LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: The Council identified failings in the management of Mrs Y’s care and in the way it responded to complaints about this, before the complaint came to this office, but it failed to offer an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to inform Ms X of the application of a cost floor to Ms X’s Right to Buy for her Council home when she transferred to it in 2018. We have no jurisdiction to investigate the management of tenancies by social housing landlords. There is no fault in the Council’s calculation of Ms X’s discount for her current application.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not respond to her application to join its housing register. Ms X said this meant she has not been able to apply for social housing. We have found the Council at fault for delays when it received Ms X’s housing register application and for delays in complaint handling, however this has not caused Ms X significant injustice.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council handled his application for homelessness assistance. We find no fault with how the Council assessed the suitability of Mr X’s interim accommodation. We find the Council at fault for not making timely decisions and for not communicating decisions with Mr X, causing him frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, make a payment to recognise the injustice, and act to prevent recurrence.

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to deliver part of Y’s special educational needs support for a period of more than a school term. It should offer him a symbolic financial remedy to recognise his likely injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage to Mr X’s fence as we cannot achieve the outcome he seeks and his damage claim is ultimately a matter for the courts.

Mr X complained the Council failed to provide him with a vision rehabilitation service which had a harmful impact on his independence and well-being and caused his wife avoidable distress. We have found service failure by the Council but consider the agreed action of an apology and symbolic payment provides a suitable remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on the charges to apply to a resident parking permit scheme. It is unlikely we would find fault and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by us investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint enforcement agents wrongfully clamped his car. This is because Mr X had a right of appeal to the London Tribunals, and he had no good reason not to exercise this right of appeal.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly awarded his priority banding on its housing register. We have decided not to investigate this complaint because it has been upheld by the Council and it has agreed to apologise, which was appropriate to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: Ms X and Mr W complained the Council failed to properly handle their housing applications, causing them to live in an unsuitable property. The Council was at fault for a delay in awarding Ms X a higher housing priority, and processing Mr W’s application. This did not result in Ms X or Mr W missing out on a property but caused them frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X and Mr W to recognise the impact of its delay.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of their daughter, Y’s, housing case. We have found fault by the Council. It failed to consider the suitability of Y’s interim and temporary accommodation, wrongly suspended her housing application and did not properly consider reviews of the medical evidence she presented. It also failed to answer Mr and Mrs X’s complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment in recognition of the injustice caused and to consider making Y a direct offer of accommodation if it finds Y would have been made an offer of suitable accommod

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in backdating her housing register application because we could not add to the Council’s investigation. We will not investigate her concern about the priority band awarded because she had a right of review and it was reasonable for her to exercise that.

Summary: Ms D says the Council failed to assess her household’s housing priority correctly. We have found evidence of fault by the Council and uphold the complaint. The Council has agreed to the recommended actions.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council fraudulently altered parts of its Constitution. The complaint is late.

complained about the Council’s treatment of her housing application. At our invitation, the Council has agreed to reconsider the matter. That is a suitable remedy, so we will not investigate the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in providing her with a refund for a missed bulky waste collection. This is because the Council is now taking suitable action to resolve the matter and there is nothing further we would add or recommend.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about whether the complainant is liable to pay council tax. This is because the complainant could reasonably exercise her right of appeal to tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on Ms X’s banding priority for housing. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about parking availability near her home and the Council’s refusal to refund bailiff fees incurred following the escalation of two Penalty Charge Notices. It is unlikely an investigation would find fault or achieve the outcome Ms X wants.

Summary: Miss F complained about the way the Council handled her housing register application and has given her an incorrect priority banding. We find the Council at fault for the way it handled Miss F’s housing register application. The Council has already taken suitable action to remedy the injustice caused to Miss F, so we have not made further recommendations.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a refund for a cancelled swimming lesson. There is insufficient outstanding injustice to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed considering her case at its Social Welfare Panel. As a result it took much longer than it should have for Ms X to obtain a property on the housing register. We have found the Council at fault. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise to Ms X, make a payment to her for the time she spent in unsuitable accommodation and carry out a service improvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about not being successful bidding on the Council’s housing register or its decision to arrange alternative temporary accommodation when she was evicted from her previous temporary accommodation. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

Mr X complains the introduction of a controlled parking zone near his home has resulted in cars now parking along his road. He says these cars block residents’ driveways and cause obstructions, so that ambulances cannot get through and the Police often have to be called.