LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council’s review of its decision to end its homelessness duty in a woman’s case was not impartial. This is because the woman has a right of appeal to court if she considers the review decision is legally flawed.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions concerning Miss X’s family. The matters complained of are not separable from matters that were or could reasonably have been raised during court proceedings, and we cannot investigate them. Disagreements about the current arrangements for contact between Miss X and her grandchildren are ones that would be for a court to decide, and it would be reasonable to take the matter to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss X’s housing. We have already dealt with the complaint about the suitability of the current temporary accommodation. Miss X could reasonably have taken court action about the suitability of another property the Council offered, and that part of the complaint is also late. The Council no longer owes Miss X a homelessness duty so no longer needs to provide accommodation. Any allegation the Council has adversely affected Miss X’s health is appropriately for the courts.

Summary: There was fault by the Council. It did not properly consider whether it could offer Miss B interim accommodation when it withdrew its offer of a property she had already moved to, or pending the outcome of a review of its decision that its housing duty to her had ceased. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice to Miss B.

Summary: The Council was not at fault with how it reached its decision not to revoke a House of Multiple Occupation (HMO) licence for a property next door to Mr X. The Council considered all relevant information and made a decision in line with the Housing Act.

Summary: We found no fault in how the Council investigated Miss X’s report of an insect infestation in her home.

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, about waste management at a neighbouring property. This is because we could not add anything meaningful to the Council’s responses.

Summary: Ms C complained about the way the Council handled her mother’s discharge from hospital, which resulted in distress to herself. We found fault with regards to the actions of the Council, for which it has agreed to apologise.

Summary: We cannot lawfully investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council decided in 2019 to recover an overpayment of housing benefit. Ms X used her right of appeal to the benefits tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that a Council worker damaged the complainants car whilst cleaning the road. This is because it is reasonable for the complainant to pursue his claim for compensation through the courts.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage caused to Mrs X’s property by a plant in a neighbouring Council-owned garden. It is reasonable for Mrs X to pursue the matter in court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council because Miss X could have used her right to appeal in court.

Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council responded to her homelessness application. The Council was at fault for poor communication. This caused Ms X distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s pre-application planning advice or its decision to take enforcement action. This is because the complainant has appealed to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council was at fault in the way it continued to provide social care services to him, so he has not been receiving the support he needs causing distress. We found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters. So we have completed our investigation.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with his homelessness application, housing application and need to move from his current accommodation causing distress. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters. So have completed our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care provided to Mr B between 2014 and 2016. This is because the complaint is late and either Mr B or his representative could have come to us at the time. There is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate this late complaint now.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint about the Council’s escalation of a penalty charge notice issued to his son. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr Y’s son to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court to challenge the Council’s actions.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to respond to the complainant’s representations about receiving a penalty charge notice. This is because he has already used his legal right to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre so we have no legal remit to intervene.

not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the suitability of temporary accommodation offered to Miss X and the Council’s removal of her application for the housing register after she took a tenancy outside the Borough in 2019. The complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Miss X could not have complained to us sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about waste on private land close to the complainant’s home. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in resolving a disagreement about how Mrs Y can use her direct payment. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council serving Mr X and others Penalty Charge Notices for contraventions in a Low Traffic Neighbourhood. The injustice Mr X experienced was not significant enough to justify our involvement and was not caused by the fault he alleges in the Council’s actions.

Summary: There is no evidence of fault in how the Council reached the decision that Mr X’s business was not eligible for the Expanded Retail Discount. The Council properly considered the evidence submitted by Mr X about the use of the premises and determined it was not wholly or mainly used as retail for visiting members of the public.

Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council tried to recover a rent arrears debt from 2016/17, over four years’ later and without any explanation or evidence. This has caused her significant distress and time and trouble trying to resolve it. We found the Council at fault. The Council has agreed to write off the debt and check no other tenants have been affected in the same way.