LGO Individual Decisions

Mr X, a person with disabilities and complex needs, complained about the Council’s response when he became homeless. The Council’s housing team delayed helping him when he was being evicted from private rented accommodation. It then provided him with unsuitable interim accommodation, and at times left him with no accommodation. The Council’s adult social care (ASC) team failed to ensure his care needs were fully recorded and did not work proactively with its housing team to ensure any housing provided would meet his assessed care needs. He did not receive any support for his care needs after t

Mr X, a person with disabilities and complex needs, complained about the Council’s response when he became homeless. The Council’s housing team delayed helping him when he was being evicted from private rented accommodation. It then provided him with unsuitable interim accommodation, and at times left him with no accommodation. The Council’s adult social care (ASC) team failed to ensure his care needs were fully recorded and did not work proactively with its housing team to ensure any housing provided would meet his assessed care needs. He did not receive any support for his care needs after t

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the suitability of the complainant’s temporary accommodation. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the complainant can ask for a suitability review.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a social housing landlord’s investigation of complaints about anti-social behaviour by its tenants. It was reasonable for Mr X to complaint to the Housing Ombudsman service about the matter and he has successfully done so. The Council had minimal involvement in his complaint.

Summary: Mr B complained on behalf of Mr C, about failings in respect of his social care needs and housing situation. Mr C has been without care since January 2021 and his sister, Ms D has been his main carer. We found fault in the actions of the Council. It has agreed to apologise to Mr C and Ms D, make a symbolic payment to each of them, arrange a care act review and a housing meeting review and improve its procedures for the future.

Summary: Mrs B says the Council wrongly excluded her son from a weekly club without considering his special educational needs and delayed considering her complaint. The Council failed to have in place a behavioural policy and risk assessment and allowed the situation to drift. The Council delayed responding to the complaint. An apology, payment to Mrs B, introduction of a behavioural policy and a process for recording a child’s special educational needs, alongside training, is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly decided he and his family were not eligible for medical priority and emergency status on the housing register. He said this caused his family to be in overcrowded accommodation which impacts on his family’s health and development. While we do not find the Council at fault for its decisions, we find fault for a delay completing an assessment. This caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr X to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about disrepair in temporary accommodation in 2022 to 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 is reasonable for him to submit a claim against the Council for damage to his possessions caused by mould during this period.

Summary: Ms X complained that the Council repeatedly failed to collect her rubbish despite her frequently reporting issues. We found insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about what happened during a telephone conversation where Mrs X says a Council officer put the telephone down on her abruptly. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We are unlikely to find evidence of fault warranting an investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s lack of parking enforcement on his housing estate. This is because the law does not allow us to investigate complaints about the Council’s management of social housing.

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to recognise Ms X was homeless when she approached from a refuge. It took too long to accept the main housing duty. Ms X spent 13 weeks too long in unsuitable Bed and Breakfast. The Council communicated poorly and took five months to respond to Ms X’s complaint. These faults caused Ms X significant injustice which the Council has agreed to remedy by apologising, making payments to Ms X, and acting to improve its services.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s decision to refuse her blue badge renewal application. She said the Council did not properly consider her medical evidence from a psychologist, and was over reliant on a short telephone assessment from its own medical advisor. The Council was at fault for not sending all Miss X’s medical evidence to its expert assessor. The Council offered to reassess Miss X to remedy the injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because the complainant could have appealed to the tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to waive court costs incurred for council tax arrears. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council wrongly issued an order for recovery for a penalty charge notice that had already been cancelled. This is because the matter has been resolved and any remaining injustice caused to the complainant is not sufficient to justify our further involvement.

Summary: The Council took too long to deal with Mr K’s housing application. It also failed to send him key letters regarding his homelessness application, and took too long to deal with his complaint to it about his housing situation. The Council’s failings caused Mr K prolonged distress, uncertainty and frustration. However, it did not significantly affect his opportunities to be rehoused. The Council has agreed a suitable remedy.

Summary: The complainant (Mr X) complained about the Council’s failure to act to prevent using the public road and the pavement for business activity. He also said the Council delayed its stage two response to his complaint. We did not find fault in the way the Council approached its duties under the Highways Act 1980 and in the way it handled Mr X’s complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the conduct of a traffic warden because we could not add to the Council’s investigation and there is nothing worthwhile we could achieve.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with a blue badge application. There were no issues with the Council’s decision-making process. However, we found fault with the way the Council told Mr X about his appeal rights and communicated the outcome of his appeal. This caused frustration and uncertainty to Mr X and the Council has agreed to apologise for this.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a complaint made against a councillor. This is because the complaint falls outside our jurisdiction as the complainant did not complain as a member of the public.

Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision that Mr X was ineligible for a Blue Badge. There was a delay in considering Mr X’s appeal against the refusal which caused additional anxiety for Mr X which the Council will now acknowledge.

Summary: The Council was at fault for contacting the alleged perpetrator of domestic abuse against Ms X as part of its inquiries into her homelessness. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to recognise the distress caused and act to improve its services.

Summary: Mrs Y complained about the way the Council dealt with a blue badge application. We found no fault in the way the Council made its decision. However, we found fault with the way the Council communicated the outcome of her appeal. This caused uncertainty to Mrs Y and the Council agreed to apologise for this.

Summary: There is no evidence the Council failed to take all relevant information into account when it decided not to award a Blue Badge.