LGO Individual Decisions

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 cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to provide contact details so he can serve notice under the Party Wall Act 1996 before commencing work on his extension. This is because the complaint concerns the Council’s management of social housing and the law does not allow us to investigate such matters.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a development which she says will affect the privacy of her home. This is because the information does not indicate the Council’s decision was affected by fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to take enforcement action against reports of breaches of planning control and property licensing. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify our involvement.

Summary: We have completed our investigation. The Council was at fault. It did not properly assess Mr X and his family’s homelessness and missed opportunities to offer interim accommodation to Mr X and his family. Mr X suffered avoidable distress, confusion, and delayed appeal rights. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment to Mr X, and deliver training to its homelessness prevention and assistance service.

Summary: Miss X complained to the Council about its actions when she was in its care as a child and as a care leaver. We found that the Council was at fault for not agreeing to investigate the complaints under the statutory Children Act 1989 complaints’ procedures. The Council has now agreed to start a statutory investigation at stage two without delay. We have therefore completed our investigation and are closing the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mx W’s complaint about the Council’s handling of their housing case after receiving a notice to quite from their landlord. This is because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his council tax account. This is because an investigation would not lead to any further outcomes. In addition, the likely fault has not caused any significant injustice.

Summary: We found the Council at fault for its response when Mrs D sought its support when she faced being made homeless. The Council delayed in making decisions and failed to communicate with her. This caused Mrs D avoidable distress. The Council has accepted these findings and at the end of this statement we set out what action it will take to remedy this injustice and make service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council recovering overpaid housing benefit from Miss X. It was reasonable for her to challenge the Council’s decision by way of an appeal to the independent benefits tribunal which is the proper authority to consider benefit appeals.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused to her and her son, Y, after it upheld her complaint that it had not properly assessed Y’s needs and had delayed responding to her complaint. The remedy the Council proposed for the upheld complaint was appropriate.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to secure a school placement for her child. This is because Mrs X appealed the matter to a tribunal.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council placed him in an incorrect priority band for his housing register application and did not respond to his calls and emails. He says the Council’s actions negatively impacted his mental health and meant he was homeless for longer than necessary. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, review its decision regarding Mr X’s priority status, and carry out service improvements to avoid the fault re-occurring.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about a data breach because Mr B may complain to the Information Commissioner. It is reasonable for Mr B to challenge the Council’s council tax decision by putting in an appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax. There is no fault in the Council using the council tax band the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) has given for Mrs X’s home. We cannot investigate the VOA. Mrs X can reasonably appeal to the Valuation Tribunal about council tax discounts and exemptions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s provision of suitable temporary accommodation under its homelessness duty. The complainant requested a review of suitability and has a further right of appeal to the County Court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s priority on the housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss X’s homelessness. The Council properly reached its decision that Miss X’s temporary accommodation is suitable. There are not good enough reasons to investigate other points.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s removal of road markings from the road outside his property. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show its actions caused Mr X significant injustice. Mr X claims his father suffered personal injury as a result of the Council’s contractor’s actions but this is a matter for the courts.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in responding to the elderly alarm service. We could not add to the Council’s investigation or reach a worthwhile outcome. We are satisfied with the actions the Council took to acknowledge the distress caused by failures in its complaint handling.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with a report of dangerous masonry. The Council has satisfied its obligation by ensuring temporary safety measures were taken to make building safe. Responsibility for ongoing maintenance and repairs lay with the freeholder of the property. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to rehouse her to a larger property on medical grounds and failed to properly respond to her complaint. The Council was not at fault when it decided Miss X did not have a medical need for an extra bedroom. It accepted it was at fault for placing Miss X on a shortlist for an unsuitable property and for a delay in responding to her complaint. It apologised and offered to make a payment to Miss X. We consider this a suitable remedy.

Summary: Ms B complained about how the Council dealt with her 2023 homelessness application, its staff conduct, its complaint handling and its poor communication with her. Ms B also complained the Council failed to comply with one of the recommended actions it agreed to complete following the Ombudsman’s investigation into her previous complaint about her housing situation. There were faults by the Council which caused injustice to Ms B. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: Ms D complained how the Council, and the care provider it commissioned, handled matters when her brother’s bathroom required major repairs. She also complained the Council delayed carrying out a review of her brother’s care and support plan. We find fault with how the care provider handled the repair issues. We also find the Council was at fault for its delay in carrying out a review of the care and support plan. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

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.