LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council ignoring the complainant’s requests for help with another resident in the block of flats where he lives. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council has failed to provide her with suitable accommodation. The Ombudsman intends to find fault with the Council for failing to provide suitable temporary accommodation. The Council has agreed pay Miss X a financial remedy until it finds her suitable accommodation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about two Penalty Charge Notices he received for alleged moving traffic contraventions. This is because it was reasonable for Mr B to put in representations to the Council, and if needed, appeal to London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s maintenance of an amenity tree in the public highway. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We found fault by the Council on Miss T’s complaint about the way it dealt with her application for rehousing. It failed to respond to correspondence, did not address her complaint fully, delayed acting on evidence she sent, and delayed deciding her review request. It did not correct a wrong decision made on her review. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Summary: Miss F complains about the way the Council has dealt with her application to its housing register. This includes not giving her medical priority, not allowing her a two-bedroom property and changing the start date of her application. We find fault with how the Council dealt with awarding Miss F the correct priority. The Council has suggested a remedy which is suitable, as it follows the principles set out in the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Mr X complained the Council failed to properly consider a planning application which will allow an unacceptable development and cause issues of overlooking and loss of daylight. We found fault by the Council but consider the agreed action of an apology, symbolic payment and guidance to staff provides a suitable remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has not provided the complainant with suitable accommodation. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint the Council did not provide ‘Education Otherwise Than At School’. That is because the complainant has appealed to tribunal. Therefore, we have no jurisdiction to consider the complaint.

Summary: Miss C says the Council wrongly removed her eligibility to bid on one-bedroom properties, delayed changing her eligibility following a medical assessment and gave her conflicting information. The Council has offered a satisfactory remedy and there is no need for the Ombudsman to investigate further.

Summary: Miss C complained the Council wrongly suspended her housing register bidding account and then failed to remove the suspension despite repeated assurances it would do so. Miss C said she missed bidding opportunities as a result. We have found the Council at fault for failing to reinstate Miss C’s account from the date she provided the necessary information. The Council will apologise, make payments and take action to improve services in the future.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to remove the complainant’s car as abandoned in November 2022. This is because it is a late complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council repossessing a garage rented by the complainant and disposing of the items stored within it. There is not enough evidence of fault in the enforcement process, and we would be unable to establish what happened during a meeting with a council officer.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the allocation of a tenancy to Mr X’s neighbour. This is because the complaint has been raised in the context of Mr X alleging unfairness by housing management staff. We have no remit to consider complaints about the Council’s actions when it is acting as a social housing landlord.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss X’s temporary accommodation. Miss X could reasonably have used her court appeal right when the Council did not agree her temporary accommodation was unsuitable last year. With Miss X’s current situation, it is reasonable to expect her to ask the Council for a suitability review.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about a missed care visit to Mr C, and the delay in the Council holding a safeguarding review meeting and providing the minutes of the meeting to him. This is because there is nothing further we could add to the previous investigation by the Council and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to act on information she supplied and wrongly suspended her housing register application. This meant Ms X was unable to bid on alternative properties. The Council’s delay in verifying Ms X’s documents and in reactivating her housing application is fault. This fault has caused Ms X an injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an incident that took place at Mr X’s local library. This is because the injustice experienced by Mr X due to this matter is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to award Mr X priority status on its housing register. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council issued her the wrong type of parking permit. This is because the issue of parking permits for council estate land, and the enforcement of parking restrictions on council estate land, concern the Council’s management of social housing and complaints about such matters are not within our jurisdiction to investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to make appropriate educational provision for the complainant’s daughter. This is because investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about an inaccurate statement made about her by a council officer. This is because it is the court’s role to determine if Mrs X is entitled to damages and we therefore consider it would be reasonable for Mrs X to make a claim against the Council at court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of statutory overcrowding at Miss X’s housing association home. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council took too long to assess his application to join its housing register, asked him to provide the same documents on multiple occasions and did not reply to his communications. We found fault by the Council in the way it handled Mr X’s application which caused him an injustice. The Council agreed to send Mr X a written apology and make him a payment in recognition of the uncertainty, frustration and time and trouble caused him.