LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council tax discount because there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with an application for a Lawful Development Certificate for Proposed Use or Development as it is made too late. We cannot investigate the complaint about the way the Council processed a planning application as the complainant appealed to the Planning Inspector. This is therefore outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the implementation of a traffic management order. There is insufficient evidence of fault and the personal injustice claimed is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision-making relating to land it owns. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable by investigating.

Summary: We found no fault with the care provided to Miss Y by London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, West London NHS Trust and North West London Integrated Care Board.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the type of support plans the Council provided. This is because any fault has not caused injustice to Mr X, and there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because we are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken, we could not add to the investigation by the Council, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council kept her family in unsuitable bed and breakfast accommodation for seven months and wrongly told her that housing benefit would cover the full cost of the accommodation. Mrs X and her family were in unsuitable accommodation for 18 weeks longer than the law allows causing distress. However, there is no evidence Mrs X was told there would be no charge for this accommodation.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed assessing housing benefit claims. There is no evidence of fault in the time taken by the Council to determine the claims once Mrs X provided all necessary information.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s application of its housing allocation policy to Mr X’s case. This is because most of the complaint has been previously considered and the remaining elements are undergoing the Council’s appeal process.

Summary: We upheld Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her Blue Badge application. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint by completing a review with information provided at appeal.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed completing her occupational therapy assessment. She also complained of poor communication. We find the Council at fault for its delay in completing Ms X’s occupational therapy assessment and for communicating poorly with Ms X. The Council’s actions caused Ms X frustration and uncertainty, and she was put to time and trouble trying to resolve the matter. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and make a symbolic payment of £250. It has also agreed to make a service improvement.

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to ensure that Mr X’s child, Z received the Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) and Occupational Therapy (OT) in their Education, Health and Care Plan between September 2024 and July 2025. Poor communication from the Council during that time added to Mr X’s frustration. The Council will apologise to Mr X and make a payment to acknowledge his frustration and the impact on Z of the missed provision. It will also review its commissioning arrangements to ensure these can meet requirements for SALT and OT provision.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council left her and her children in unsuitable accommodation. She also complained the Council failed to respond to her emails and requests for a review of the accommodation. We find the Council was at fault for its significant delay in dealing with Ms X’s request to review the suitability of the accommodation. This caused Ms X frustration, upset and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Ms X and implement a service improvement.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council did not complete a review of late Mr Y’s care plan and wrongly decided Mr Y should pay for his care. Mr X says this caused avoidable distress and financial loss to him and his family. We find the Council at fault which caused injustice. The Council has agreed to complete a backdated financial assessment and provide a written apology.

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

Summary: The Council was at fault for the delay in assessing Ms X’s needs, producing a support plan and in arranging an Occupational Therapy assessment. This caused Ms X frustration and uncertainty and meant she was without support to meet her needs. The Council has agreed to apologise, complete Ms X’s support plan and make a payment to Ms X to acknowledge the injustice caused. It will also issue guidance to officers.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council tax bill because there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council responded to Miss B’s communication. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council issuing him a Fixed Penalty Notice for alleged fly tipping. This is because Mr X could have used his right to raise a defence against the issuing of the notice in court if he considers there was fault in its issue.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about being issued a Fixed Penalty Notice for fly tipping. This is because Mr X could have used his right to defend the matter in court. That is the route to use to challenge it.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alleged failure of the Council to assess and safeguard Mr X for several years up to 2024. Investigation would be unlikely to establish a causal link between the actions of the Council, and the injustice Mr X complains of. The Council has also already offered Mr X an assessment, and we would be unlikely to recommend more than this.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council failing to provide B with an education as the Tribunal is deciding what that education should be. The Council’s delay in issuing a decision notice following an Education Health and Care Plan review is not significant enough to justify an investigation.

Summary: There was fault by the Council, because it did not contact the complainant to discuss whether she would find bed and breakfast accommodation suitable as interim accommodation, told her she needed to submit documents before it could book interim accommodation for her, and did not respond helpfully when she informed the Council she could not access her housing register account. The Council has agreed to offer the complainant a financial remedy and apologise to her for this, and also to issue guidance to its staff.

Summary: We found fault on Mrs Y’s homeless complaint about the Council’s decision to end the housing duty it owed her. It delayed identifying she had not been evicted from her property, failed to realise the significance of the tenancy agreement when she first sent it, failed to tell her she had review rights against its decision she was not homeless, and failed to act on her request for a statutory review of her accommodation’s suitability. It delayed responding to her complaint. The Council agreed to send her a written apology; reissue the decision and set out her review rights; back date a