LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Ms X is a Council tenant. She complains the Council failed to consider whether her family’s living conditions meant she was homeless. Ms X complains the Council failed to respond to her requests to move to alternative accommodation due to significant disrepair and infestation issues. We have found the Council at fault. This caused Ms X distress and frustration. She missed out on the Council treating her requests to move as a homelessness application and a transfer request under its housing allocations scheme. To remedy this, the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X, make her a paym

Miss Y complained about her experiences as a young person leaving foster care and the Council’s failure to provide the support she needed as a young, single parent.

Summary: Miss X complained about the outcome of a reassessment of her care and support needs. On the evidence seen so far, we have found the Council to be at fault because it did not properly consider her need for care at night, did not involve her properly in the assessment and fettered its discretion. She suffered avoidable distress, uncertainty and possible risk of harm. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to her, carry out a reassessment and take action to improve its practices.

Ms B complained that after October 2019 the Council did not support her in arranging suitable respite care for her disabled son, Mr C. Ms B made separate complaints to the Council’s children and adult care services as her complaint spanned the time when Mr C moved between the two services.

Summary: We will not investigate the complaint about the application process for freedom passes. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because it will make changes to the wording on an application form.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council charging Mr X for an enforcement agent visit which he disputes took place. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to follow proper process in considering her request for a Community Trigger. There were failings in the Community Trigger process which amount to fault. This fault has caused Miss X an injustice.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to take sufficient action to deal with flytipping, anti social behaviour and drainage issues on an alleyway. The Council is at fault as it delayed in establishing its responsibility for the alleyway. This caused avoidable time and trouble to Ms X which the Council has agreed to remedy by apologising and making a payment of £150 to her.

Summary: The complainant’s (Mr Y) representative (Advice Centre) said the Council failed by refusing to investigate Mr Y’s out-of-time complaint at stage two of its children’s complaint procedure. We found fault in the way the Council dealt with Mr Y’s complaint. This caused him injustice. The Council agreed to apologise, consider Mr Y’s complaint at stage two and provide staff training.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has not provided the complainant with accommodation. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and we could not achieve the outcome the complainant would like.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to properly administer Ms X’s housing benefit and failure to appropriately deal with her homelessness application. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons for why she did not complain earlier. In addition, the complaint about the Council’s handling of Ms X’s homelessness application is premature as it has not yet completed the Council’s complaints procedure.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not fully consider her application for a taxi card. Miss X says this has affected her mental wellbeing. The Council was not at fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council incorrectly billing Mr X’s employer for council tax and for taking enforcement action. This is because the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. In addition, an investigation is not justified as there is insufficient evidence of fault and an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council incorrectly sent Mr X a summons for council tax. This is because the complaint was made late to us and there is no significant injustice that would warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with planning applications in the area where the complainant lives. This is because parts of the complaint are late. We are unlikely to find fault with the remaining issues complained about. The complainant has also not suffered significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

Summary: The Council was not at fault for how an enforcement agency, acting on its behalf, conducted a visit to Mr B in relation to non-payment of a parking ticket. Mr B’s allegations about the behaviour of the bailiff are not supported by the available body-worn camera footage. And neither the agency nor the Council were at fault for how they dealt with Mr B’s complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s trial scheme for collecting her household waste, or its removal of a public litter bin. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation and investigation would not achieve any different outcomes for Ms X.

Summary: The Council was at fault for its poor communication with Mr and Mrs X during the process of de-registering them as foster carers. It also failed to signpost them to a fostering support service and unnecessarily delayed in coming to its final decision on de-registration. However the Council was not at fault for not referring Mr and Mrs X’s appeal to the Independent Review Mechanism (IRM) as Mr X did not request this when given the opportunity. In recognition of the injustice caused by these faults, the Council has agreed to pay Mr and Mrs X £200 and said it will provide evidence of ser

Summary: Miss X complains the Council has prolonged her stay in residential care, but the evidence shows the Council has made every time to enable a supported return home. Miss X has so far chosen not to pay for the renovations her house requires to be habitable.

Summary: Ms Y complains the Council failed to consider whether her family’s housing conditions meant any of her children were ‘in need’ (under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989). We found fault by the Council, which meant Ms Y missed out on the Council carrying out Child in Need assessments for her children. To remedy this, the Council has agreed to: apologise to Ms Y, make her a payment, and carry out the assessment for her youngest child. The Council has also agreed to make several service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice for a parking contravention which he disputes. This is because the validity of the penalty charge notice is a matter for London Tribunals and it would be reasonable for Mr X to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court to reinstate his right of appeal.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not properly consider her request for a personal budget to provide education for her son, Mr Y and failed to implement the provision set out in his Education, Health and Care plan between November 2021 and July 2022. There was no fault in the Council’s decision not to provide a personal budget for direct payments. However, the Council failed to provide most of the special educational provision for Mr Y. The Council agreed to pay Mr Y £2800 to recognise the education he missed, reimburse the costs Ms X accrued in arranging some of Mr Y’s provision and pa

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. This is because it is not yet possible to determine if the complainant has suffered significant injustice because of any fault with the Council’s enforcement investigation.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed consideration of a complaint at stage two of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint by providing an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused to the complainant by its delay.

Summary: Miss X complains about several care providers’ failure to provide care for her late mother, Mrs X. She says she will not pay the care contributions the Council is seeking as it has not provided evidence of care. We found fault by the Council and recommended a remedy.