LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complainant has not suffered significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about poor communication and lack of support from the Council’s homelessness service. The Council upheld his complaint about poor communication, apologised for this and offered a financial remedy. It has also since made him an offer of housing. An investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome or achieve anything more.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s assisted bin collections as there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to update his address and respond appropriately when he reported problems accessing its online portal, which led to avoidable enforcement action. Although the Council eventually withdrew enforcement action and removed associated costs, it had enough information to prevent escalation at an earlier stage. Its failure to act on this led to avoidable distress, time and trouble for Mr X. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

Summary: Mrs B says the Council failed to act on noise nuisance and breached data protection regulations. The Council failed to investigate Mrs B’s noise complaints in accordance with its procedure and breached data protection regulations. That caused Mrs B distress. An apology, discussion with Mrs B about installing noise recording equipment and arranging for officers to visit to witness the noise and training for officers is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the conduct of her housing officer. This is mostly because it is unlikely that further investigation by us will lead to a different result and we cannot achieve the remaining result Miss X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to collect his recycling on one occasion and cancelled two re-scheduled collections without notice because the Council already apologised, collected the recycling, and put in place monitoring. An investigation is unlikely to achieve any additional outcome. We will not investigate his complaint about the Council’s complaint handling because the claimed injustice is not significant enough.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council wrongly closed her homelessness case without telling her and refused to investigate her complaint about this. We found the Council at fault for not telling Miss X it closed her homelessness case, for its poor record-keeping and for not investigating her complaint. These faults caused injustice to Miss X. The Council has agreed to apologise, backdate the start date of her new homelessness case to the date of her original application and make a payment to recognise the distress caused to her. It has also agreed to make changes to improve its service.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint about the Council failing to properly review restrictions placed on Mr X. The Council has agreed to a proportionate remedy for the injustice this caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council delayed paying the complainant’s housing benefit and did not make an interim payment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to properly consider her housing application and failed to respond to her contacts appropriately. We found there was no fault in communication with Miss X, but the Council could not evidence that it had properly considered changes of circumstances Miss X raised with the Council and medical evidence she submitted. We recommended an apology, corrective action and a review of some of the Council’s procedures.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to provide the complainant with a discretionary council tax discount. This is because the Council’s decision carries a right of appeal to an independent tribunal and it would be reasonable for the complainant to exercise that right.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss X’s council tax. At our invitation, the Council has agreed a suitable remedy for matters we can appropriately consider. It would therefore be disproportionate to investigate the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled Mr X’s personal information. The Information Commissioner’s Office is best placed to consider the matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Ms X’s garage rent arrears. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We have not investigated this complaint about the decision to end an allotment tenancy. This is a late complaint and there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the suitability of her temporary accommodation. This is because the complaint is late.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about two housing benefit claims because the complainant is using his appeal rights.

Summary: Mr K complains on behalf of Ms R about the Council’s decision to waive an outstanding balance in relation to an overpayment in housing benefit, instead of paying the amount directly to her. Mr K says that at the time the Council decided to waive the overpayment amount due to alleged service failings, Ms R had already paid this in full. While the Council’s decision to waive the overpayment amount in 2020 is a matter we would normally be able to consider, it would require investigation of matters which date back to 2004. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to investigate historical comp

Summary: Miss X complained the Council has failed to provide her with sufficient help in finding suitable accommodation since she presented as homeless. Miss X complained the Council has provided unsuitable temporary accommodation where she has experienced anti-social behaviour and threats from other residents and it is unsafe for her to return. The Council’s failure to review whether Property 1 was, and remained, suitable accommodation for Miss X is fault. As is the failure to properly inform Miss X of the withdrawal of the decision to end the homeless duty towards her and the subsequent deci

Summary: The Council is at fault for delay in responding to Mr X’s communications, failing to investigate a potential hazard in his private tenancy, failing to provide suitable temporary accommodation despite agreeing to do so, and delay increasing priority on the housing register. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Mr X £4,200, act to resolve his housing situation and improve its services.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about lack of access to Ms X’s council tax account because it has been remedied.

Ms X complains that the Council has failed to provide an explanation of her Business rates refund. We will not investigate this complaint because the Council has now provided that explanation and any liability issues are for the court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to refund Mr X for theatre tickets he purchased but was unable to attend. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.