LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning application. This is because the complainant has used their right to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her neighbour’s planning application. This is because the complaint is late and I have seen no good reasons to exercise our discretion to investigate it.

Summary: There was no fault in how the Council decided the level of grant funding to provide personal care businesses, under its discretionary restart grant scheme. It was for the Council to devise the scheme and it has applied it properly. The complainant also says she was given misleading information by the Council, but we have ended our investigation of this point, because it would be disproportionate to continue it.

Summary: The Council was at fault when it incorrectly advised Mr X about the type of licence needed for his new business. The Council has agreed to pay Mr X £300 in recognition of avoidable frustration and raised expectations caused by this fault. The Council has also agreed to our service improvement recommendation.

Summary: Mr X complains about planning permission for lighting opposite his house. We will not investigate this complaint because the matter is out of time and there is no evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to take action against the developer of his property in relation to a retaining wall he believes is dangerous. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint the Council’s tree fell on their property causing damage which the Council has refused to pay for. Mr and Mrs X can reasonably use their legal remedy at court if they believe the Council is at fault.

Summary: We will not investigate how the Council’s Monitoring Officer considered a complaint about the conduct of a councillor. It is unlikely an investigation would find fault affected the Monitoring Officer’s decision to take no further action. Any unreasonable delay in considering the complainant has not caused the complainant injustice that warrants our involvement.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council unfairly refused his application for a COVID-19 business grant because his home address is outside the Council area, and this caused financial hardship. The Council’s published grant criteria required businesses to be located in and operating within the council area and because Mr X is a market trader without a fixed business address his home address was used. There is no fault in the Council’s decision to refuse the grant as it based its decision on the published eligibility criteria.