LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mr X complained the Council refused to accept appropriate alternative documentation confirming the lease arrangements for his vehicle and declined his application for a residents parking permit. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Mr X’s application to transfer his parking permit.

Summary: Mr X complained about matters relating to her homelessness application. We found the Council to be at fault. It failed to allow her to view temporary accommodation and did not properly consider whether it was of an acceptable standard. It also failed to respond to her complaint. To remedy the injustice to Mrs X, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment and review its practices.

Summary: The Council failed to keep the suitability of Miss X’s interim and temporary accommodation under review, delayed accepting the main housing duty, and communicated poorly. The Council has agreed to apologise, review the suitability of the temporary accommodation, make a payment to Miss X and act to improve its services.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the outcome of an adult’s care needs assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council unfairly reduced Mrs Y’s care hours, leaving her health and wellbeing at risk. The Ombudsman intends to find fault with the Council for failing to carry out a review of Mrs Y’s care and for how it communicated with Mr X about her care. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for failing to review Mrs Y’s care and tell Mr X of the change in care. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council for how it initially assessed Mrs Y’s care needs or arranged her care. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy for the distress caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about delay in the Council agreeing to fund the adaptations his mother needed. He also complains there has been a delay in the works being completed. This because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, one element of the complaint is premature as Mr X has not made the complaint to the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing a Penalty Charge Notice for parking. It would be reasonable for the complainant to use his right to appeal to a parking adjudicator, but we understand the matter is resolved in any event.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council withdrew his care package and did not reinstate it until a solicitor intervened. The Council was not at fault for withdrawing the care package but was at fault for delay and not being proactive to resolve the situation. It should apologise, make a payment to remedy the injustice to Mr X who had to arrange and pay for his own care, and ensure staff learn lessons from what happened.

Summary: Mr B complained that the Council had failed to escalate his complaint about children’s services to stage two of the statutory complaints procedure. We found there was a delay of approximately two months in progressing the complaint to stage two which caused Mr B time and trouble in chasing the Council. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B and pay him £100.

Summary: We found fault with the way the Council communicated with Mrs X about her homelessness and housing. The Council agreed actions to remedy the injustice to Mrs X.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to have a child protection plan. It is unlikely we would obtain more of a remedy than the explanation given by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about a non-material amendment to planning permission. Mr X could have complained to us sooner.

Summary: Ms B complained the Council did not properly consider her application for a personalised disabled bay for her son, C. We found fault in the way the Council considered Ms B’s application. We recommended the Council apologise to Ms B, review its decision to refuse C’s application, and pay Ms B £200 in recognition of her time and trouble.

Summary: Mr X complained there was fault in the way the Council’s highways team dealt with his request to extinguish part of a right of way. Mr X’s request followed on from contact he had with the ASB and planning teams. I did not find there was fault by the highways team.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s failure to properly consider medical evidence in support of her request for higher banding priority as part of her housing application. We ended our investigation because Miss X has now been awarded the highest priority banding and there is nothing more we could achieve for her.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to provide him with care and support when he requested it. This is because further investigation is unlikely to provide Mr B with a different outcome to that he has received from the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about children services actions. It is unlikely we could achieve a significantly different remedy than the Council has already proposed and considered.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council has repeatedly failed to collect the communal domestic waste on the scheduled days. The Council’s repeated failure to collect the communal waste on the scheduled days is fault. This caused Mr X frustration and put him to the time and trouble of complaining. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused to Mr X.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take proper action against the owner of two houses in multiple occupation (HMO) near his home, failed to do due diligence before issuing HMO licences, failed to communicate between different departments, and failed to respond in a timely manner. There was no fault in the Council’s planning enforcement investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take proper action against the owner of two houses in multiple occupation (HMO) near his home, failed to do due diligence before issuing HMO licences, failed to communicate between different departments, and failed to respond in a timely manner. There was no fault in the Council’s response to Mr X’s complaints about HMO licensing and household waste issues where he lives.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council’s Monitoring Officer dealt with a complaint about the conduct of a councillor. We are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council considered the matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to provide the complainant with information about his child’s school. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed than the Ombudsman to consider the matter.

Summary: The Council has agreed to release details of the late Mr X’s estate to his family to enable an application for probate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about two Penalty Charge Notices because the complainant can follow the statutory process and appeal to the tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice issued by the Council. This is because it would have been reasonable for him to appeal to London Tribunals. If Mr X believes the Council has failed to follow the proper process in escalating the penalty charge notice he may apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre to take the process back to an earlier stage.