LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to cancel a penalty charge notice. This is because it would have been reasonable for Ms X to appeal to London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an application to carry out work to a protected tree. This is because the complainant has appealed to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about housing benefit as there is a right of appeal to a tribunal and there is no evidence of fault by the Council causing significant injustice.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly investigate recurring fly-tipping near his home. There was fault with how the Council failed to properly investigate Mr X’s reports of fly-tipping and how it communicated with him throughout 2023. The Council agreed to apologise, pay Mr X a financial remedy, carry out a thorough review of its investigation and make several service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to act to prevent a car owner from persistently breaching parking regulations. The complainant recognises the Council regularly issues Penalty Contravention Notices for the car and the Council has confirmed it will publicise details when a vehicle impound and removal scheme comes into operation. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to respond to her reports of a neighbour’s anti-social behaviour, and complained about the way the Council handled her complaint. Miss X said it caused unnecessary and avoidable distress, upset and frustration. We find the Council at fault, and this caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of maintenance works to one of its properties. This is because we cannot investigate complaints about the management of social housing by a council acting as a social landlord.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application and failure to provide interim accommodation. We find the Council at fault which caused Mr X avoidable uncertainty, frustration, distress, and expenses. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, make him a symbolic payment for the injustice caused, refund his avoidable expenses, and provide a staff reminder.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to impose fines relating to licensing issues at Mr X’s House of Multiple Occupation (HMO). This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We have no remit to investigate as Mr X has already appealed to the Property Chamber specialist tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council delaying its verification of a right to buy application for a Council property. It is reasonable for Mrs X to use the statutory delay procedure provided by the legislation to seek a remedy for the delay.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to install a grill or gulley around the drain in the highway outside the complainant’s home. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

Summary: Mr B has complained about the delay by a Trust, Council and Integrated Care Board in discharging him from section 117 of the Mental Health Act aftercare. Mr B said the delay led to distress, and anxiety. We will not investigate this complaint as, although there was a delay in informing Mr B of the discharge, he has received an apology and we would not add anything further by investigating the case.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about school admissions. The Council was acting on behalf of academy schools. We have no powers to consider complaints about academies.

Summary: Ms D complained about the way the Council dealt with her father’s care charges after he was discharged from hospital. We found the Council at fault for failing to provide enough information about the care charges before the costs were incurred. The Council will apologise and waive the fees to acknowledge the injustice it caused.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council’s planning enforcement and environmental health teams dealt with his reports about development and noise. We found no fault in the Council’s actions regarding planning enforcement. We found the closure of initial noise reports about noise was unexplained, and therefore fault. However, this caused no significant injustice as the Council went on to consider noise reports appropriately a short time later.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to review its restrictions on his communication. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to ensure that Temporary Accommodation it provided was suitable for her and her children to occupy. We found there was fault by the Council that warranted a remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against an outbuilding. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion.

Summary: The Council’s failure to work in a joined-up way across its repairs and adaptations teams was fault. It should not have closed Ms Y’s adaptations case when it did. The Council has agreed to apologise, write to Ms Y about her adaptations, work with the repairs service, make a payment, and act to improve its services.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not amending Mrs X’s child’s Education Health and Care Plan in accordance with the ruling of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. The Council has appealed against the ruling of the first-tier Tribunal, and we cannot take any view about what provision it should make while the matter remains within the Tribunal process.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s response to his bin collection complaints and the lack of reasonable adjustments it made for him when he submitted various complaints to it in September 2023. The Council was at fault for lack of clarity and consistency in how it managed Mr X’s reasonable adjustments. This caused Mr X avoidable uncertainty and frustration. The council agreed to our recommendations at the end of this decision on what action the Council will take to remedy the injustice its actions caused Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning application or her request for pre-application planning advice. This is because the complainant has appealed, or could have appealed, to the Planning Inspector. Parts of the complaint are also late and the complainant has not suffered significant injustice in relation to the remaining issues complained about.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about complaint-handling and a housing matter. The underlying substantive issue is late, without a reasonable prospect of reaching a clear enough view now. It is also more properly for the courts than for us. In that context, it would be disproportionate to investigate the Council’s refusal to deal with Mr X’s complaint. We also cannot achieve what Mr X wants.

Summary: Ms X complains about the way the Council dealt with her homelessness and housing register applications causing distress and financial hardship. We found fault as the Council delayed dealing with the applications and have recommended a suitable remedy. So, we have completed our investigation into the complaint.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council significantly delayed reviewing her child, Z’s, Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council was at fault, which caused Mrs X avoidable frustration and uncertainty and delayed her right of appeal. The Council will apologise and pay Mrs X £400 in recognition of that injustice.