LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s maintenance of a tree near his property. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant an investigation. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s internal complaint process in isolation, as we are not investigating the core issue which gave rise to the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to consider a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) appeal. It would be reasonable for the complainant to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre to reinstate his appeal rights at the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. The complaint is also late and there is no good reason to investigate it now.

Summary: Ms X complains that the Council did not take account of her fluctuating needs when it assessed her care needs. There was fault by the Council because it did not provide her with information she requested as a reasonable adjustment, despite a commitment to do so. However, we do not find this fault caused a significant injustice that warrants a remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about work the Council carried out on Mr X’s home in 2008. This is because we cannot carry out an effective investigation into what happened due to the time that has passed.

Summary: Mr B complains that there was fault in the way the Council granted planning permission for his neighbour to extend the neighbouring property. The Council did not keep adequate records of the representations received from Mr B, and there was delay in responded to his complaint. However, the Ombudsman has not found that this affected the Council’s consideration of the application, so we cannot question the merits of the Council’s decision to grant planning permission.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions concerning Miss X’s children. The matters complained of are not separable from ongoing court action about where her children should live.

Summary: Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council was at fault in relation to Ms B’s complaints about the provision of handwriting support and that its handling of part of Ms B’s complaint to the Council was avoidably delayed. It will apologise to Ms B.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a large storage facility on land near her home, which she feels affects her amenities. There was some fault in the way the Council made its decision (which it had already agreed to remedy) but this did not cause a significant injustice to Mrs X.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a large storage facility on land near her home. Ms X said the new building is large and affects her amenity. We found fault because the wording of a planning policy document is unclear and ambiguous. In addition to an apology to Ms X for any confusion that may have been caused, we have recommended that the Council should review the document and correct it as necessary. It should also review its document checking processes to avoid similar faults in future.

Summary: The complainant, supported by her advocate, complained that the Council failed to provide alternative education to her daughter when she was unable to attend her primary school because of her medical needs. We do not find fault. But the Council has agreed to consider a fresh complaint about the alleged delay in completing the daughter’s Education, Health and Care Plan. We are therefore closing the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delays in investigating possible breaches of planning control. This is because the Council has agreed to pay Mr X and Mrs Y £200 to acknowledge the unnecessary time and trouble they were caused as a result of the delays. This is a suitable remedy and so there is no need for us to investigate this complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of an enforcement matter relating to her neighbour’s property. This is because there is no evidence of fault. The injustice Ms X claims stems from the Council’s decisions on her neighbour’s planning applications and any complaints about the decisions are late. There is also no evidence of fault in the more recent decision. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision on her planning application and the enforcement action it has taken against her as it would be reasonable for her to appeal.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because the matter has been considered in court and because it is a late complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to revoke the complainants’ high priority on the housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s planning decision. We found fault because there was an inconsistency between the Council’s statement of community involvement document and its delegation scheme, which the Council has agreed to remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s level of street cleaning and weeding. This is because the complaint is late with no good reason to investigate it now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to monitor whether defects in the highway are causing Mr X’s garage to flood. That is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant further investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of matters relating to Mr X’s care. This is because the complaint is a late complaint and the matters complained about happened too long ago to be investigated now.