LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide him with interim accommodation when he became homeless. We found the Council at fault for this, causing Mr X significant injustice as he had to sleep rough. We are satisfied the Council has taken appropriate and positive steps towards improvements in this area. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and make a symbolic payment to acknowledge his injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the condition of a Council property. We cannot investigate complaints about the management of social housing. The part of the complaint about Mrs X’s priority for rehousing needs to be put to the Council first.

this complaint about the Council’s failure to inform Miss X about changes to the Right to Buy discount implemented by the government in 2024. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not taking enforcement action following his reports of noise from the commercial premises below his flat. The Council did not identify a statutory nuisance and there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s investigation and decision-making processes to warrant us investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to backdate his council tax reduction to February 2024. We will also not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council issuing a court summons when he had not received the council tax bills. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council for us to investigate these matters.

We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council have managed his Disabled Facilities Grant application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s spending of public money as this impacts all or most of the people in the Council’s area and so is not within our legal remit.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council damaged her bin during a collection and that she had to pay for a replacement. This is because the injustice claimed is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to install bollards on the grass area where he used to park. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s introduction of new busking guidelines for the city. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to increase priority banding on his housing application. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of enforcement agents acting on behalf of the Council. This is because Mr X’s claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council has not dealt with her Disabled Facilities Grant properly. The Council is at fault because it did not communicate effectively and was not clear about the services it would provide. The Council has said it will make improvements to its service. Mrs X suffered uncertainty. The Council should apologise and pay Mrs X £100.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision in relation to her request for major adaptations to her home via a Disabled Facilities Grant. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about problems with the complainant’s garden waste renewal in 2024. This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the advice provided by the Council’s pest control service. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the Council’s garden waste collection service. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the priority band awarded by the Council on its housing register. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council has repeatedly not completed her assisted bin collections. She said her bins were regularly not emptied, causing her distress. There was fault in the way the Council did not ensure Miss X received her assisted collection. There was also fault because the Council did not ensure a suitable solution to the issues and it did not consider all factors in this case. This fault distressed Miss X. The fault also meant the contractor did not collect or return the bins in accordance with the assisted collection agreement. The Council has agreed to apologise and coll

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. It is reasonable for Miss X to ask the Council for a review of her housing application banding once her medical information has been considered.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaints about the charges for her garden waste collection or her missed bin collection. This is because the claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint about the Council not taking action about residents leaving bins on the pavement after collection day. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s priority on the housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of matters relating to a Prohibition Order served on Mr X as a private landlord. This is because the substantive issue falls outside our jurisdiction due to the availability of appeal rights against the Order to the First Tier Tribunal and because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council stalling on refunding him the cost of parking permits which were not required. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X and others similarly affected.