LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on a report of a breach of planning control. There is not enough evidence of fault in the decision-making process. And we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused to include two of his children on his housing register application and failed to consider exercising its discretion to do so. There is no evidence the Council considered whether to exercise discretion to include the two children. An apology to Mr X, further consideration of his case and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: X complained they were misled by the Council when they submitted a request for pre-application advice before making their planning application to demolish a barn and build a new house. X said that, because of this, they incurred greater costs which the Council should pay. We found no fault in the way the Council has acted.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council handled Ms X’s allegation that a councillor failed to declare a pecuniary interest. This is because we cannot investigate allegations of criminal activities.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to end its duty to provide interim accommodation for him because there is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making to justify our involvement. We will not investigate its decision he is intentionally homeless because he has review and appeal rights and it is reasonable for him to exercise those rights.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision that he did not have a local connection because that decision was in line with its allocation scheme. Since the complaint to us, the Council has exercised discretion to waive the usual criteria and further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax liability because there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded, after it admitted damaging Mrs X’s hedge. Only a court can determine liability and it would be reasonable for Mrs X to make a claim to the Council’s insurers in the first instance and then pursue her claim through the courts if necessary.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to increase public parking charges in its area. This is because we cannot, by law, investigate a complaint where the issues raised affect all or most of the people living in a councils area. In any event, there is insufficient evidence of the complainant being caused a sufficient level of personal injustice and the evidence suggests it would be reasonable to challenge the Council’s decision in court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in dealing with Ms X’s reports of noise nuisance from bottle banks sited close to her home. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his code of conduct complaint against Councillor Y and its refusal to accept a self-referral complaint. Based on the evidence seen so far there was no fault in how the Council’s monitoring officer investigated the complaint or in its decision not to accept the self-referral. However, there were significant delays in concluding the investigation and reaching a decision which caused Mr X frustration. It should apologise to Mr X and make a symbolic payment to recognise that frustration.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of a planning application for a large scale energy development, including its interpretation of policies and she said it misadvised the Planning Committee, affecting how the Committee considered the application. We did not find fault with the Council with these concerns. We found fault with the Council’s complaint handling, and it has agreed to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, about the fact the Council has not designated an area as a nature reserve, and has not taken enforcement action against a developer for an alleged breach of planning permission. This is because we could not add to the Council’s responses to these complaints, and because there is no significant injustice to the complainant we could seek to remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s management of its property. This is because we cannot investigate complaints about the management of social housing by a council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a flood bund conditioned by planning permission for a housing development close to Mr X’s home. This is because the complaint is a late complaint and so outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application for a development at a site near to Ms Y’s property causing distress and impact onto her amenity. We found no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it considered the planning application. We found the fault in the way the Council responded to Ms Y’s complaints about the matter. We have suggested a suitable remedy in this case and so have completed our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an application for discretionary housing payments. We would not be able to establish a direct link between the Council’s actions and any damage to Mr X’s health.

Summary: We did not find fault with the way the Council investigated Mrs X’s reported noise nuisance and breach of planning control.

Summary: Ms X complains about her neighbour’s claim of adverse possession of land. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because this is a private matter and there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the plans submitted with an application to amend a planning permission were inaccurate and misleading. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The alleged fault is unlikely to have affected the planning outcome, so it has not caused the complainant a significant injustice.