LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mr X complained the Council placed him and his family in unsuitable interim accommodation and failed to make a decision on his housing application within statutory timeframes. Mr X said the mould and the distance from his child’s school had a significant impact on his and his child’s physical and mental health. We find the Council at fault, and this caused injustice. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss X’s council tax exemption. The Council has agreed to reissue its substantive decisions to Miss X, so that she can make use of her statutory right to appeal its decisions to the Valuation Tribunal. It has also agreed to place a hold on enforcement action while she does so.

Summary: Mrs Y complained about the way the Council decided she was not entitled to an extra bedroom. Mrs Y says sharing a bedroom will have a negative impact on her health. The Council was at fault for not assessing Mrs Y’s care needs after being asked to. It was also at fault as its Housing and Adult Social Care teams both told her the other was responsible for assessing her needs. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise to Mrs Y and carry out an assessment of her care needs. Following this, the Council agreed to make a new decision on whether Mrs Y was entitled to an

Summary: Mrs Y complained about the way the Council decided she was not entitled to an extra bedroom. Mrs Y says sharing a bedroom will have a negative impact on her health. The Council was at fault for not assessing Mrs Y’s care needs after being asked to. It was also at fault as its Housing and Adult Social Care teams both told her the other was responsible for assessing her needs. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise to Mrs Y and carry out an assessment of her care needs. Following this, the Council agreed to make a new decision on whether Mrs Y was entitled to an

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an application for a Certificate of Lawfulness of Proposed Use or Development and a breach of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: We found fault on Mrs L’s complaint about the way the Council handled her request to move property. It failed to assess the suitability of temporary accommodation before and during their stay there. It failed to assess the suitability of the accommodation it wanted her to return to following repairs sooner. It wrongly stopped paying rent on the temporary accommodation and failed to deal with her formal complaint promptly. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the conduct of the Council in a child protection matter. The matters complained of are not separable from decisions about who should care for his children. Where this has already been decided by a court, we are legally prevented from investigating. And only a court could order the return of Mr X’s children that he has said he desires. Therefore, it would be reasonable for Mr X to go to court to seek the outcome he desires.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council met Mr X’s housing and social care needs. That is because we have previously considered most of Mr X’s complaints and there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council has dealt with more recent matters.

Summary: Miss B complained that the Council had failed to find her and her family suitable temporary accommodation since February 2023 when it concluded her current accommodation was unsuitable for her needs. We found fault with Council’s actions. The Council has agreed to pay her £500, review with Miss B the type of accommodation which could be suitable and find her alternative accommodation within three months.

Summary: Mrs X said she asked the Council to assess her needs and offer her an advocate since November 2020 and the Council failed to do so. We have not found evidence of fault. The Council has now offered Mrs X an assessment of her needs with the assistance of an advocate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s advice about dog boarding licence procedure. There is insufficient evidence of any significant personal injustice which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council has unreasonably enforced a Council tax debt against him and failed to respond to a Freedom of Information request. We will not investigate this complaint because the matter has been remedied and he has a further right of complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: Miss Y complained about the length of time she and her family have spent on the Council’s housing register waiting for an offer of permanent accommodation. She also complained about a delay by the Council in transferring her to suitable alternative temporary accommodation. We have not propose found fault by the

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of Council officers in their handling of a planning application. This is because there is no evidence fault by the Council has caused Ms X significant injustice and because matters concerning Council responses to FOI requests can be referred to the Information Commissioner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action. The complainant has not been caused significant injustice because of any delays with the Council’s enforcement investigation.

Summary: The Council caused avoidable frustration and inconvenience to Ms X by failing to attend several appointments to fix the door of the garage that she leases from the Council. The Council caused Ms X further frustration when it failed to inspect the works done to the garage following reports of them being poorly carried out and damaging Ms X’s car. The Council has agreed to inspect the works and if these were not carried out properly, to refund Ms X the fees she has paid for her garage since January 2022. The Council has already refunded Ms X for the fees paid since the garage was unusab

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against a neighbour’s garden development. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making, nor sufficient personal injustice caused to Ms X, to warrant us investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement case. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: The Council accepted it was at fault for a delay in moving Ms X to alternative accommodation after she reported an assault by her former partner, for not properly considering whether the alternative accommodation was suitable, and a failure to secure that property following a break-in. It apologised and made a payment to remedy the distress and anxiety caused. The payment was not sufficient to remedy the injustice and the Council will pay Ms X a further £3262. It has already made changes to its processes to prevent a recurrence of the fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’ [s claim that the Council breached the terms of his private lease agreement with it. It is reasonable for Mr X to seek a remedy for his claim in the courts for breaches of a private contractual agreement.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to take enforcement action in respect of breaches of planning permission by her neighbour. She also says the Council failed to update her on the progress of its investigation. We do not find fault with how the Council considered its discretionary enforcement powers. However, the Council was at fault for delay in taking timely enforcement action and failure to keep Mrs X updated. This caused her frustration and put her to the time and trouble of complaining and the Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of Children’s Social Care. That is because the matters have been considered by the Court and we have no jurisdiction to investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a member of staff from a care provider being rude during a telephone call. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to London Tribunals.