LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision about Mr X’s homelessness application. It was reasonable for him to ask the Council for a review of its decision about his status.

There was a delay actioning Ms X’s request for a school place for Y. There was a failure to consider carrying out an early annual review of Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan and a delay in issuing a final amended Plan. Communication was poor. This caused avoidable frustration and distress and delayed Y’s transition back to education in a school. The Council will apologise, make symbolic payments, issue an amended Plan and ensure arrangements are in place for Y to start school.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax liability because there is a right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council not carrying out assessments in 2014. This is because the events happened too long ago for us to carry out a meaningful investigation now.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council’s care provider, Reline Care, consistently failed to meet her needs, causing her significant distress. Based on the evidence seen so far, the care and support planning was poor and failed to explain how Ms X’s needs would be met by the support put in place. Reline Care did not update its own support plans and some of its support fell below the accepted standard. However, there is not enough evidence to say these faults caused injustice to Ms X which requires a remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to refund a vehicle crossover application fee. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s advertisement for a volunteer position at a local charity Ms X said was unsafe. There is insufficient evidence of fault, and an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve any other outcome.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s failure to rehouse her after her son had a serious injury. We have not found the Council to be at fault. It assessed Miss X’s transfer request in line with its published allocations policy. The delay in rehousing her was due a shortage of suitable three-bedroomed properties in the area.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant is not eligible for a two bedroom home via the housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice he disputes liability for. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal to London Tribunals.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to or delayed in completing the recommendations made after it considered a complaint she made through the children’s statutory complaint procedure. The Council failed to carry out all the recommendations, which caused Ms X avoidable frustration and uncertainty and put her child at risk of harm. The Council will apologise to Ms X, make a payment for the injustice caused to her and her child and complete a review into its short breaks arrangements.

Summary: We have decided not to investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s award of band 3 on its housing register. The Council has upheld the complaint and agreed to remedy the injustice caused by carrying out a fresh review of its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to install a no-right turn restriction near the complainant’s home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s business rates account. This is because an investigation will not usefully add to that already undertaken by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to his parking complaint. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is insufficient evidence of a significant injustice to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about lines on a road adjacent to a redundant dropped kerb. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

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

Summary: Mr X complained the Council provided him with wrong planning advice, which cost him more money. Mr X said this distressed him and impacted him financially. There was fault in the way the Council did not record the pre-application advice and communication with the Council was poor. Mr X was frustrated by this and caused uncertainty during the application. The Council should apologise and make a financial payment.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to a report of an overhanging bush as the complainant is not caused sufficient injustice from this to justify our further involvement.

Summary: Ms X complained about the suitability of the interim accommodation provided to her by the Council. The Council was not at fault for the accommodation provided. It was at fault for delays in advising Ms X it owed her the relief duty and in reaching a decision on her homelessness but this did not cause a significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about parking permits. This is because an investigation by this office would not add to the responses the Council has already provided via its own previous investigation of the matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application and a breach of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault and it is not yet possible to say if the complainant has suffered significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council seeking to recover an unpaid penalty charge notice as there is insufficient evidence that it is at fault and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant seeks.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to properly consider her medical evidence when reviewing her application for medical priority on its housing register. The Council was at fault. It delayed and later failed to consider Miss X’s requests for reviews. This caused Miss X avoidable distress, uncertainty and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment and carry out a new review.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the Council issuing her with a parking Penalty Charge Notice which stated the wrong location. This is because the Council later cancelled the Notice. So, Mrs B has not suffered a significant injustice which would justify our involvement.