LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about lack of care and support offered to Mr B. This is because it is unlikely we would find enough evidence of fault to warrant an ombudsman investigation.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide interim accommodation between July and September 2020 after she made a homeless application. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision as it had no reason to believe that Ms X was in priority need.

Summary: Mr C complained on behalf of a retail business that a review undertaken by the Council, following an earlier Ombudsman investigation, had wrongly upheld a decision that a branch of the business was not entitled to a Retail, Hospitality and Leisure grant. While we had concerns about the Council’s review decision, justifying a finding of fault, we did not find this would have led to a different outcome. So, we found there could be no injustice in the refusal of the grant on review.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in responding to Mr X’s queries about possible water sources close to his home. This is because an investigation will not serve any useful purpose.

Summary: Ms B complained how the Council handled concerns she raised about its handling of her foster care placement. We find the Council was at fault as it significantly delayed responding to Ms B’s complaint. It also failed to provide the stage two officers with all the relevant files, and it wrongly interpreted some of her concerns. This means her complaint has not been considered properly. The Council has agreed our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to protect him from noise and odour nuisance from a business below his home. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decisions relating to Mr X’s allegations.

Summary: there is no fault by the Council in relation to Ms B’s complaints about the actions of her personal advisor towards her and in its handling of her complaints about this.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council housing authority’s failure to control parking on the estate where Mr X lives. We have no jurisdiction to investigate complaints about the estate management of housing land by social housing landlords.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council unfairly placed her on its Unreasonable Complainant Behaviour register. Although we have not seen any evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to place Miss X on the register, we cannot see that it considered an appeal from Miss X in line with its policy, and we have therefore made a finding of fault. The Council has agreed to the recommendations we proposed.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council preventing him from buying his council property. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to go to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to deal with concerns about noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation and because one element of the complaint is still being investigated by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the way the Council decided not to take enforcement action against unauthorised works to the roof of a neighbouring building. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s enforcement decision-making process to warrant investigation. Ms X’s concern about future the effect of its decision on future unauthorised development is speculative and does not cause her significant injustice warranting investigation. We also cannot achieve the outcome Ms X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to revoke the complainant’s business parking permit. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about parking. This is because any fault has not caused him an injustice.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s lack of children’s social care support for his family after it carried out an Early Help assessment in 2019 and the actions of a social worker working with the family. There was no fault in how the Council completed the Early Help assessment. The Council appropriately investigated his complaint about the social worker’s actions under the children’s statutory complaints procedure, but there was some delay during the complaints process. The Council agreed to pay Mr X £250 to recognise the frustration caused by this.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council advertised a social housing property. This is because Mr X should have been given an opportunity to view the property by the landlord and so he has not been caused an injustice as a result of the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice as it is reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal against it to the independent parking tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice as Mr X had a tribunal appeal right he could reasonably have used.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his application for charitable business rates relief. This is because the courts are better placed to consider whether Mr X’s company is eligible for the relief.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council placed her in housing out of borough and now says she isn’t eligible for the housing register as she doesn’t meet the local connection criteria. The Council was at fault for its poor communication and delayed response to her review request. The fault raised Mrs X’s expectations. The Council has agreed to remedy her injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his neighbour’s application for a certificate of lawful development. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants, which is for the Council to revoke the certificate and require changes to the development.

Summary: The Ombudsman found fault by the Council on Ms K’s complaint about how it responded to her reports of noise nuisance. It failed to: respond to her query about a breach of bylaw: give her examples of her behaviour it was concerned about either in its first email or in the initial warning letter; deal with her formal complaint under its complaints procedure properly. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed reviewing her housing priority after she submitted new medical information in February 2021. She says the delay caused distress and meant she missed out on properties. The Council was at fault. It has accepted it took too long to review the information and apologised to Ms X for this. It will now pay her £200 in recognition of the distress and uncertainty caused.

Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council considered her application to join the housing register and for failing to consider reasonable adjustments. There was fault in how the Council communicated its decision not to allow Miss X to join the housing register, and when it delayed in reviewing that decision. The Council agreed to pay Miss X £400 to recognise the injustice caused by the faults. There was no fault in how the Council allocated Miss X housing points or how it considered the reasonable adjustment she requested.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s advice to Mr X’s tenant concerning the eviction process following the serving of a possession notice.