LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Miss X complains the Council refused to carry out a financial assessment for her mother, Mrs Y. The Council was at fault for its lack of communication. The Council was not at fault for refusing to carry out a financial assessment. Because of the lack of communication, Miss X suffered uncertainty. The Council has apologised to Miss X which is a suitable remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council unlawfully ended his tenancy agreement for business premises he occupied for several years. This is because we cannot decide whether the Council’s actions were unlawful and if Mr X thinks they were, it would be reasonable for him to take the matter to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice for a parking contravention. This is because it was reasonable for Mr B to put in an appeal to London Tribunals.

Summary: Ms X complains the about the way the Council dealt with her request for a Disabled Facilities Grant assessment to carry out adaptations at her property for her daughter causing distress and uncertainty. We found there was service failure by the Council due to the delay in carrying out an Occupational Therapy assessment. We have recommended a suitable remedy for the injustice caused in this case so are completing our investigation.

Summary: The Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS) found service failure by the Council for delay dealing with Ms X's reports of disrepair in her council tenancy. LGSCO found fault by the Council in its assessment of Ms X's medical needs. Both Ombudsmen found fault with the Council's decision making about Ms X's management transfer and for delays in the complaint process. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice to Ms X and improve its services.

Summary: There was fault by the Council. The Council placed a family in Bed and Breakfast accommodation for 14 weeks longer than they should have been. This also meant the family had extra costs for furniture storage that would not have incurred if they had been moved to more suitable temporary accommodation sooner. An apology and payment remedies the injustice to the family.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the clamping and removal of her vehicle, during which she alleges Council Enforcement Agents caused damage. This is because it would be reasonable for Miss X to take this matter to court. She also has a right of appeal against the original Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) the Council issued.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint about its child protection actions concerning his family, which involved court proceedings. The resort to court proceedings means we are legally prevented from investigating the Council’s child protection actions, and a court judgement prevents us investigating the Council’s complaint handling where we are unable to consider the substantive matters complained of.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council considered his complaint about his care during his childhood. Mr X said he suffered a significant impact on his mental health which affected his ability to work and left him with substantial debts. We have found fault by the Council in terms of delay and not properly considering an appropriate remedy but consider the agreed action of an apology and symbolic payment provides a suitable remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to terminate her allotment tenancy. The Council has since revoked the termination notice. An investigation would not lead to a different outcome or achieve anything more.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s enforcement of penalty charge notices as Mr X can ask the Traffic Enforcement Centre to consider his case.

Mr and Mrs X complain about delay by the Council in carrying out an assessment for the transition of Mr Y from children to adult care services.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council communicated with service users following a cyber-attack. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a council tax account as Mr X can appeal against the liability decision to the Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice and the Authority’s handling of the complainant’s appeals as there are statutory processes available to the complainant to address these matters.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to restrict Mr X’s access to its library facilities. It is unlikely we would find fault and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not taking any action against an individual he believes is using a blue badge fraudulently. This is because the claimed fault has not caused him any injustice.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council issuing penalties to Mr X for driving in a restricted zone in 2022 and 2023. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner. It was reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the Adjudicator at the London Tribunals at the time.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s processing of parking permits. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council managed a change of liability for a council tax account. This is because the Council has provided a satisfactory remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about unsuccessful applications for a Blue Badge and a Disabled Persons Freedom Pass. 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 fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s priority on the housing register because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. We will not investigate the complaint about delayed responses because the Council provided a satisfactory response.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delays in returning private sector leased properties to their owners. It is reasonable for the landlords to seek a legal remedy for breach of lease agreements in the courts.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council closing his care account. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his housing application and said his home is overcrowded. He said this impacted his family’s physical and mental health. The Council was not at fault.