LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s decision to reduce her support hours, following an increase after the birth of her second child. The Council’s decision to reduce Ms X’s support hours was based on inaccurate information. It was therefore flawed which leave the outcome in doubt. The Council needs to reassess Ms X’s needs, apologise and pay financial redress.

Summary: A Council tenant complained about disrepair problems at his property. But we cannot investigate this matter because the law prevents us from considering complaints about the management of council housing.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s management of a Charging Order between 2010 and 2022 including that it incorrectly told him the debt had been written off in 2016. The Council was at fault as it failed to maintain accurate records about the payments it received and has been unable to provide an accurate statement of the amount owed. It also caused uncertainty when it incorrectly told Mr X the debt had been written off. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, reduce the debt by £1,000 and pay him a symbolic payment of £250 to acknowledge the uncertainty this caused him.

Summary: We uphold Mrs X’s complaint that the Council delayed in considering her complaint within its children statutory complaints’ procedure. The Council has agreed to pay Mrs X for the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint alleging the Council failed to notify the complainant about a parking fine. This is because he had a right to appeal to court.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide suitable accommodation from November 2020 until April 2021. He says his accommodation during this period was unsuitable because of his medical conditions. Mr X says the Council’s actions caused him avoidable distress. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to apologise and provide a financial remedy to Mr X.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about a significant delay by the Council in assessing medical priority for their son. There was a delay in completing the medical assessment, but this did not cause Mr and Mrs X an injustice. The Council failed to respond to Mr and Mrs X’s request to split their household. The Council has now agreed to consider separate applications from Mr and Mrs X to bid on smaller properties.

Summary: There was fault by the Council because it did not properly plan Miss K’s transition from Children to Adult Services and how it would arrange and fund her care. There was also fault in its complaint handling as it failed to refer Miss K’s complaint to a stage three review panel in accordance with the statutory complaints process. The Council’s shortcomings caused Miss K and her foster carer distress and frustration. They are also left uncertain that some matters might have been resolved had the Council completed the complaints process. The Council has agreed to take the further action

Summary: Miss C said the Council did not provide speech and language therapy specified in her son X’s education, health and care plan. The Council was at fault for a failure to properly consider Miss C’s request for the therapy and for a delay in finalising a revised education, health and care plan. These faults caused injustice as X was not assessed for, and did not receive, the specified therapy for more than a year. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss C and pay her a sum in recognition of this fault. It has also agreed to reconsider its decision not to provide X with speech and lang

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to rehouse Mrs X in permanent accommodation since she applied to the housing register 23 years ago. The complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mrs X could not have complained to us sooner.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s refusal to cancel a PCN due to a medical emergency. We have not found the Council to be at fault. It considered Mrs X’s circumstances but decided not to cancel the PCN. This was a decision the Council was entitled to make.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council did not follow the correct process when dealing with his Right to Buy application. We have concluded our investigation having made a finding of fault by the Council. There was no basis for the Council to have cancelled Mr X and Ms Y’s Right to Buy application in these circumstances and the Council has agreed to the recommendations we proposed.

Summary: The complainant (Mrs X) said the Council failed by removing her and her husband (Mr Y) from its housing register in September 2021 and in the way it carried out the review of this decision. As a result Mrs X lost opportunities to bid for properties and experienced distress. We find fault in the way the Council carried out its review and suggested remedies. Mrs X also complained about suitability of her current accommodation and its state of repair. We will not investigate this part of her complaint as she had other ways to challenge the Council’s actions.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council ended its homelessness duty by arranging a tenancy in an unlicensed property affected by black mould. The Council was at fault for arranging a tenancy in an unlicensed property. This caused Ms X anxiety. There was no fault in the way it responded to her concerns about black mould. The Council arranged for Ms X to move to an alternative property, and it organised and paid for her removals. This was an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his business grant applications. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council affecting its decisions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about data protection issues involving the Council and Ms X’s records. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is involved, and this is the body best placed to deal with it.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the time the complainant has been waiting for a larger home. This is because the Council has provided a fair and proportionate response.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the priority given to Ms X’s housing application. The complaint is late without good reason to accept it now. Even if that was not the case, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because Mr Y has already appealed to the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not provide her child, Y, with appropriate educational provision in line with their Education, Health and Care Plan, when they were unable to attend school due to medical reasons. The Council was not at fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a housing case. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing several traffic and parking penalties to Mrs X. It was reasonable for her to appeal the penalties to the London Tribunals which is the proper body to consider penalty appeals. She has submitted late witness statements and statutory declarations on some the penalties which provides her with a court remedy in these cases.

Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council supported her with her care needs and housing and in particular complained the Council failed to properly assess her needs. We have ended our investigation as we cannot add to the Council’s investigation or achieve a meaningful outcome for Ms X.

Summary: Mr C complains the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a Freedom Pass is wrong. The Council is at fault for failing to have a written policy about how it assesses people with hearing loss for a Freedom Pass. It is also at fault for failing to provide Mr C proper reasons about why it rejected his application. The Council has agreed to reconsider Mr C’s application and pay him £150 for his time and trouble. The Council has also agreed to have a written policy which people can refer to about its eligibility criteria.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss Y’s residential care and the arrangements for her contact with her sister, Miss X. All the issues raised have been, or should be, raised as part of ongoing proceedings in the Court of Protection.