LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to extend his dedicated dropped kerb to create a shared footway crossing with his neighbour in 2022. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider it now.

Summary: The complaint is about the Council’s delay in moving Mr B and his family from unsuitable temporary accommodation. We find fault in the delay which was because of service failure. This meant the family lived (and continue to live) in unsuitable accommodation. The Council has agreed to our recommendations for actions to remedy the injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s contact with the complainant about his care and support and charges for care. The Council confirmed it would review the complainant’s care and support needs and complete a financial assessment when it responded to his complaint. Any injustice was remedied during the Council’s complaint investigation. We cannot add to the Council’s previous investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice. This is because it would have been reasonable for Miss X to appeal to London Tribunals. Miss X has also now paid the fine at the discounted rate of £55 and this amount is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s council tax liability. Mr X has the right to appeal the Council’s decision to the Valuation Tribunal. It is unlikely an investigation could add to the Council’s response in relation to the remaining issues complained about.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his housing benefit claim because he has appealed to the Tribunal. We will also not investigate the Council’s handling of his housing benefit claim because there is no worthwhile result achievable.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the outcome of his claim for damages after his car was damaged by a kerb and pavement in front of his property. This is because this is a complaint about negligence which is a legal matter for the courts to consider and decide. We cannot decide a negligence claim.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council decided on his application for a dropped kerb and his review request. There was no fault in the process the Council followed to reach its decisions. The Council was at fault for delays in providing an outcome to Mr X’s review request, but it has already apologised for the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a parking penalty charge notice as it is reasonable to expect the complainant to have appealed it to the London Tribunals.

Summary: The Council failed to register Mrs X’s housing application accurately. However, this did not cause Mrs X an injustice as she did not miss out on a housing allocation as a result. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council assessed Mrs X’s medical priority.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council deciding not to take planning enforcement action against a window inserted at a property next to the complainant’s home. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to have contacted us sooner, and there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of Mr Y the Council used the wrong date for the start of the period to challenge a Penalty Charge Notice by making formal representations. Mr X says this meant the Council would not accept any representations made by Mr Y as it said he was too late. We have found fault in the Council’s actions for failing to allow Mr Y’s representations. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr Y, allow him to make representations to appeal the Notice, repay him the £205 he paid and make service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the increased cost of the Council’s high hedge complaint service since 2016. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now.

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council handled his concerns after it issued a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN). Mr X said this distressed him and impacted him financially. There was fault in the way the Council provided incorrect information and did not fully respond to Mr X’s representations. This distressed Mr X. The Council agreed to apologise.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a moving traffic penalty charge notice as Mr X is not caused injustice from it that would warrant us recommending a financial remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with planning applications. This is because the complainant has not suffered significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the content of a Public Spaces Protection Order because Mr X had a right to take the matter to court. We will not investigate the process by which the Council made the order because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not fulfilling commitments it made to Ms X when she moved to a new property. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a delay assessing her child’s needs. The Council has now started its assessment, so it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mr B complained the Council delayed accepting a duty to house him and in providing him with accommodation, confused his application with his brother’s, suspended his housing register application and placed him in the wrong band. The Council wrongly registered Mr B’s homeless application in his brother’s name, failed to consider its discretionary power to provide interim accommodation, delayed providing temporary accommodation, delayed lifting the suspension on the housing register application and delayed referring his case to the medical adviser. That left Mr B with uncertainty about

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment process and its decision not to her issue her child with an EHC Plan. There is a right of appeal to a tribunal which it is reasonable for her to use.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the information provided to the complainant about the Right to Buy process when she accepted a tenancy of a Council property. This is because we cannot investigate complaints about the Council acting in its role as a registered social housing provider.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council dealt with her housing application and medical assessment. The Council was at fault for failing to explain the reasons for its decision, failing to evidence it had considered all of the medical evidence and failing to consider if Mrs X was homeless. This caused Mrs X uncertainty about whether the Council had completed the assessment process properly. The Council will apologise, complete a new medical assessment, consider if Mrs X is homeless and make a payment to her to remedy the injustice caused.