LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s investigation into a complaint Mr X made to it about his employer following an attack which took place against him on business premises by a member of the public. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation and 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 this complaint about maintenance works because the courts are better placed to consider the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for her neighbour’s rear extension and dormer. The injustice caused to Miss X by the planning decision and the neighbouring development is not sufficient to warrant us investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has not removed oil from the road outside the complainant’s home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council publicised a planning application for a fence on a sports field, which it later approved. He also complained about noise from balls hitting the fence. The Council was not at fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of a planning application. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The alleged fault has not yet caused a significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. This is because it is not yet possible to determine if the complainant has suffered significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to maintain an overgrown site near Mrs X’s property. This is because her injustice is financial loss (as she says she had to replace a garden fence and buy weedkiller to treat growth affecting her garden). It is reasonable for the complainant to take her claim to court to decide the Council’s liability.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council telling Mr X he does not qualify for home insulation funding. This is because the complaint is made late and there are not good reasons to investigate now.

Summary: We find fault in the way the Council provided its assisted bin collection services to the complainant’s (Mr Y) late sister-in-law (Mrs X). Mr Y was supporting Mrs X in her dealings with the Council. Failings with the Council’s assisted bin collection service caused him injustice. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mr Y for the distress as well as time and trouble and to implement service improvements

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council wrongly advised her about a planning matter. This is because we cannot achieve any worthwhile outcome by investigating the matter further.

Summary: Ms B complained about the quality of work carried out by a contractor as part of a Disabled Facilities Grant. She says poor work by the contractor and a lack of action by the Council meant the adaptations were delayed and her health was negatively affected. We did not find fault with the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient injustice to justify an investigation. Further, investigation will not lead to a different outcome as the Council has already provided an appropriate remedy.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly determine a planning application and failed to consider planning breaches and nuisances at the site. We did not investigate the way the planning decision was reached. We did investigate enforcement and environmental health issues. We found no fault by the Council. We also found no fault in the Council invoking its vexatious complainant policy.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council repeatedly missed his garden waste collections. There is fault by the Council and it has agreed to refund the collection fee to Mr X, make a payment for time and trouble and ensure any future missed collections are investigated properly and resolved in a timely manner.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that his car was damaged after hitting a bin which was left on the road by Council refuse collectors. This is because it is reasonable for Mr B to pursue his compensation claim by taking the Council to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to maintain a highway verge outside Mrs X’s home. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council’s enforcement agent continues to pursue him for a council tax debt and the Council refuses to cancel all or most of the debt. We cannot achieve what Mr X wants. There is no fault in the Council’s request to Mr X that he supplies a financial form so it can assess his current ability to pay. The Council will also assess any application by Mr X for council tax relief or an exemption.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council failing to stop residents leaving their bins on an access road next to a house he owns. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its decision not to take action, or sufficient personal injustice to Mr X caused by the matter, to warrant us investigating.

Mr X complains about the Council’s grant of planning permission to a neighbour. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council and the matter is out of time.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint that the Council has shown support for Ukraine but not other countries affected by war. This is because the alleged fault has not caused Ms B a significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about unsafe tree cutting work undertaken by the Council. This is because Mr B has not suffered an injustice and an investigation would not add to the Council’s own investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about Council‑owned trees near his business premises. The core claimed injustice from Mr X’s complaint is a claim of damage caused by the trees to the premises. Property damage claims are matters for the Council’s insurers, and ultimately for the courts to decide if insurers deny liability. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in the timing of its tree works, or fault or sufficient injustice caused to Mr X by the works done, to warrant investigation.

Summary: We upheld part of Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s funding for a disabled facilities grant to adapt his home for his son. The Council failed to consider whether it should pay a discretionary grant towards the work. This created uncertainty for Mr X about whether more funding should have been available. The Council agreed to apologise and consider Mr X’s request for discretionary funding.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council repeatedly failed to collect his recycling bins. As a result, Mr X had to make several reports and complaints to the Council. We found the Council was at fault as it did not collect Mr X’s recycling bin in line with its published policy and it failed to properly investigate his complaint. We recommend the Council apologise to Mr X, make a payment for time and trouble, carry out a period of monitoring on his recycling collections and take action to improve its complaints investigations.