LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to reject Miss X’s homelessness application. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council approving a planning application. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our involvement.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to properly consider her medical and safety needs when assessing her housing application. We find no fault in the Council’s decision not to award her medical priority points. However, we find fault in the Council’s failure to consider whether it was reasonable for Miss X and her children to remain in their current accommodation in light of the harassment she was experiencing, and in its failure to appropriately signpost her to, or coordinate with, its homelessness service. These failings caused Miss X uncertainty about whether she should have recei

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to consider Ms X’s reports of noise nuisance. The Council has confirmed it has asked its Environmental Health Team to consider the matter. Therefore further investigation will not lead to a different outcome. Also we cannot achieve the outcome Ms X is seeking.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about liability for council tax. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Ms X could not have complained to us sooner. There is insufficient evidence that any failures by the Council have resulted in any significant injustice to the complainant.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to close his housing register application because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: Miss B complained the Council failed to consider her medical issues properly when awarding priority on the housing register and delayed considering her stage two review. The Council failed to properly consider Miss B’s circumstances and evidence when making a decision on medical priority and delayed carrying out the reviews. That means Miss B is left with some frustration and distress that the Council has not assessed her application properly and is left with some uncertainty. An apology and payment to Miss B, agreement to carry out a further review and reminder to officers is satisfa

Summary: We upheld Miss X’s complaint about delays in the children’s statutory complaints process. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by paying Miss X a symbolic remedy to recognise her injustice and complete its investigation.

Summary: Mrs B complained about how the Council carried out a care assessment and awarded direct payments and raised concerns about the Council billing her for services she did not receive, failing to take account of her reasonable adjustments and delay considering her complaint. The Council delayed completing the care assessment and putting in place direct payments, wrongly billed Ms B for services she did not receive and delayed considering her complaint. There is no evidence of fault in other areas of the complaint. Ms B has experienced distress and missed out on care support. An apology, p

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his housing register priority points award and that the Council has not yet made him an offer of suitable housing. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s failure to deliver special educational provision included in Section F of her son’s (Y) Education Health and Care Plan. We found fault with the Council. This fault caused injustice to Y and Miss X. The Council has already offered some suitable remedies. The Council has also agreed to make a symbolic payment to Miss X to recognise her distress, arrange a meeting with Miss X to review Y’s education and carry out further service improvement.

Summary: The Council was at fault for delay in reviewing its decision on whether homelessness accommodation it offered to Mr X was suitable. It also failed to keep appropriate records of how it decided other accommodation was suitable for him. This caused Mr X avoidable frustration and uncertainty but we cannot say, even on balance, that it meant he missed out on housing he should have had. To remedy Mr X’s injustice, the Council will apologise and pay him £250. The Council will also identify what it needs to do to ensure it keeps proper records in future.

Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council handled her homelessness application. She said the Council placed her in unsuitable accommodation, delayed moving her, wrongly ended its housing duty, and failed to award her the medical housing points she was entitled to. We do not find fault in the Council’s decision not to award additional housing priority points. We do find fault in the Council’s handling of Ms X’s case, including significant delay in completing the suitability review, failing to move her promptly once accommodation was found unsuitable, poor complaint handling, and inadeq

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the parking permit air quality surcharge the Council imposes on some vehicles. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to have contacted us sooner and, in any case, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: The Council failed to provide suitable accommodation when Mr X and his family were homeless. It housed them in bed and breakfast accommodation for 22 weeks. The maximum time limit bed and breakfast accommodation can be used for homeless applicants with dependent children is six weeks. Mr X said the accommodation caused increased living expenses and distress. The Council agreed to make payments to remedy the family’s injustice.

Summary: The Council was at fault for a delay in responding to Mr X’s complaint. It has now agreed to issue its response and to make a symbolic payment to recognise Mr X’s likely distress. It will also take steps to improve its service.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s housing register decision. The Council has agreed to carry out a fresh review and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued by the Council. This is because the Council has already provided a satisfactory remedy and there are no wider public interest issues that justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the points awarded on his housing application. There is not enough of evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Other issues raised are better handled by another body.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision about Mr X’s housing priority. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons for us to exercise discretion to consider it now.

Summary: The Council was at fault for not following its direct offer process properly in relation to Mr X’s housing register application and for its poor communication and complaint handling. There was no fault in the way the Council assessed Mr X’s request for a higher medical priority on his housing application and in its decision to refuse a further medical assessment. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mr X to acknowledge the frustration and raised expectations he was caused by its faults.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered Ms X’s housing priority. There is not enough evidence of fault and significant injustice to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in carrying out a review of Mr X’s temporary accommodation. This is because an investigation would not result in a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about this Council’s lack of support when she fled domestic abuse. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.