LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Ms C complained about the Council’s handling of her family’s housing situation since Spring 2024 when it found their accommodation impacted the health and wellbeing of the family. We found no fault by the Council in how it considered and applied its allocation scheme. It offered a symbolic payment to Ms C as part of its complaints process for its inability to attend a meeting and an omission in its complaint’s response. This was an appropriate remedy to acknowledge the inconvenience this cause her.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council imposed a communication restriction on Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charges for adult social care. We could not add to the investigation the Council has already done and are satisfied with the actions taken by the Council when considering Miss Y’s complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a PCN. This is because it would have been reasonable for Ms X to appeal to London Tribunals.

Summary: On behalf of Mrs X, Mr Y complained about the communication, staff conduct, and quality of care provided by a Care Home commissioned by the Council. Mr Y also complained the Council’s safeguarding investigation did not fully address his concerns. We found the Council took too long to complete its safeguarding investigation. We also found the Council at fault for not considering Mr Y’s concerns in full as part of its safeguarding investigation. This caused avoidable frustration, distress and uncertainty. We also believe Mrs X was exposed to the avoidable risk of harm due to the Council

We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint the Council failed to repair structural damage to her property; or that it mismanaged her son’s benefits. Both these complaints are outside our jurisdiction. We will not investigate her complaint about her neighbour’s use of CCTV, that is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is best placed to consider the matter.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council not arranging a housing transfer to smaller accommodation over several years, and its decision not to provide a discretionary housing payment (DHP). This is because we cannot investigate the Council’s actions as landlord, parts of the complaint are late without good reason, and there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s most recent decision making to warrant us investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax banding because there is no worthwhile outcome to achieve.

Summary: Ms C complained about the Council’s handling of an occupational therapy assessment and support for her family. The Council’s accepted fault for causing delays and how it communicated with her. It was also at fault for causing delays in its complaints handling. The Council’s apology and proposed remedy was not enough to acknowledge the inconvenience and uncertainty she experienced. The Council will therefore make an increased symbolic payment.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Council making a decision on Mr X’s homelessness application. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by remedying Mr X’s injustice. Additionally, we will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the suitability of his temporary accommodation because he has a statutory right to request a suitability review of the accommodation and it is reasonable to expect him to use it.

Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council handled her mother, Ms Y’s, housing case. We found fault because of poor communication about the availability of a property the family viewed for Ms Y, its handling of reassessment requests for supported housing and a lack of consideration of its homelessness duties. This caused Ms X and Ms Y avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise and make payments to them both. For Ms Y, it will organise a reassessment for extra care sheltered accommodation, consider its homelessness duties a

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on Mrs X’s medical priority for housing. This is because it was reasonable to expect Mrs X to have asked the Council to review its decision plus the Council has remedied its faut in respect of not responding to Mrs X’s queries since its decision on her priority.

Summary: Miss Y complained about the way Council’s services, including Adult Social Care and Housing, have dealt with her and her concerns. We have not found fault by the Council in the way its services have dealt with Miss Y. But we have found fault, causing injustice, with the Council’s complaint handling. The Council should remedy this injustice by reviewing its process for handling her complaints.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s children services’ complaint because there are no sufficient reasons to justify our reinvestigating a matter which has had a full Children Act statutory complaints’ procedure investigation. We are unlikely to achieve a significantly improved remedy for complaint delays.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the investigation of a social services referral. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a worker entering his temporary accommodation without prior notice because further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Miss X’s complaint about one of its officers.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about housing allocations. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council determined his housing priority banding which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate the Council’s use of enforcement agents in recovering a penalty charge notice as the complainant referred this matter to court and it is therefore no longer within our remit. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about procedural faults regarding the enforcement agent action as this has not, as yet, been dealt with by the Council

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to add Mr X to its housing register as this decision has now been reversed, and we are satisfied with the actions the Council took in respect of delay in this case.

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

Summary: Ms C complained the Council had wrongly refused her access to its housing register, communicated poorly, and failed to provide her suitable accommodation which met her needs since Autumn 2023. We found fault by the Council for communicating poorly and its delayed complaints handling. It has also failed to arrange suitable accommodation for Ms C since January 2025. There was no fault in the Council’s decision to refuse her on its housing register. The Council should apologise and make payment to Ms C to acknowledge the injustice its faults caused, and continues to cause her. We also ma

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council refused to award him and his family a higher priority banding and failed to consider their medical needs. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s liability for damage to his car. This is because Mr X has a legal remedy to pursue the matter through the courts, and it would be reasonable for him to do so.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a Looked After Child review and mistreatment of personal data. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. And, the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider complaints about personal data.