LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Miss C complained the Council failed to resolve the billing issues for her interim accommodation with the housing provider. She also says the Council delayed providing her with a final decision letter on her homelessness application. We find the Council was at fault as it should have been more proactive in resolving the billing issues and it significantly delayed providing Miss C with a decision on her homelessness application. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax billing because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Miss X complained communication from the Council was poor relating to its care of her son, Y. Miss X also complained about delays in the complaint process and issues regarding contact with Y. Miss X says the Councils actions caused her anxiety and distress. The Council was not at fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s priority on the housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because part of the complaint is late.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her homelessness application and about various matters relating to the interim accommodation it provided. The Council was at fault for a significant delay in deciding her homelessness application, a failure to review whether the interim accommodation was suitable and poor communication in relation to repairs. The faults caused Miss X frustration and uncertainty, although she has potentially benefitted from the delay in making the homelessness decision. The Council should apologise and make a modest payment to remedy the injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful Blue Badge application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has not provided proof that the complainant is required to pay council tax. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the court issued a liability order which said the complainant must pay the council tax.

Summary: Miss X complained about delays and errors in how the Council considered her application for a home repair grant. There was fault in how the Council managed and responded to Miss X’s grant application. This caused Miss X uncertainty and frustration for which the Council agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council wrongly issued him with a Penalty Charge Notice for an alleged parking contravention. This is because it was reasonable for Mr B to put in an appeal to London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with the care needs of the complainants children. This is because some of the complaint is about matters that happened too long ago and other elements are now subject to court proceedings.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to take action over noise from Miss X’s neighbours. The complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Miss X could not have complained to us sooner. We have no jurisdiction to investigate complaints from social housing tenants about tenancy and housing management by social housing landlords.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to pay Mr X the financial remedy it agreed in its complaint response. That is because the Council has now processed the payment and apologised for the delay.

Summary: Mrs X and Mr D complained the Council wrongly found their temporary accommodation suitable and it discharged its housing duty towards them. He also said it had failed to act as set out in its repairs policy when they had mould in the property and water leak from another flat. We found no fault by the Council on the substantial matters complained about, or these were late and had already been considered by a court. However, the Council did cause a service failure due to its delays in completing repairs to their accommodation as set out in the Council’s Policy. The Council has agreed to

Summary: Mr X complained the Council’s Major Adaptations Occupational Therapy (OT) Team has failed to carry out a home assessment for adaptations for a ramp and wet room to meet the needs of his partner. The Council is not at fault. An OT assessment would only be carried out as part of a disabled facilities grant application for which Mr X would need to complete a test of resources, which he chose not to do.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in taking effective enforcement action against planning breaches at a business close to Mr X’s home. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already undertaken by the Council or lead to a significantly different outcome.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to property her from harm between 1999 and 2001. The Council has agreed to investigate Miss X’s complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure so we ended our investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council took care proceedings on her children who were raised with other families. We cannot lawfully investigate actions which are part of court proceedings.

Summary: Miss C said the Council was at fault for placing her child on a child protection plan because she was in a relationship with a convicted sex offender. Miss C asked to withdraw her complaint. We have ended our investigation as it is proportionate to do so.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to take action regarding the poor state of his neighbour, Ms Y’s, property due to hoarding and self neglect. He says this causes risk to his property and tenants. We found no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice as there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about the Council’s decision to end their arrangement to foster a child after five years causing distress and financial loss. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters. So we are completing our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council enforcing a liability order for a council tax bill from more than 15 years ago. There is not enough evidence of fault or injustice in the Council seeking payment of a debt under a liability order the complainant knew of at the time and which she was responsible for paying, so the matter does not warrant investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council placed him in unsuitable temporary accommodation which he could not afford. He also said it failed to process his housing benefit claim which led to significant rent arrears and the Council placing a charge on a property he owns. There was no fault in the Council’s decision to place him in the temporary accommodation. The Council has already accepted it was at fault for the delay in dealing with his housing benefit application and has offered a suitable remedy for this. I cannot consider the Council’s decision to place a charging order on Mr X’s property as

Summary: Mr X’s needs had increased after a fall and the Council put more care in place. Once his care staff confirmed they could deliver the right care in fewer hours again, and Mr X was expected to improve with rehabilitation, it was not fault on the part of the Council to reduce his hours.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council has failed to investigate her complaint about historic sexual abuse, causing her distress. The Ombudsman did not find fault in the way the Council proposes to investigate Ms X’s complaint about historic abuse. The Ombudsman has found fault in the time the Council has taken to commence the investigation.