LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council failing to pay Mrs X following a county court judgement awarded in her favour. This is because Mrs X has already sought to enforce the judgement through the courts. We cannot investigate any complaint about the Council’s actions leading to the original judgement or its use of public funds to avoid payment, as these issues also fall outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms Z’s complaint about legal proceedings involving the Council. This is because the law does not allow us to investigate complaints about court action and what happened in court.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s response to allegations made against her landlord. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that Miss X can no longer bid for properties. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s homelessness application review decision. This is because Mr X had a right of appeal to the County Court and it is reasonable to expect him to have appealed. I have also not seen enough evidence of significant injustice to justify investigating the time the Council took to make its review decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a refused vehicle crossover application because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to investigate Ms X’s concerns about its actions relating to a special guardianship order. It is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s decision, not to consider it.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council not granting her permission for a new vehicle crossover, proposing an extension of her existing shared crossover, and how it dealt with her appeal. There is not enough evidence of Council fault in the decision-making process to warrant an investigation. We also cannot achieve the outcome she wants.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s recovery of a council tax debt. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Summary: The Council was at fault for not explaining its decision to start charging Ms X for the use of a storage cabin at a Council-run market. It was not at fault for applying the charge. The fault caused Ms X confusion and uncertainty.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council handled her homelessness and housing application. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation and it is reasonable for the complainant to have appealed to the County Court

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint the Council delayed in repairing a faulty boiler. The law says we cannot investigate the Council’s actions where it relates to the management of properties on a long lease.

Summary: We have upheld Miss X’s complaint because the Council’s actions meant delays in assessing her housing allocations application. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint by offering a remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a parking penalty charge notice as Mr X can appeal against it to London Tribunals and it is reasonable to expect him to do so.

penalty charge notice. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to use his right of appeal.

e have upheld Mr X’s complaint because the Council delayed considering his complaint at stage two of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s failure to repair a damaged fence at one of its properties. This is because we cannot investigate complaints about the management of social housing by a council acting as a social landlord.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Miss X’s homelessness application. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement with Miss X’s family. This is because the complaint concerns events that took place more than 12 months ago. In addition, an investigation into these matters would be unlikely to result in a worthwhile outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council failed to carry out a needs assessment or provide her with support. This is because it is unlikely we could achieve anything worthwhile because any safeguarding concerns would be investigated by the council for the area she lives in.

Summary: We have completed our investigation into how the Council dealt with Miss X’s homeless application. We find some fault because the Council delayed processing Miss X’s application and dealing with her complaint. But we are satisfied the Council has remedied the injustice caused by those faults.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council followed its safeguarding procedures. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not providing laminate flooring. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to allow him to evict a tenant from his property. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate these matters.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about a court ordered report because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been considered in court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so.