LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council assessed the complainant’s housing application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not provide her with emergency accommodation when she was homeless, including after she was assaulted. She also complained the Council did not help her find accommodation. Ms X was street homeless, and this affected her physical and mental health. We find the Council at fault, and this caused Ms X injustice. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Ms X and improve its service.

Summary: The Council failed to provide her with suitable interim accommodation when she needed to flee domestic abuse and gave her incorrect advice about her housing options. It also significantly delayed responding to her complaints. In recognition of the distress and uncertainty caused, the Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X £700 and make a service improvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault. We cannot investigate a complaint about the Council’s management of a tenant who Miss X says is carrying out anti-social behaviour and should not have been moved next to her. We have no jurisdiction not investigate the management of housing by social housing landlords.

Summary: Mr X complains about how the Council handled an application for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DGF) for home adaptations for his son, Y. We have concluded our investigation having not made a finding of fault. The evidence demonstrates the Council followed the correct process when assessing Mr X’s application for a DFG. An Occupational Therapist visited Mr X’s home to conduct an assessment on two occasions and reached a professional judgment regarding the adaptations required which were completed. It is not for our service to intervene to offer a different view, nor can we criticise deci

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the treatment the complainant’s child receives in school. This is because we cannot investigate complaints about what happens in schools.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the number of points the complainant is eligible for on the housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Ms X complains about unresolved disrepair and inspections undertaken in her temporary accommodation. We have concluded our investigation having made a finding of fault. Reported disrepair made by Ms X was not satisfactorily resolved until February 2024, demonstrating a long period of delay and inaction; this is fault. We have not found fault for inspections undertaken at Ms X’s accommodation, as the evidence does not demonstrate that such frequency, or unannounced visits are not otherwise permitted. The Council has accepted our recommendations.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on the suitability of its mobility training. This is because we are unlikely to find fault with its decision making.

Summary: Mr B complained about the assessment and decision to detain him under the Mental Health Act, and the care provided in hospital. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the decision to detain him under the Mental Health Act, as he has previously appealed this decision at the mental health tribunal. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the care he received while he was staying on the hospital ward, as it is unlikely an investigation would add to the response Mr B has already received from the Trust.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the care provided by a Council-commissioned care provider. We could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the decision to deregister Ms X as a foster carer. This is because the complaint relates to events that took place more than 12 months ago and it would have been reasonable for Ms X to bring the complaint to us sooner.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to properly assess her father, Mr Z’s, care needs. She also complained the Council did not provide sufficient care in line with Mr Z’s wishes and the Equality Act since January 2023. Ms X complained the Council was dishonest about its assessment of Mr Z’s needs and failed to communicate with her properly about the decisions made about her father’s care. There was some fault in how the Council initially assessed Mr Z’s needs which caused Ms X frustration and uncertainty. The Council will apologise to Ms X and pay her a symbolic amount of £300 to recog

Summary: Mr X is a vulnerable young person living in a shared lives placement. Mr Z complained, on Mr X’s behalf, the Council failed to properly support Mr X and prioritise his care needs. We have found fault by the Council in: failing to properly consider whether Mr X should have an Education Health and Care needs assessment and the additional support he might need; its delays in responding to a request for respite care; and making a health referral and a benefits claim, causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising to Mr X and Mrs Z, making payments to reflect the u

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax liability because the matter was out of time and there was a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s introduction of a cycleway scheme under an experimental traffic order. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage to

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to investigate a complaint that a Councillor breached the code of conduct. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the complaint to justify an investigation. Also, we will not investigate concerns about the Council’s complaint procedure. We do not consider the complainant has suffered significant personal injustice because of any administrative errors in the complaints process alone to warrant our involvement.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainant’s request for an Education Health and Care Assessment for her son, and that it has failed to ensure he has access to full time education. This is because the complainant has used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability).

Summary: Mr X complained the Council incorrectly refused to grant his son a blue badge for disabled parking which meant it was unsafe when his son was out walking or on public transport. We found fault because the Council failed to carry out an adequate review of Mr X’s application. To remedy the injustice caused by this fault, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and request that he submits a new application.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has not taken action regarding bus lane violations. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s actions related to her housing register application. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: London Borough of Islington and North Central London Integrated Care Board did not appropriately respond to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal’s non-binding recommendation for Section G of Mr X’s daughter’s Education, Health and Care Plan. That led to Y missing occupational therapy support at college. The fault also caused Mr X and Y uncertainty, frustration, and distress. The organisations should apologise, review their processes, and make a symbolic payment to remedy their injustice.

Summary: London Borough of Islington and North Central London Integrated Care Board did not appropriately respond to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal’s non-binding recommendation for Section G of Mr X’s daughter’s Education, Health and Care Plan. That led to Y missing occupational therapy support at college. The fault also caused Mr X and Y uncertainty, frustration, and distress. The organisations should apologise, review their processes, and make a symbolic payment to remedy their injustice.

Summary: London Borough of Islington and North Central London Integrated Care Board did not appropriately respond to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal’s non-binding recommendation for Section G of Mr X’s daughter’s Education, Health and Care Plan. That led to Y missing occupational therapy support at college. The fault also caused Mr X and Y uncertainty, frustration, and distress. The organisations should apologise, review their processes, and make a symbolic payment to remedy their injustice.