London Borough of Hounslow
Complaint overview
Between 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025, we dealt with 151 complaints. Of these, 49 were not for us or not ready for us to investigate. We assessed and closed 68 complaints. We investigated 34 complaints.
More about this data
Complaints dealt with – the total number of complaints and enquiries considered. It is not appropriate to investigate all of them.
Not for us – includes complaints brought to us before the council was given chance to consider it, or the complainant came to the wrong Ombudsman.
Assessed and closed – includes complaints where the law says we’re not allowed to investigate, or it would be a poor use of public funds if we did.
Investigated – we completed an investigation and made a decision on whether we found fault, or no fault.
Complaints upheld – we completed an investigation and found evidence of fault, or the organisation provided a suitable remedy early on.
Satisfactory remedies provided by the Council – the council upheld the complaint and we agreed with how it offered to put things right.
Compliance with Ombudsman recommendations – not complying with our recommendations is rare. A council with a compliance rate below 100% should scrutinise the complaints where it failed to comply and identify any learning.
Average performance rates – we compare the annual statistics of similar types of councils to work out an average level of performance. We do this for County Councils, District Councils, Metropolitan Boroughs, Unitary Councils, and London Boroughs.
For more information on understanding our statistics see Interpreting our complaints data.
Complaints dealt with
Not for us
Assessed and closed
Investigated
-
Complaints upheld
We investigated 34 complaints and upheld 26.
76% of complaints we investigated were upheld.
This compares to an average of 84% in similar authorities.
View upheld decisionsAdjusted for London Borough of Hounslow's population, this is 8.8% upheld decisions per 100,000 residents.
The average for authorities of this type is
9.1% upheld decisions per 100,000 residents. -
Satisfactory remedies provided by the Council
In 2 out of 26 upheld cases we found the Council had provided a satisfactory remedy before the complaint reached the Ombudsman.
8% satisfactory remedy rate.
This compares to an average of 12% in similar authorities.
-
Compliance with Ombudsman recommendations
We recorded compliance outcomes in 16 cases.
In 16 cases we were satisfied with the actions taken.100% compliance rate with recommendations.
This compares to an average of 100% in similar authorities.
Annual letters
We write to councils each year to give a summary of the complaint statistics we record about them,
and their performance in responding to our investigations.
Reports
The Ombudsman has published the following reports against London Borough of Hounslow
Find out more about reports
We issue reports on certain investigations, particularly where there is a wider public interest to do so. Common reasons for reports are significant injustice, systemic issues, major learning points and non-compliance with our recommendations. Issuing reports is one way we help to ensure councils are accountable to local people and highlighting the learning from complaints helps to improve services for everybody. Reports are published for 10 years.
Hounslow refusing “to do right” by homeless pregnant woman it failed
Hounslow council is refusing to offer a home to a young mother despite making a catalogue of errors which left her homeless and sofa surfing while pregnant.
Heavily pregnant woman left to ‘sofa surf’ by Hounslow council
A homeless woman left to sofa surf by London Borough of Hounslow while heavily pregnant, has been given permanent accommodation during a Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman investigation.
Man forced to sleep on sofa after London council offers inadequate support
A man with mental health problems was forced to sleep on his parents’ sofa for 18 months because London Borough of Hounslow failed to support him properly.
London council based care decision on historic needs assessment
Councils must make timely, thorough and informed assessments of people when deciding care needs, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has said.
Proper timescales must be followed when deciding homelessness applications, LGO reminds councils
Councils are being reminded to decide homeless applications promptly and effectively by the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO), following an investigation about a London council.
Service improvements
The Council has agreed to make the following improvements to its services following an Ombudsman investigation.
Find out more about service improvements
When we find fault, we can recommend improvements to systems and processes where they haven’t worked properly, so that others do not suffer from these same problems in future. Common examples are policy changes; procedural reviews; and staff training. Service improvements from decisions are published for 5 years and those from reports are published for 10 years.
The latest 10 cases are listed below – click ‘view all’ to find all service improvements.
