LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of her housing application and that it had placed her in unsuitable temporary homeless accommodation. We found fault because the Council made administrative errors with her housing application and placed her into unsuitable accommodation. To remedy the injustice caused by this fault, the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and restate its previously suggested remedies. These include payments to Ms X and agreeing to source alternative temporary accommodation for Ms X and her children.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments to help him challenge a penalty charge notice he received. We found there was fault causing injustice when the Council failed to engage with Mr X about his requests for reasonable adjustments. The Council agreed to cancel the penalty charge notice and pay Mr X a financial remedy.

Summary: Ms F complained the Council failed to respond to her request for a review of its decision that she was not in priority need and failed to decide whether to offer interim accommodation pending the review decision. We found fault. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms F to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: there was fault in the way the Council considered Miss X’s request for a review of the medical priority awarded to her Housing Register application and delay in making the review decision. This caused Miss X avoidable distress, uncertainty and frustration. The Council has agreed to provide a suitable remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council not sufficiently pruning some trees near her and her neighbours’ properties, not explaining its tree maintenance decision and not taking account of the residents’ views, needs and concerns. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because Mr Y has already started court action about the matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s fraud investigation into Mr X. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint.

Summary: Ms B complained about how the Council dealt with her housing application and medical assessment. We found fault with the Council’s actions which caused injustice to Ms B. The Council will apologise to Ms B, make a payment to her, offer her a new medical assessment and remind housing staff of the importance of properly explaining decisions in letters.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s maintenance of a tree it owns near her property and what it told her about the works which have been done and when the next works are due. Even if the Council was wrong about when the tree was last cut back, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process regarding its maintenance to warrant us investigating. Investigation of incorrect information given by an officer in 2023 about when the Council would next work on the tree would not lead to a different outcome, and we cannot achieve the out

Summary: We have ended our investigation. The Council accepts it is at fault in that it housed households with dependent children or a pregnant woman in bed and breakfast accommodation longer than the six weeks allowed by law, causing them an injustice. It has already taken appropriate action to address the fault. There are no further recommendations the Ombudsman would make if we were to investigate this issue further.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to provide the complainant with a discretionary housing payment on an ongoing basis. This is because the Council has properly considered the request against its policy and there is not enough evidence of fault to cast doubt on the decision made. Further, it is not our role to question the outcome of a properly made decision.

Summary: Miss Y complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a Blue Badge. She also complains about the process followed by the Council when responding to her concerns and the significant time and trouble caused by its delay. The Council has already apologised and offered a payment of £180 in recognition of Miss Y’s distress. The Council will increase this to £250 because of the significant delay and for the fault in the handling of the complaint. There is further fault causing injustice because the Council did not properly consider Miss Y’s application for a Blue Badge

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about offers of social housing because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to act against the complainant’s neighbour. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The Council is not responsible for resolving private civil disputes between neighbours.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to maintain the operation of a disabled parking bay in Mr X’s road. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: There was fault and excessive delay in the way the Council carried out an EHC needs assessment. There was fault in failing to provide a child out of school with anxiety with s.19 education. There was fault in failing to secure therapy provision in an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. This led to loss of education and distress. The Council will make a financial payment, apologise and make service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s requirement for separate initial notices for two properties in relation to building regulation applications. This is because there is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered two complaints about breaches of the code of conduct. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault with how the Council reached its decisions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered two complaints about breaches of the code of conduct. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault with how the Council reached its decisions.

Summary: Mr Y complained about the way the Council dealt with his request that it recall two outstanding penalty charge notice debts from its enforcement agents because he is a vulnerable person. We found fault in how the Council considered his request. But this fault did not cause Mr Y an injustice and so we have completed our investigation.

Summary: The complainant (Ms X) complained about the lack of children’s services support for her son (Y) despite his diagnosis of epilepsy and Occupational Therapist’s (OT) recommendations. She also said the Council failed in the way it considered her complaint. We found fault with the Council’s handling of Ms X’s complaint. The Council agreed to apologise, consider Ms X’s complaint at stage three of the children’s statutory complaint procedure and make a time and trouble payment. The Council also agreed some service improvements to improve its complaint handling.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue a carers parking permit for Ms X’s carer. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Summary: Mr Y complains about the Council’s actions in relation to the assessment and support planning for his partner, Ms Y. He also complains about problems with Ms Y’s direct payments. We find fault in all parts of the complaint we have investigated. The Council will apologise, pay £500 and review Ms Y’s case.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s investigation of an unlicenced property in a selective licensing zone. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council dealt with the long‑term disrepair and management issues at her temporary accommodation. The Council was at fault with how it dealt with Miss X’s concerns. This caused Miss X distress, time and trouble, frustration and she remained in an unsuitable accommodation for longer than she should have. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.