LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Ms Z’s complaint about the Council’s issuing of multiple Penalty Charge Notices and how it handled her complaint. The Council has cancelled and refunded most of the charges, so there is insufficient outstanding injustice to justify investigating these. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating Ms Z’s outstanding concerns. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures alone.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the London Tribunals.

Summary: Mr X’s representative complained on his behalf about the Council’s handling of his housing benefit reviews. They complained it had incorrectly calculated his housing benefit, delayed in responding to his requests for review and had not provided Mr X with his appeal rights. The Council was a fault for delaying to completing Mr X’s housing benefit review. However, the Council has now recalculated Mr X’s housing benefit and backdated it to 2022 which remedies part of the injustice caused to Mr X. The Council agreed to apologise and pay a symbolic payment to Mr X for the distress, frustra

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

Summary: The Council delayed issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan for Mr X’s child, Z, and failed to properly handle his complaints. This was fault and caused Mr X frustration and delayed his right of appeal to a tribunal. The Council also failed to ensure Z received all their speech and language sessions. However the Council’s faults did not lead to the injustice claimed, as these sessions were missed in part because Mr X refused the speech and language provision when this was offered.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alleged failure by the Council to maintain a public tree. This is because the injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mrs Y’s application to renew her child’s blue badge. We could not add to the Council’s appeal findings, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our investigation, and any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

this complaint about the Cuoncil’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to act on or address threatening and anti-social behaviour from a neighbour who receives support from the Council’s Adult Social Care service. The Council was at fault for failing to consider using its anti-social behaviour powers, and for failing to properly record how it reached some of its decisions. The Council will apologise to Mr X for the avoidable frustration its fault caused, and remind staff about correct procedures.

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 have used this.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint on behalf of her aunt, Miss X, about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a renewal of her blue badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint from Mr X about the Council’s handling of a complaint related to a Residential Services Officer’s conduct. This is because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council or achieve a different outcome

Summary: Mr Y and Ms X complained the Council failed to provide a permanent property for them. They also complained about the Councils handling of anti-social behaviour. We found the Council was not at fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Penalty Charge Notices because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaint handling if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax. This is because part of the complaint is late. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation of Mr X’s other complaints.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council failing to collect waste from her property. We have upheld the complaint and the Council has agreed to take appropriate action. It would therefore not be proportionate to investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the neglect of an alleyway to the side of her property which has dangerous waste and dead rodents. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to ensure a child’s special educational needs were met. This is because it is made late.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council handling of Mr X’s council tax account. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint because we cannot achieve the outcome she wants. The SEND Tribunal has decided which school B will attend. Ms M disagrees, but we cannot consider these matters now. The Council has responded to Ms M’s concerns about the school and there is nothing we could add by further investigation. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision not to make alternative arrangements for B’s education to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that Mr Y’s vehicle was towed away without proper notice as it is reasonable to expect the complainant to appeal to the London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council’s handling of Mr X’s children’s statutory complaint. This is because the Council has not yet completed all three stages of the statutory children’s complaint procedure, and it would be reasonable to allow it to do so. In addition, the Council has already accepted and apologised for the delays identified at earlier stages, so further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about moving traffic Penalty Charge Notices. It is reasonable for Mr X to submit a statutory declaration to the Traffic Enforcement Centre, and if successful, to then use his statutory right of appeal to London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered Mr X’s housing priority. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council did not properly deal with a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) causing financial loss. The Council gave Mr X contradictory information and passed Mr X’s case to enforcement agents before a deadline to pay had expired. Mr X suffered financial loss. The Council will apologise, allow Mr X to pay the PCN at the original reduced rate, pay Mr X £200 for time and trouble, ensure he is not liable for any enforcement charges in relation to this PCN and train relevant staff.