LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in receiving a postal vote. This is because we do not have the power to investigate the matters complained about.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council deciding not to action against her neighbours’ cigarette smoke drifting into her garden, and about the noise of their conversations.

Summary: The Council was at fault because it delayed accepting the prevention duty for a homelessness applicant, and because it delayed processing his request for a review of his banding on the housing register. Neither fault affected his substantive situation, and the Council has already offered an adequate remedy for the frustration it caused. However, the Council has agreed to take steps to remind its staff of the law around the prevention duty. The Council was not at fault for deciding the applicant was not in priority need, even though it later reversed this decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council carried out a child and family assessment. This is because there is insufficient fault causing a significant injustice, we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council and because other bodies are better placed to consider some elements of the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s claim for compensation for damage caused by a pothole as there is insufficient evidence of significant fault caused by any Council delay. We also can achieve no meaningful outcome for Mr X as ultimately this is a matter for the courts.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that his car was damaged by a pothole which the Council had failed to identify and repair. This is because it is reasonable for Mr B to take the Council to court.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council not taking action about unauthorised parking at a Council housing estate. This is because we cannot investigate complaints about the management of social housing, including housing estates, by a council acting as a social landlord.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council refused to refund a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) which the

Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to address anti-social behaviour from her neighbours. The Ombudsman find fault with the Council for failing to follow its anti-social behaviour policy. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council for how it reached the decision whether to take action. The Council has agreed to make a financial payment and carry out service improvements.

Summary: Mr D complains that delay by the Council meant his late father missed out on the chance of the Right to Buy his property before he passed away. Our decision is we should discontinue our investigation, as we cannot achieve the remedy Mr D wants – that is the Right to Buy his father’s council home.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a noise nuisance complaint made by Ms X. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to the investigation already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his appeal against a penalty charge notice. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and it would have been reasonable for Mr X to apply to the court to challenge the Council’s escalation of the case by making a witness statement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a safeguarding investigation the Council carried out from 2020 to 2022. This is because the complaint is out of time.

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council dealt with his housing application. He said the Council produced a duplicate account, which meant he could not bid on properties. Mr X said the Council did not complete an allocation review within timescales. Mr X said this impacted his mental health. There was fault in the way the Council provided incorrect information to Mr X and did not record a visit to him. The Council has already taken appropriate action to remedy this fault.

Summary: Miss X complained she had been placed on the incorrect priority band for her housing application which meant she had missed out on properties she should have been able to bid on. We found fault because the Council had placed Miss X on the incorrect band. Miss X suffered avoidable frustration and distress and missed out on the opportunity to bid on several properties. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has already made a payment to Miss X and made several direct offers of suitable housing. We are satisfied these actions have remedied the injustice caused to Miss X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in assessing Mr X’s housing banding. This is because

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a discretionary housing payment because there is not evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Penalty Charge Notices and related signage. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: Mrs X complains about how the Council handled her son, S’s, Education, Health, and Care Plan. Mrs X said the Council’s failures caused avoidable stress to her, but also to S who was upset about not having a college place in time for September 2023. The Council was at fault for the delays in securing a college place and poor communication about the progress with Mrs X. The Council offered her a financial remedy for the distress, and we consider it to be in line with our guidance. The Council also agreed to make a symbolic payment for the avoidable frustration and effort Mrs X went to b

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of her homelessness case after it accepted the relief and main housing duty in 2022. The Council was at fault. It failed to offer suitable interim or temporary accommodation despite being aware Mrs X was living in an overcrowded unsuitable property. It meant Mrs X stayed in an unsuitable property for 18 months longer than necessary. The Council agreed to make a payment to recognise the distress this caused and carry out service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to pay her legal costs related to court action between her and a private tenant. Part of the complaint is late, there is not enough evidence of fault and we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council sent Miss X’s confidential data to a third party. This is because this is best dealt with by the Information Commissioner's Office.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s advice about dog boarding licence procedure. There is insufficient evidence of any significant personal injustice which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s homelessness decision. Miss X could reasonably have used her rights to ask for a Council review and to go to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council Officer’s use of the incorrect pronoun when writing to the complainant. We are satisfied the Council’s response was a proportionate to the issues raised.