LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his reports of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour from his neighbours. This is because his complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault, and an investigation would not lead to any worthwhile outcomes.

Summary: There is no fault in an email to Ms X putting two options to resolve a dispute between her and a relative about her mother’s finances. We have ended the investigation of other complaints for two reasons. Firstly, the Council has apologised and offered an appropriate symbolic payment to reflect Ms X’s avoidable distress and we could achieve nothing further by investigating. Secondly, we cannot achieve the outcome Ms X’s seeks because the Council is not responsible for managing her mother’s finances. So we would not recommend it reimburses her.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of matters relating to damage caused by Mr X’s private tenant. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a social worker. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the conduct of a Council social worker because it is late.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to Ms X’s concerns relating to water runoff from her neighbour’s garden into her garden. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about public toilets. That is because the toilets are not the responsibility of the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to a member conduct complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant seeks. In addition, any injustice to the complainant from this member conduct matter is not sufficient to justify our further involvement and we cannot achieve the outcome he seeks.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to allow an event in a public park. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to have used his right of appeal to court.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about damage to his property. This is because it does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to go to court to determine the Council’s liability for the damage to his property.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council deciding to apply a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to her property, not changing its decision, and how it handled her complaint. Mrs X had a right of appeal to challenge the CIL liability decision to the Planning Inspectorate which it was reasonable for her to have used. In any event, there would not be enough evidence of Council fault leading to the CIL liability to warrant an investigation. We do not investigate council complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council misled him when he made an application to a court about its involvement with his adult son’s education. This is because it was reasonable for Mr X to raise the matter with the courts.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council charging her mother for care and support which was not needed. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: Mr F complains about the homecare provided to his mother and that the Council referred him to the office of the public guardian. We found no fault.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about interim education provision or the Council’s use of an Education Psychologist report. Mr X has used his right to appeal to the SEND Tribunal and these are matters which are linked to his appeal and can be considered there. We will not investigate his complaint about the Council’s use of its unreasonable customer policy. It is unlikely we would find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about BID charges and Business Rates liability because this is a matter for the Valuation Office Agency, a public body out of jurisdiction. Further any liability issues are for the court and there is a right of appeal to a Planning Inspector against planning delay.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to change a section 106 planning agreement which restricts Ms X’s ability to sell her affordable home. This is because there is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsman previously found fault in the actions of the Council and recommended a remedy which the Council agreed to deliver. Mrs B complains that, almost four months after the Ombudsman’s decision was made, the Council had still not provided the agreed remedy. There was fault and the Council has agreed to deliver the remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s lack of planning enforcement action. We consider further investigation will not lead to a different outcome at this time.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s Council Tax account. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council tax bill Mrs X says she is not liable for. This is because Mrs X has a right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal, and it would be reasonable for her to use it.

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: We will not investigate this complaint about Footpath maintenance because it is late without good reasons for us to exercise discretion to investigate it now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning application. This is because the complainant had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s planning advice service. This is because the Council has provided a suitable remedy for its delay and it is unlikely investigation would achieve anything more for her. If Mrs X wants a binding decision on her proposal she may wish to apply for planning permission and if the Council refuses her application it would be reasonable for her to appeal.