LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed amending Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan following an annual review in May 2021. She says this delayed her right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal about the content of the EHC Plan and the named educational placement. The Council was at fault. It agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay Mrs X and Y £150 each in recognition of the frustration and uncertainty caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council’s children’s services between 2014 and 2015. This is because we could not carry out a fair, robust, and meaningful investigation so long after the events complained about.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s charges for signing off his installation of a fire-suppressant system. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council causing Mr X significant injustice.

Summary: There was fault by the Council as it delayed dealing with a homeless application. This led to over 4 months delay in Mr X getting an offer of interim accommodation. Making a payment to Mr X remedies the injustice from this and from the delay responding to his official complaint. The Council has also now decided that it owes a main housing duty to Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council has handled Mr X’s complaints about anti-social behaviour and the ‘community trigger’ process. This is because an investigation is unlikely to achieve anything more to add to the Council’s investigation.

Summary: Mrs C says the contractor, acting on behalf of the Council, failed to properly assess her application for a stairlift, released personal information about her to her neighbour without permission and failed to consult her representative, as a freeholder of the building, before declining her application. The Council was not at fault for how it considered the application for a stairlift. The contractor acting on behalf of the Council breached data protection regulations by releasing personal information about Mrs C to her neighbour and failed to follow the right process for consulting fr

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant not receiving a council tax bill. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Ms X’s council tax support. That is because it has agreed to issue a letter to Ms X to enable her to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal and pay her £100 for any avoidable frustration caused.

Summary: Ms X complained about unreasonable delay during the Council’s investigation of her complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council was at fault. There was delay at stage two and three of the complaints process, which caused Ms X frustration, uncertainty and time and trouble trying to progress her complaint. The Council will pay Ms X £400 to acknowledge the injustice caused and review its procedures.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to move a bench in a local park. Even if there has been fault by the Council in its decision-making process, the location of the bench does not cause Ms X such significant personal injustice to warrant us investigating.

Summary: We did not find fault with the way the Council responded when Mr X became homeless. Will also did not find fault with the Council’s decision that Mr X was not eligible to join its housing register.

Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council handled her homelessness application. The Council has admitted fault as there were some delays and has already offered Ms X £150. This is satisfactory to remedy the injustice it caused Ms X.

Summary: We should not investigate this complaint about a social worker’s actions during child protection intervention. This is because there is insufficient evidence of significant injustice caused by the alleged faults.

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

Summary: Ms E and Mr F complained the Council failed to deal with the noise and anti-social behaviour near to where they live. They also say the Council blocked a request from their housing provider to carry out a property transfer and it failed to deal with their complaint. We find the Council was at fault for its complaints handling and its failure to tell Ms E and Mr F about the community trigger review process. It also unreasonably raised their expectations they would be considered for a property transfer. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fau

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s decision not to award compensation for inconvenience caused by building works it carried out at the property next door to her premises. We will not investigate the complaint because an investigation is unlikely to achieve the outcome Ms X seeks.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council made a best interest decision in respect of Mr Y. The Council intends to hold a further best interest meeting, therefore there is nothing worthwhile to be achieved through further investigation.

Summary: We found fault with the Council for its failure to assess the suitability of temporary accommodation offered to Mr X, delayed complaint handling, and failure to carry out a suitability review. This deprived Mr X of his appeal rights and he incurred time and trouble in pursuing his complaints. The Council agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr X and carry out a suitability review.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has not dealt properly with her housing application. The Council did not consider Mrs X’s housing applications properly. Mrs X suffered an avoidable four and a half year delay in being rehoused. The Council says Mrs X will receive a direct offer of a suitable property as soon as possible. The Council should also apologise to Mrs X and pay her £1,000 in respect of her missed opportunity.

Summary: Mr B complains the Council did not provide him with enough support and advice when he was homeless. He says the Council should have advised him about how he would not be able to claim housing benefit when he was a student. His view is the Council should provide him with affordable housing. The Ombudsman’s view is there was some delay by the Council. But we accept Mr B’s housing options were limited and that affects the injustice to him.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant overpaying for parking charges over around eight months. We do consider the complainant has suffered significant personal injustice which warrants our involvement.

Summary: There is no fault in the Council’s financial assessment as it is unable to consider additional Disability Related Expenses without receipts according to its policy. The complainants say the direct payments are lower than they should be but the Council has used an hourly rate related to the London living wage to calculate the direct payments so there is no fault on this point.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused to renew his blue badge, based on an incorrect mobility report. The Council was not at fault. It assessed his eligibility in line with government guidance.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms B’s complaint that her property has been damaged due to the Council’s failure to maintain the adjoining Council-owned property. This is because we cannot investigate complaints about the management of social housing by councils.

Summary: The Council was at fault for not providing Mr X with interim accommodation sooner, delays in communication and complaint handling. This caused Mr X injustice as he had to spend time sleeping on the street. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr X. The Council also agreed to consider what measures it could put in place to ensure there is adequate cover to respond to homeless applicants when staff are on leave.