LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a new development near Mrs X’s home. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused COVID-19 business grants and gave him incorrect advice. The Council initially refused a Restart grant for an incorrect reason but this fault did not cause Mr X an injustice because it reconsidered the application when he challenged its original decision.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council told her it would build a ground floor extension to provide suitable facilities for her disabled son, Mr Z, and then changed its mind and failed to respond to her telephone calls. The Council assessed Mr Z’s case without fault and made suitable recommendations. There is no evidence it told Mrs X it would build an extension. There was some delay in communicating its recommendations to Mrs X but this did not cause her an injustice.

Summary: Mrs D complains about planning advice provided by the Council. The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant further investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council reduced his direct payments following a review it carried out in 2018 without giving proper reasons for doing so. Mr X said this caused him distress and negatively affected his standard of living. Based on the evidence there was no fault in the Council’s initial decision to reduce Mr X’s care package. There was fault in the Council’s delay carrying out Mr X’s 2019 needs review however, this did not cause Mr X a significant injustice.

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 Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s actions in response to his reports of driving and parking in a local park, and drivers parking over pedestrian areas in a local street car park. Even if there has been fault in the Council’s response and decisions here, the matters do not cause Mr X a significant personal injustice which justify us investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint the Council is holding Mr X liable to pay council tax on a property he owns and seeking to recover the debt. It is reasonable for Mr X to use or have used his right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s engagement with a community group of which Mr X is a member. This is because it is too late to consider past events now and because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault with the Council’s current position sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s practices regarding the provision of halal food in schools. This is because the law prevents us from investigating complaints about what happens in schools.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council wrongly refused COVID-19 business grants, causing financial hardship. There was fault in the way the Council considered whether the business was a restaurant or takeaway. It also failed to consider whether the fact the business operated from a food court meant it was eligible for a Restart grant even if the business was deemed to be a takeaway. It should apologise, pay Mrs X £300 for the uncertainty and additional time and trouble she was put to, and reconsider her Restart grant application.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about nuisance caused by waste bins placed near Ms X’s window. This is because the Council is continuing to consider the matter and whether it has any legal remit to become involved.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Citizen’s Advice as they are not a body within jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a building control matter. This is because it is unlikely we could achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly investigate and take action regarding a noise nuisance caused by a nearby sports facility. We have found the Council to be at fault but dealt with this appropriately by installing double glazing, apologising and making an offer of payment to Mr X. This is a suitable remedy for the injustice suffered. We therefore propose completing this investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s adoption and maintenance of a strip of land since the 1970’s. There is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker who produced a Section 7 report. This is because the report formed part of court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with planning applications for development next to the complainant’s home. Part of the complaint is late. The remainder does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decided which complaints to investigate.

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. The complainant has also not suffered significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. This is because there is no fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to take action against his neighbour to tidy up their property. This is because the complaint is late and the matter does not cause Mr X significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to provide the complainant with information about what it has said to his ex-wife. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused a COVID-19 business grant, which added to the financial difficulties his business suffered during the pandemic. The Council was at fault for taking too long to make its decision and did not fully explain its reasons, causing injustice to Mr X for which it should apologise.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed paying him a COVID-19 business grant and wrongly refused other COVID-19 business grants, which added to the financial difficulties the business suffered as a result of the pandemic. The Council was at fault for a delay in reconsidering one of the grants after Mr X appealed and for not addressing the additional information Mr X provided at that stage. This caused Mr X injustice, for which the Council should apologise.