LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his neighbour’s planning application. This is because the Council’s decision does not cause Mr X significant personal injustice.

Summary: Mr D complains about informal planning advice provided by the Council. The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation because it is unlikely he would find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s response to her reports of noise from the flat above. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council responded to warrant us investigating. There is no different outcome to now be achieved from investigating how the Council updated Ms X about its formal action, or whether it took all steps during that action. Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s housing department are outside jurisdiction. We do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling when we are not investigating the issues which gave rise to the complain

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the suitability of the Council’s provision of homeless accommodation in 2019. The complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that it has no duty to provide housing assistance to a homeless woman. This is because the woman has a right of appeal to the county court about the Council’s decision.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the representations process for a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because Ms Y has already appealed to the London Tribunals, and we could not separate the injustice Ms Y claims or hold the Council responsible for it.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about her child no longer living with her. We cannot investigate matters which a Court considered.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Miss X’s housing application. The complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Miss X could not have complained to us sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered taking enforcement action to require the complaints neighbour to remove a satellite dish from their property. Further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council’s decision to increase parking charges based on emissions was unfair. He says it affects the lower paid. We have not found fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council consulted on traffic restrictions in its area. This is because Mrs X is not affected by the restrictions and her carers can register with the Council so they are also exempt.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to sell the complainant land. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with the complainants request. Other elements of the complaint happened too long ago, and I see no good reason to exercise discretion and investigate them now. If the complainant believes the Council is responsible for significant financial loses, it would be reasonable to expect him to pursue this through the courts.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions after Ms X asked for support with her impending homelessness. That is because Ms X applied to the Court to judicially review the Council, therefore this complaint is outside of our jurisdiction.

Summary: The Ombudsman found fault by the Council on Miss H’s complaint of it failing to place her and her young son in suitable temporary accommodation when they were homeless. The Council accepts it: missed appointments; failed to act to increase ventilation; failed to correctly identify and promptly resolve an issue with her accommodation; failed to consider alternative options sooner. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Miss B’s complaint about the Council’s children’s services department in the 1990s. There is nothing we could achieve which would make things better for Miss B or for other people in the same situation.

Summary: Miss X complained about the support the Council provided when she was moving home. Miss X also complained the Council refused to carry out a review of her care plan. Miss X says this has affected her mental and physical health. We find fault with the Council for a delay in reviewing Miss X’s care plan, and for failing to properly co-ordinate during her move. We recommend the Council apologise to Miss X and make a payment for distress and uncertainty.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to enforce a planning condition requiring translucent glazing which has resulted in overlooking and a loss of privacy to Ms Y’s property. The Council’s failure to properly consider the details submitted to discharge the planning condition and the approval of clear rather than translucent glazing is fault. This fault has caused Ms Y an injustice.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to enforce a planning condition requiring translucent glazing which has resulted in overlooking and a loss of privacy to Mr and Mrs Y’s property. The Council’s failure to properly consider the details submitted to discharge the planning condition and the approval of clear rather than translucent glazing is fault. This fault has not caused Mr and Mrs Y a significant injustice.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to enforce a planning condition requiring translucent glazing which has resulted in overlooking and a loss of privacy to Ms Y’s property. The Council’s failure to properly consider the details submitted to discharge the planning condition and the approval of clear rather than translucent glazing is fault. This fault has not caused Ms Y a significant injustice.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to enforce a planning condition requiring translucent glazing which has resulted in overlooking and a loss of privacy to Mr Y and Ms Z’s property. The Council’s failure to properly consider the details submitted to discharge the planning condition and the approval of clear rather than translucent glazing is fault. This fault has not caused Mr Y and Ms Z a significant injustice.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to enforce a planning condition requiring translucent glazing which has resulted in overlooking and a loss of privacy to Mr and Mrs Y’s property. The Council’s failure to properly consider the details submitted to discharge the planning condition and the approval of clear rather than translucent glazing is fault. This fault has not caused Mr and Mrs Y a significant injustice.

Summary: The investigation into this complaint is discontinued. The Council acknowledged fault in the way it dealt with requests for social care support for Mr Y, apologised and took steps to remedy the situation before the complaint came to this office. Any further investigation by this office could not achieve more.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a footpath. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate the council’s complaint handling where we are not investigating the substantive issue.

Summary: Mr X complained about errors in the way the Council has dealt with his homelessness application. The delays and errors in the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s homelessness application amount to fault. This fault has caused Mr X an injustice.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council was at fault in the way it financially assessed her uncle, Mr Y for contributions towards care home fees. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council carried out a financial assessment on Mr Y, notified Ms X of the charges and pursued her for unpaid contributions as Mr Y’s attorney. So we have completed our investigation.