LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about decisions by a child protection conference and its complaints’ outcome. We are unlikely to reach a significantly different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s oversight of a special educational needs advisory service, who restricted Ms X’s access to it. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons we should exercise discretion to consider it now. Nor will we investigate how the Council considered these matters more recently. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by us investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice. This is because Miss X has the right to appeal to a tribunal, and it is reasonable to expect her to use this.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his housing disrepair reports. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault and it is unlikely we could achieve more than the Council’s response.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care at a day centre. This is because an Ombudsman investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome and it is unlikely we would find any significant fault to justify our resource.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about children services actions. We will not reinvestigate her complaint which the Council considered in its Children Act statutory complaints procedure. And we cannot achieve the outcome she wants.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed assessing his homeless application and in providing him with accommodation and failed to respond to his communications. The Council delayed dealing with the homeless application, delayed providing interim accommodation and failed to respond to communications from Mr X and his representatives. That caused Mr X distress and meant he had to stay in unsafe accommodation longer than he should have. An apology, payment to Mr X, action to address delays and guidance for officers is satisfactory remedy.

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 cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s actions as registered social landlord and, in any case, the Housing Ombudsman Service has already adjudicated on his complaints.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council wrongly reduced her care hours. We find no fault in the Council’s decision-making. However, we do find fault in the Council’s communication. This caused Miss X avoidable distress, uncertainty and time and trouble. We recommend the Council apologise and makes a payment to Miss X.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s failure to transfer her daughter Miss Y and her children to suitable social housing. We found fault with the way the Council carried out its review of Miss Y’s Housing Register allocation. The Council’s fault caused injustice to Miss Y and Miss X. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and carry out another review of Miss Y’s Housing Register allocation. The Council has also agreed to hold a meeting with all professionals involved with Miss Y’s family to discuss the family’s housing circumstances.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions following Ms X’s application to sell her discounted market sale property. We cannot achieve the outcome Ms X wants. This is because the courts are better placed to consider the matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about where a bin is placed. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: Mr B complained that the Council failed to deal with his homeless application properly. We found the Council delayed in accepting the relief duty, which caused Mr B some uncertainty. The Council has apologised to Mr B and offered him £75. We consider this is an adequate remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a ‘right to buy’ application. It is reasonable to expect Ms X to take court action.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her homelessness and housing register applications. In relation to some aspects further investigation would not lead to a different outcome; in relation to one aspect there is insufficient injustice to justify investigating. In addition there is currently a review ongoing in connection to the homelessness application, which it appropriate for the Council to complete, and which will affect the housing register application.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Penalty Charge Notices being wrongly issued because we are satisfied with the actions the Council has already taken.

Summary: We will not investigate how the Council dealt with Mrs X’s subject access request as this is best dealt with by the Information Commissioner's Office.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice issued by the Council. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court to make a late witness statement/statutory declaration.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his child’s case. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating. The law prevents us from investigating Mr X’s concerns about court proceedings and reports.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not provide appropriate sign language interpreters and did not meet her grandfather’s communication needs during the period he received care. Miss X said the Council’s actions caused avoidable distress to her grandfather and to herself. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to provide an apology and a financial remedy and review its processes regarding the provision of communication support to deaf service users.

Summary: We have found the Council at fault for failing to notify Miss X that it had accepted the main housing duty. This delayed Miss X’s review rights and caused her avoidable distress. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Miss X a symbolic payment in recognition of the avoidable distress.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council secured provision for her child. The Council upheld Ms X’s main complaint and took steps to remedy her injustice. There are no wider public interest remaining that would justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about parking permit charges because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a disrepair issue at Ms X’s privately rented accommodation as there is insufficient remaining injustice caused to her from the alleged Council fault and we can achieve no meaningful outcome.