LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. This is because the complaint is late and we have seen no reason why Mr X could not have complained to us sooner.

Summary: Miss B complained that the Council failed to provide suitable accommodation when she was homeless. We find that the Council failed to provide suitable interim accommodation for Miss B, and then failed to properly assess whether the temporary accommodation it subsequently provided was suitable. It also failed to properly respond to Miss B’s emails. The Council’s failings caused Miss B significant distress. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Miss B. It has also agreed to make service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in reviewing her carer assessments over eight years and a data breach. This is because the complaint was made late, an investigation would not lead to a different outcome

Summary: Mr J complained about the way the Council cleaned his property and dealt with his belongings. We found fault in record keeping but this did not cause significant injustice to Mr J. There was no fault by the Council in the other parts of the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. It is reasonable for Mr X to ask for a further review of his case if he has sufficient new evidence to support it.

Summary: A private landlord complains the Council took too long to end the tenancy of one of its tenants, who had lost the capacity to make that decision for herself, resulting in it losing out on housing benefit for many months. The Council took far too long to apply to the Court of Protection for permission to end the tenancy. While this did not result in a loss of housing benefit, it prevented the landlord from selling the property and put it to considerable trouble in chasing the Council for updates. The Council needs to apologise.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s rejection of a Right to Buy application. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council removing an application from the housing register. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Miss X could not have complained to us sooner.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly investigate or address her complaints about the Council’s actions following the decision to remove her son from her care. She also complained the Council has failed to provide an appropriate remedy. We found the Council’s delays, poor record keeping, failings in communication and use of an inappropriate contact centre are fault. This fault caused Mrs X and her son unnecessary distress. The Council has agreed to make payments to Mrs X and Y to remedy this injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about poor communication and delay during an adult social care needs assessment. The Council has apologised to Ms X and acted to improve its service. An investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council has failed to properly investigate her complaints about the Council’s actions following the decision to place her grandson in her care. She also complained the Council has failed to address her concerns or provide an appropriate remedy. We found the Council’s failure to provide support and the use of an inappropriate contact centre are fault. This fault caused Miss X unnecessary distress. To remedy this, the Council will apologise and make a payment to Miss X.

Summary: A care home complained the Council was not paying care fees as it should. It said it had continued to provide care to its resident but had not been paid for this over a significant time. Based on evidence we find the Council is at fault and has caused an injustice. We have recommended the Council pay all outstanding fees and apologise.

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to make the disabled adaptations Ms X needs in her home. The Council’s decision making was not in line with the law and guidance and it wrongly insisted Ms X must have all the works to her property it thought she needed. As a result, Ms X has spent over a year without access to a downstairs toilet. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise, progress works to Ms X’s home and make payments to her. The Council will also act to improve its services.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the start date of her housing register application. This is

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a council tax summons because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a moving traffic penalty charge notice as the complainant had the right to ask the court to consider their case.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council refused to return his motorbike to him even after he had paid the fees for parking contraventions. We did not find fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to boundary maintenance. Parts of Mrs X’s complaint are late and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by us investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that a Council owned tree damaged her shed. This is because it is reasonable for her to take the matters complained about to court.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council is treating him unfairly in its children’s services involvement with his family. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider his complaint whilst the case is subject to ongoing court proceedings.

Summary: Miss F complained the Council did not take effective action to resolve anti-social behaviour she was experiencing from a neighbouring property. The Council was at fault, because it misunderstood its legal jurisdiction on several relevant points, which caused uncertainty. The Council should apologise and offer to pay Miss F a financial remedy to reflect this, and implement improvements to its service.

Summary: Mrs X’s representatives complain about the Council’s actions in seeking a suitable care provider for Mrs X. They say this meant Mrs X was without the care she needed for longer than necessary. We find no fault with the Council’s actions.

Summary: the Council delayed in carrying out a financial assessment and then failed to take Ms X’s needs into consideration when it sent her forms to complete. The Council’s error in chasing a debt which was already paid caused additional stress and anxiety. The Council will now apologise to Ms X, carry out a thorough review of her disability-related expenses and offer a sum in recognition of the distress its actions have caused.

Summary: We decided not to investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a request for a review of Ms X’s priority band on its housing register. The Council has upheld the complaint about a delay in issuing its review decision and has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the injustice caused. The Council has already apologised for a delay in allocating a support worker to help Ms X request a review, which was appropriate. There was insufficient evidence of fault in the way it considered the review to justify us investigating that part of the complaint further.