LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not apply his single person council tax discount and wrongly instructed enforcement agents to take debt recovery action against him. He also complained about poor communication from the Council. The Council was not at fault for the way it handled Mr X’s council tax account or for instructing enforcement agents. The Council was at fault for its lack of communication with Mr X, which caused him distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application and the suitability of temporary accommodation. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. The complainant has already requested a review of suitability of her current accommodation.

Summary: Mr X complained about a Notice to Quit his accommodation the Council served on him in April 2025. I ended this investigation because Mr X has filed a claim with the Court about the same matter. The law means we cannot investigate this complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s refusal of his vehicle crossover application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: There was fault by the Council, because it cannot show it properly followed the legal process when refusing an application for school transport. The Council has agreed to write a formal letter of apology for this, and take steps to ensure its staff understand and can apply the law when making similar decisions in future.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council delays in dealing with a request for a refund because the matter has been remedied.

Summary: The Ombudsman completed an investigation into the Council handling of education transport. We asked the Council questions about the widespread impact of its policy. The Council was at fault. Its policy does not detail a parent must agree to a personal transport budget. The Council agreed to amend its policy and factsheet to confirm a parent must agree to any alternative arrangements for education transport.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council failed to take enforcement action against his neighbour for fly tipping. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Mr M complained the Council has not responded in any meaningful way to his reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) by his neighbour, a council tenant, which includes persistent screaming and shouting at unsociable hours, threats, odours coming from his property, and possible drug abuse. Mr M says he feels unsafe in his own home and is unable to have visitors. He considers the Council should evict the neighbour and ensure he receives care appropriate to his needs.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to place Miss X in suitable accommodation or to inform her of her right to review. This is because the complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council has failed to ensure a public footpath was safe to use, resulting in her suffering injuries. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs X to take the matter to court.

Summary: There was fault in the way the Council considered an application for home to school transport made on the grounds of special educational needs and disability. The Council delayed carrying out an individual assessment of the child’s ability to walk the distance required, wrongly relying on an expectation the parent drive the child. As a result, transport support was delayed, causing distress, inconvenience and expense to the parent. The Council has agreed to refund Ms X’s mileage, make a symbolic payment for the distress and inconvenience caused and make service improvements.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not secure suitable accommodation when she fled domestic abuse in 2023 and subsequently disposed of her personal property. She said it caused significant mental anguish and distress and a large financial loss. We have decided to end the investigation because the matters occurred more than 12 months before Ms X complained to us and we cannot achieve the primary outcome she wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council wrongly issued a fixed penalty notice for littering. The Council has cancelled the Notice. Further investigation by the Ombudsman will not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about traffic signs leading up to a bus gate. This is because Mr X could reasonably have used his appeal right.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a moving traffic penalty charge notice as it is reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal against it to London Tribunals.

Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council allocated payments to Ms X’s council tax account or in its decisions to take recovery action. There was fault in the way the Council communicated about the matter. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment to Ms X to recognise the avoidable frustration and uncertainty caused by its fault. It will also take steps to prevent recurrence of the same fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to accept liability for a claim that Ms X’s belongings were damaged when they were in commercial storage arranged by the Council under its homelessness duty. We cannot determine claims about negligence and the courts are better placed to deal with claims about loss or damage to private property.

Summary: We find the Council at fault for the way it handled Mr X’s homelessness. There was delay, inaction, poor decisions, and a lack of records. This caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to remedy the injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council wrongly issued a Fixed Penalty Notice. The Council has upheld the complaint and taken corrective action. It is therefore not proportionate for the Ombudsman to consider this matter as further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay to fund residential care costs. The Council remedied the injustice caused during its complaint investigation. We could not add to the previous investigation by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to change its housing allocation scheme and how this awards priority points to her and other residents. The Council is entitled to make such changes to its policy. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s action or how it has applied its new scheme in Ms X’s case to warrant further investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council closing Mr X’s housing register application. The Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment of £300 to Mr X which is an appropriate remedy so an investigation would not be proportionate.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse Mr X a Blue Badge. This is because Mr X made an application to the court about the Council’s decision, therefore, we have no jurisdiction to consider this complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision she is not eligible to join its Housing Register because there is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making process to justify our involvement.