LGO Individual Decisions

this complaint about the advice which the Council gave to Mr X’s tenants about their rights to remain in his property after a possession order was obtained. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council use of Enforcement Agents to recover a liability for a penalty charge notice (PCN). The Council have now acknowledged Miss X was not liable and has said it will make an offer of a financial remedy directly to Miss X, to recognise her injustice and this is appropriate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to appeal to an independent tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of penalty charge notices. This is because it would be reasonable for Miss X to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre to challenge the Council’s escalation of the case.

Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council dealt with her child’s direct payments and that it failed to respond to her about this matter. The Council was at fault for not considering Ms X’s complaint through the statutory children’s complaints procedure. The Council will apologise, make a payment to Ms X for the distress and frustration caused and consider her complaint further.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the conduct of two Council officers. It is unlikely we could achieve a significantly different outcome than the apology and action already offered.

Summary: We upheld Ms X’s complaint. There was a delay in assessing her son Mr Y’s social care needs and her need for support in her caring role. There was also a delay in agreeing funding for a day centre placement. The outcome and recommendations of assessments were confusing. The Council will apologise, make payments and review Mr Y’s assessment and care and support plan.

Summary: Miss X complains that the Council wrongly refused to provide assistance to her and her family when she requested help to flee domestic abuse. The Council is at fault as it failed to refer Miss X to its homelessness team for assistance and inappropriately questioned her about domestic abuse. These faults caused Miss X and her family to be at risk of harm for four nights longer than necessary and caused distress to her. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice to Miss X by apologising to her and making symbolic payments to her and other members of her family who were affected.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council wrongly refused to allow her to buy the council property she rents under the Right to Buy scheme. It would be reasonable for Ms X to use her right to go to court.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council unfairly refused her request to view a property in person and then decided she had unreasonably refused the property. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has not offered the complainant a larger home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a delay in uploading a housing register application. The Council has upheld the complaint and offered an appropriate remedy. Further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council handled her request for housing assistance and how it responded to her concerns about the condition of her property. As a result, Ms X lived in a property with repair issues and this impacted her health. We have found the Council at fault for delays in assisting Ms X following her approach for homeless assistance but we have not found the Council at fault for not responding to her requests for help with disrepair. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay £200 to recognise the uncertainty caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing housing benefit overpayments to Mrs X. it was reasonable for her to challenge the decisions by appealing to the first-tier benefits tribunal which is the proper authority for considering appeals.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to make a charge for parking permits for electric vehicles. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Miss X complained about the way the Council responded to her homelessness application and about the way her landlord pursued her for rent arrears. We found there were issues with the Council’s communication and there was some delay in its actions. However, we discontinued our investigation because the Council remedied the complaint appropriately. We did not investigate the actions of Miss X’s landlord.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council communicated with the complainant. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Miss X complains about how the Council dealt with her and her partner’s homelessness application and about the Council placing them in unsuitable interim and temporary accommodation. The Council is at fault as it placed Miss X and Miss Y in unsuitable interim and temporary accommodation. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice to Miss X and Miss Y by apologising and making symbolic payments to them.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a parking permit. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. There is not a good reason for the delay in Mrs X bringing the matter to the Ombudsman. In any event, she had the right to challenge the matter via the statutory appeals process and through submitting a witness statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre. It is open to her to submit an out of time witness statement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Penalty Charge Notices issued by the Council. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. The Council issued the Penalty Charge Notices to someone else who is the registered keeper. That person is legally liable for the notices, and is the only person who can appeal them. We will not consider the Council’s complaint-handling in isolation.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide her with suitable long-term accommodation. There was no fault in the way the Council dealt with Miss X’s housing situation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice as there is a statutory appeal process available to Mr X that he can use to challenge it.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s time in care. This is because the events happened too long ago, and I see no good reason to exercise discretion. The Information Commissioner is better placed to consider the complainants concerns about how their information has been stored and how their information requests have been dealt with.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to address Mr X’s need for a virtual court hearing due to his disability. The Council has upheld Mr X’s complaint and withdrawn the court action. We could not add anything more by investigating.