LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council’s offer of temporary accommodation to a homeless applicant. It was reasonable for her to seek a review of suitability which she subsequently did.

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.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X complaint about the Council’s failure to reassess her housing needs when she asked it to. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about being charged an inflated rent. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is no Council involvement in Miss X’s private tenancy matters so we have no remit to investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax because decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Mr X’s homelessness application. It was reasonable for him to ask for a statutory review of the decision that he was non-priority homeless when the relief duty ended.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the support the Council gave him when he became homeless. This is because we will not investigate late complaints or investigate when it was reasonable for Mr X to go to court. We cannot investigate where Mr X did go to court and we will not investigate where we could not add to the Council’s investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly establish a business rate account and failed to give enough advice about the rate reliefs available. As a result, he was then too late to apply for rate relief. Mr X said this impacted him financially. There was fault in the way the Council registered the account to the wrong address initially. This fault did not cause Mr X an injustice.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council wrongly billed her for a council tax payment which she says she has already paid. Miss X says the Council’s actions caused her avoidable frustration and worry. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and reduce the backdated arrears on her council tax account.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s provision of information about the locations of school streets in its area. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We consider London Borough of Lewisham and Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust did not appropriately seek the views of Mrs Y’s supported accommodation before deciding she could not return there from hospital. Also, the Council did not carry out a Mental Capacity Act assessment and best interest decision in line with the relevant guidance. That caused Mrs Y’s son, Mr D, uncertainty. The Council and Trust should apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mr D to recognise his injustice. They should also carry out service improvements.

Summary: We consider London Borough of Lewisham and Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust did not appropriately seek the views of Mrs Y’s supported accommodation before deciding she could not return there from hospital. Also, the Council did not carry out a Mental Capacity Act assessment and best interest decision in line with the relevant guidance. That caused Mrs Y’s son, Mr D, uncertainty. The Council and Trust should apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mr D to recognise his injustice. They should also carry out service improvements.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council wrongly decided her son did not meet the criteria for support from its Children with Complex Needs Team. She also complained the Council’s assessment contained inaccurate or misleading information. Miss X said the Council’s actions caused her avoidable distress. We found fault in how the Council handled Miss X’s complaint. However, we have not investigated Miss X’s complaint that the Council wrongly decided her son did not meet the criteria for support and that the Council’s assessment contained inaccurate information. This is because the Council has agre

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s contractors damaging the complainant’s property. This is because we have no remit to consider complaints about the management of social housing.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council suspending Mr X’s housing benefit resulting in rent arrears. 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 reinstated Mr X’s housing benefit so there is no worthwhile outcome achievable.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the suitability of her temporary accommodation. Ms X has the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law and it is reasonable for her to do so.

Summary: Ms Q complained about the Council’s handling of her housing application and assessment of medical priority. She said she experienced distress due to the impact her housing circumstances had on her. We found the Council at fault for causing significant delays in her 2022 request for medical priority, but no fault in the process it followed to reach its decision, it therefore reached decisions it was entitled to make. The Council will apologise to Ms Q, back date her medical priority start date, and make payment to acknowledge the injustice its delays caused.

Summary: Miss B complained about the way the Council considered her medical needs in connection with her housing application. We have found some fault in the way the Council communicated its decisions to Miss B. But we consider the Council’s most recent review properly explained the decision. The Council has agreed to review the content of its medical assessment decision letters for the future.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the failure to provide Y with an education as we are unlikely to find fault. And it is reasonable to expect Miss X to have appealed the Council’s decision not to assess Y for an Education Health and Care Plan.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to designate a property as a House of Multiple Occupation for council tax. This is because the complainant appealed to the Valuation Tribunal. In addition, he can complain to the Information Commissioner about his Subject Access Request.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because the complainant could have followed the statutory process and appealed to the tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax banding as there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to respond to a children services complaint because it could reasonably be or has been mentioned as part of legal proceedings on a closely related matter.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about two Penalty Charge Notices because the complainant appealed to the tribunal.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed repairing or replacing her front door after her son damaged it in October 2022. She said the delays caused her family distress. The Council has now fixed the door and offered Miss X £150 for her distress and putting her family at risk of harm. Miss X was not satisfied with this offer. There was fault in the way the Council did not ensure the contractor replaced the door within a reasonable timescale. This distressed Miss X and placed her family at risk of harm. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a financial payment.