviour towards her. This is because an investigation by this office could not add to the response and remedy already recommended via the Council’s previous investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council had not provided adequate Adult Social Care services to his son Mr Y, causing distress. We did investigate complaints about matters that arose more than 12 months ago or that were premature. We found the Council at fault for delay in completing a specialist autism assessment for Mr Y. We recommended it pay Mr X £500 for the distress and uncertainty suffered by him and Mr Y and arrange the assessment.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement matter. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her dropped kerb application. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council.