LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing a moving traffic penalty. It was reasonable for Mr X to challenge the penalty notice by appealing to the London Tribunals which are an independent body dealing with traffic penalty appeals.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council did not provide floating support with his housing. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Blue Badge. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the failure of the Council’s leisure service provider to warn the complainant before it resumed taking membership fee payments. The Council confirms it will review whether to remind people prior to resumption of frozen memberships that payments will be resumed. It has also offered the complainant a refund of one month membership fee in recognition of the provider’s delays in responding to her complaint. We consider that further investigation will not add to that already completed by the Council.

Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it handled Mr X’s application for a disabled parking badge. It considered the information available, processed the application in accordance with the government’s best practice guidance and made a decision which, in the circumstances, was not obviously unreasonable. As there was no procedural fault in how the Council dealt with Mr X’s application, I cannot question its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue a Blue Badge for the complainant’s son. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council offered the complainant unsuitable accommodation. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to introduction a Low Traffic Neighbourhood. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the way the Council is treating the complainant regarding a move to a smaller home. This is because the complainant is complaining about housing management issues and we have no power to investigate a council when it is acting as a landlord.

Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to provide satisfactory care to her uncle, Mr C. The Council’s safeguarding enquiry found that acts of neglect and omission had occurred in Mr C’s care. This is fault, which caused Mr C injustice. We found the Council has not properly addressed the injustice caused to Mr C and Mrs B. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused to Mr C and Mrs B.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on Mr X’s housing register application because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Blue Badge. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a social worker’s report because this has been decided in court. We have no remit to look at what happens in court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to issue a Blue Badge. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because it is reasonable to expect Miss Y to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and then to the London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s issuing of a licence for a House in Multiple Occupation because the complaint is made late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council has dealt with recent reports of antisocial behaviour.

this complaint about the Council’s investigation of complaints about noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. We cannot investigate the actions of social housing landlords in the management of their tenants.

Summary: There was no fault in how the Council dealt with Miss X’s homelessness. It offered suitable interim accommodation and accepted a relief duty. Miss X can appeal to court about the Council’s decision that she is not homeless because of domestic abuse and so is not in priority need.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to take sufficient action against its tenants over their behaviour towards the complainant. We have no jurisdiction to investigate complaints about the management of social housing tenancies by their landlords.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision that he is not in priority need and its refusal to provide him with temporary accommodation. This is because he had the right to appeal the Council’s decision and it was reasonable for him to have appealed. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice. This is because the penalty charge notice carried a right of appeal and it would be reasonable for Ms X to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court to reinstate this right.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s supervision of street works on a site near Mr X’s home. There is insufficient evidence of any personal injustice which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of any significant fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council’s Monitoring Officer dealt with a complaint about the conduct of a councillor. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to ensure his family are suitably housed given Mrs X’s disabilities. The Council was not at fault for the way it dealt with Mr X’s housing priority, housing allocation and care needs assessment. The Council was at fault as it failed to consider whether Mr X could apply for a disabled facilities grant. It has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr X to acknowledge the frustration and uncertainty this caused. It has also agreed to review its procedures.