LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the suitability of temporary accommodation offered to a homeless applicant and its subsequent decision to discharge its homelessness duty. It was reasonable for Miss X to ask for a review of the suitability before she was evicted on two occasions. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation of the decision to discharge the homelessness duty.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions to address private housing disrepair. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Summary: Miss F complained about the way the Council dealt with her homelessness application and placed her in unsuitable accommodation. We found fault. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Miss F £600 to remedy distress and being in unsuitable B&B for two weeks longer than she should have been. It will also make a service improvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to provide homelessness support because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council administered a grant. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the application to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Ms X’s council tax query. This is because the tests in our Assessment Code are not met and there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax support as the matter is out of time and there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council did not divert the housing benefit to the complainant, as the landlord, even though the complainant reported that her tenants were in rent arrears. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: There is no fault by the Council in how it handled planning matters at a development near Mr B’s home.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s planning records. We do not consider the complainant has suffered sufficient personal injustice to warrant our involvement.

Summary: Mr C and Ms D complained the Council did not do enough to support their disabled son with housing. We upheld the complaint, finding the Council at fault for its response to correspondence from their MP in June 2019. We also found more should have been done to consider Mr C’s potential vulnerability when the Council instructed agents to collect council tax debt. These faults caused injustice to both parents including that of distress. The Council accepts these findings and has agreed action it will take to remedy the injustice, set out at the end of this statement. We make recommendati

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of building development and fencing erected by a neighbour. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to end an agreement with a local sports centre for shared sports facilities. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the decision was made and investigation could not achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her housing application. The Council was at fault. There was delay in the Council completing a medical assessment and poor communication which caused Miss X frustration. The Council has offered a remedy for some of the injustice caused. We further recommend the Council apologises, reminds officers of their duty to communicate decisions about residents’ housing applications, and provides an update on its progress towards more timely medical assessments.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to Mr X’s request for information about the turning off of his water supply for a day. This is because neither the fault by the Council nor the injustice caused to Mr X is sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mr and Mrs B complain the Council has not taken enforcement action to ensure the site owner does work to the base on which their mobile home is installed. They have also applied to a Tribunal to determine what action the site owner should take. I have decided to exercise our discretion not to investigate this complaint. The Tribunal is better placed to provide the remedy and for the Ombudsman to also investigate the matter would not be a good use of public resources.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions relating to a planning application in the village where the complainant lives. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement. Nor do we consider the complainant has suffered significant, personal injustice.

Summary: Mr D complains about a street light installed near his home by the Council in 2021. The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation because further investigation of the case would not likely lead to a different outcome, and we cannot achieve the redress sought by Mr D.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement in a request for the installation of a bollard on a road outside the complainants home. I will not investigate this complaint because any fault by the Council did not cause the complainant a significant injustice.