Case reference: 24 012 404
Category: Environment and regulation
Sub Category: Antisocial behaviour
- The Council should send written reminders to relevant staff to signpost complainants to the anti-social behaviour case review process after a complainant has made a number of reports and continues to be dissatisfied with the outcome.
Case reference: 24 008 966
Category: Housing
Sub Category: Allocations
- The Council will remind relevant members of staff that when they issue a decision on a person's housing application, they must include information on that person's right of review. This must happen regardless of whether the decision is included in the Council's complaint response.
Case reference: 24 005 241
Category: Education
Sub Category: Special educational needs
- The Council has agreed to review its procedures to ensure interim/emergency reviews of Education, Health and Care Plans are arranged in a timely manner when it is clear a placement is ending and a new placement is yet to be identified.
- The Council has agreed to review how it consulted schools to identify whether any lessons can be learned particularly in relation to the better targeting of consultations for a school place, following up responses to consultations and ensuring the reasons given for refusing a place are adequately provided.
Case reference: 24 005 013
Category: Education
Sub Category: Special educational needs
- The Council agreed to decide what changes are needed to its Education, Health, and Care (EHC) Plan processes, or staff training, to ensure it has systems in place to:ensure its staff are clear about its non-delegable duty to ensure EHC Plan provision is in place;check EHC Plan provision is in place when it issues a new or substantially different EHC Plan, and properly investigate complaints or concerns that provision is not in place at any time;ensure arrangements are clear for how support from therapy services will be provided where it maintains an EHC Plan for a child that attends a school in a different council’s area; andensure effective case management of EHC Plans when staff leave and are replaced, so statutory timescales are met and issues responded to in good time.
Case reference: 23 020 264
Category: Housing
Sub Category: Allocations
- The Council has agreed to circulate our ‘Guide for Practitioners: Medical assessments for housing applications (July 2024)' to all staff involved in making decisions on medical priority;
- The Council has agreed to arrange a training session to those staff on the content of the guidance to ensure the Council:1. makes its own decisions on medical priority and does not simply adopt the medical adviser’s view;2. considers all the evidence submitted in reaching its decision; and3. provides clear reasons why a person does not qualify and why their evidence has been discounted.
- The Council has agreed to remind medical advisers that their role is to make a recommendation (not a decision) on medical priority based on the evidence provided with clear and relevant reasons.
Case reference: 23 019 692
Category: Other Categories
Sub Category: Leisure and culture
- The Council will review its Community Trigger procedure to ensure this is aligned with the relevant legislation and guidance.
Case reference: 23 016 743
Category: Adult care services
Sub Category: Other
- The Council will remind relevant officers and managers of the need to swiftly and properly investigate concerns raised about care being delivered by adult care providers acting on its behalf. This will help to ensure concerns are acted on in a timely and transparent manner.
- The Council will review its stance that quality alerts about adult care providers are not investigated when those receiving adult care delivered on behalf of the Council are hoping to move or have been placed out of the Council’s own area.
Case reference: 23 016 007
Category: Adult care services
Sub Category: Safeguarding
- Share the decision with all staff involved in safeguarding investigations to ensure lessons are learn and similar delays do not occur in the future
Case reference: 23 015 313
Category: Housing
Sub Category: Managing council tenancies
- The Council will considerand plan how it can better communicate with landlords and manage theirexpectations about when they might receive their empty property back.
Case reference: 23 013 539
Category: Housing
Sub Category: Homelessness
- The Council agreed to develop and share with the Ombudsman an action plan to ensure it can process housing register review requests within the timescales set out in its allocations policy.
- The Council agreed to ensure all relevant staff have read our practice guidance on Medical assessments for housing application.
- The Council agreed to remind relevant staff that when making decisions about medical priority :for housingit is for the Council to make the decision about priority;decision makers should not simply accept the view of the Council’s medical adviser, but should weigh all the evidence, including any medical advice, before making their own decision; andthey should ensure there is a clear record of the issues considered and how the decision was made.
Last updated: 4 April 2015