LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council granting planning permission for a development involving the raising of land and fencing next to the complainant’s home. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault affecting the outcome, the Council has taken appropriate action to address the lack of communication, and there is another body better placed to consider the complainant’s concerns about the Council’s response to her subject access requests.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant cannot join the housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council’s enforcement agent was at fault in visiting twice, demanding more money than he owed, and clamping his vehicle. The Council’s agent has already accepted it was at fault, apologised and paid £75. The Council has agreed to pay Mr X an additional £225 which is a fair outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with smells from a neighbouring property. This is because we cannot investigate the actions of a Council when it is acting as a landlord. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council’s Environmental Health team considered the matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a public right of way. That is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to the issues the complainant raised. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision about her mother’s care and it is not unreasonable to expect the complainant to go to court if she wishes to challenge the Council’s decisions.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to charge him for the non-residential care he receives. The Council was not at fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Council’s safeguarding investigation. There is not a good reason Mr Y did not complain to us sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Council’s safeguarding investigation. There is not a good reason Mr X did not complain to us sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with two planning applications for development on a private road where Mr X lives. This is because Mr X has not been caused an injustice as a result of how the Council dealt with the first application and there is no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision to grant planning permission for the second application.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to properly consider her application for Discretionary Housing Payment, causing her to fall into rent arrears. We found the Council did not properly consider a recent change in Miss X’s circumstances when assessing her application and in its later review. The Council agreed to apologise, reconsider Miss X’s application, and if it changes its decision, pay Miss X a financial remedy for avoidable uncertainty. The Council also agreed to issue reminders to its staff and review its application form.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to take legal action against the complainant, and how it plans to review the decision. This is because the matter has been subject to court proceedings which places it outside of our jurisdiction.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused two COVID-19 Test and Trace payments. Since the complaint to us, the Council has reviewed the applications and made the payments. We have therefore ended this investigation on the basis there is now no worthwhile outcome we can achieve.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to consider the impact of her neighbour’s extension on her home when it granted planning permission. The Council failed to keep a record of the reasons for its decision and publish this on its website. The Council has agreed to pay Ms X £100 and apologise for the unnecessary time and trouble caused. The Council should also take action to improve its services. We will not investigate this complaint as the Council has agreed to provide a remedy and there is nothing further we can achieve.

Summary: Mr B complained about the Council’s failure to consider backdating a Discretionary Housing Payment and review the amount it awarded. We did not find fault in how the Council considered the amount to award Mr B. However, we found fault in the Council’s failure to consider Mr B’s application to backdate his payment which caused him inconvenience. The Council agreed to reconsider Mr B’s request for a backdated payment to address the injustice.

Summary: Miss X said the Council failed to investigate her complaint about the smell caused by clinical waste bins from a neighbouring care home. We have seen nothing to indicate the Council knew about Miss X’s concerns before she complained to the Ombudsman. The Council was not at fault. However, the Council’s failure to consider Miss X’s complaint under the Environmental Protection Act after we told it of her concerns was fault. This caused Miss X avoidable frustration. The Council has since taken action to remedy the injustice.