LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: London Borough of Islington and North Central London Integrated Care Board did not appropriately respond to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal’s non-binding recommendation for Section G of Mr X’s daughter’s Education, Health and Care Plan. That led to Y missing occupational therapy support at college. The fault also caused Mr X and Y uncertainty, frustration, and distress. The organisations should apologise, review their processes, and make a symbolic payment to remedy their injustice.

Summary: London Borough of Islington and North Central London Integrated Care Board did not appropriately respond to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal’s non-binding recommendation for Section G of Mr X’s daughter’s Education, Health and Care Plan. That led to Y missing occupational therapy support at college. The fault also caused Mr X and Y uncertainty, frustration, and distress. The organisations should apologise, review their processes, and make a symbolic payment to remedy their injustice.

Summary: London Borough of Islington and North Central London Integrated Care Board did not appropriately respond to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal’s non-binding recommendation for Section G of Mr X’s daughter’s Education, Health and Care Plan. That led to Y missing occupational therapy support at college. The fault also caused Mr X and Y uncertainty, frustration, and distress. The organisations should apologise, review their processes, and make a symbolic payment to remedy their injustice.

Summary: London Borough of Islington and North Central London Integrated Care Board did not appropriately respond to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal’s non-binding recommendation for Section G of Mr X’s daughter’s Education, Health and Care Plan. That led to Y missing occupational therapy support at college. The fault also caused Mr X and Y uncertainty, frustration, and distress. The organisations should apologise, review their processes, and make a symbolic payment to remedy their injustice.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s flawed decision-making process when it approved a neighbouring planning application. We have not found the Council to be at fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about rent arrears at Ms X’s temporary accommodation. The Council has offered a suitable remedy for the injustice its fault caused. Investigation by us would be unlikely to achieve significantly more for Ms X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in conducting an annual review of Mr X’s son’s Education, Health and Care plan. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse a blue badge. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about inadequate domiciliary care. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not achieve a more meaningful outcome as the Council has now agreed to refund Mrs Y’s care charges. It has also provided explanations and apologies, and created an action plan with the care provider.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about bias by the Council in matters relating to the care of her child as shown by court-ordered disclosures. The contents of those disclosures were part of court action. As these matters are outside our legal powers, we cannot investigate how the Council is dealing with Ms X’s complaint about them.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the amount of a Penalty Charge Notice after the complainant lost his appeal with the tribunal. This is because the law says we cannot investigate any matter that has been considered by the tribunal.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a COVID-19 self-isolation payment. This is because the matter falls outside our jurisdiction. Mr X has commenced court proceedings against the Council and the law does not allow us to consider an issue Mr X has previously asked the court to consider.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his COVID-19 retail, hospitality and leisure grant application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council did not respond to an email. This is because the Council has provided a fair remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council breaching the complainant’s personal data. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is the most suitable agency to deal with any breach of data protection.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint alleging the Council misrepresented the complainant to the Parking Adjudicator. This is because he has already used his legal right to appeal and we have no remit to intervene now.

Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it dealt with Miss B’s application for a disabled parking permit. It considered her application in line with government guidance and fully explained its decision. It has, however, confirmed that Miss B can now make a fresh application and it will consider any new evidence she provides.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an agreement between Miss X and the Council that Miss X would accept smaller housing than she was eligible for. The complaint is late and it is unlikely we could reach a clear enough view now about the events.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council was delayed in issuing its decision letter regarding her application for homelessness. We have concluded our investigation having made a finding of fault by the Council. The Council was delayed in issuing its decision to Ms X. Ms X had the Council’s decision overturned and was successfully placed into permanent accommodation shortly after. As a result of the Council’s delays, Ms X remained in temporary accommodation that was not suitable for her. The Council has agreed to the recommendation we proposed.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Blue Badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mrs X complains on behalf of her deceased aunt about the Council’s safeguarding investigation. She says this had a significant impact on her mental health and has caused the family trauma. We find the Council at fault, and this fault caused Mrs X injustice. The Council will apologise to Mrs X, make a payment to her, and make improvements to its service to prevent this happening in future.

Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council responded to her reports of ongoing anti-social noise. The Council was not at fault in how it decided the noise was not anti-social. However, it was at fault for poor communication with Ms X. The Council will apologise and remind its staff they should promptly communicate the decision to close anti-social behaviour investigations to the complainant.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not backdating council tax reduction. This is because of the right to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of changes Mrs X wanted to make to a loft. This is because the law prevents the Ombudsman considering this complaint.