LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to take enforcement action regarding alleged breaches of planning conditions in respect of landscaping and tree planting as part of a nearby building development. Mrs X says the Council’s lack of enforcement action caused her significant avoidable frustration and stress. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to provide an apology and financial remedy to Mrs X and take steps to prevent a recurrence of the identified fault.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly confirmed a Tree Preservation Order. He said the Council did not follow the correct process to make its decision. We found there was no evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her housing register application because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of a licensing variation application as Mr X is not caused a level of injustice, from any alleged Council fault, that would warrant our involvement.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council was at fault in the way it dealt with her application for a disabled facilities grant causing distress. We found fault because the Council delayed carrying out an assessment by an occupational therapist on Mrs X for her application. The Council has accepted it was at fault and already apologised to Mrs X for the delay which is suitable action for it to take. There is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it has assessed Mrs X’s needs and drawn up proposals for adaptations at her property. So we have completed our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Miss X’s housing application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to require an unauthorised access to be closed. The complainant appealed to the Planning Inspector so the matter is therefore outside our jurisdiction. The new owner has reopened the access, but this has not caused the complainant any injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to class noise Miss X complained about as a statutory nuisance. This is because we would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council carried out an inspection and then took no further action in relation to a licence for a home boarder for dogs. It complied with relevant guidance. Any fault in how the Council then responded to Mr X’s complaints has not caused him an injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application or possible breach of planning control. This is because parts of the complaint are late, and we are unlikely to find fault in relation to the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action. The complainant has also not been caused significant injustice because of the Council’s delays. We cannot consider issues the complainant raised about her planning application as she has appealed to the Planning Inspector.

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.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of matters relating to a property she owns. We will not investigate the complaint because it is a late complaint and because Ms X had appeal rights we would reasonably have expected her to have used so placing the complaint outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly made a tree preservation order on trees which he wants felled. We cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants. It is reasonable for Mr X to apply to the Council for works on the trees. If refused, he will have a right of appeal to the planning inspector who has the power to change the Council’s decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Ms X’s housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement matter. This is because the injustice Mr X claims is not the result of any fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to properly deal with a homelessness application, resulting in a homeless man living in a caravan on the complainants land. This is because the complainant does not have consent to complain on behalf of the homeless man and the Council did not play a role in the ongoing arrangement for him to live on the complainants land, therefore we cannot find it at fault.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about the Council’s handling of their concerns about business units that neighbour their home. There was no evidence of procedural fault in the Council’s handling that allows us to question the merits of its decision-making in relation to planning enforcement and noise nuisance. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mr and Mrs X in addition to the apologies it had already made for delays in its correspondence.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of the complainant’s objections when it was determining a planning application. 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 in the way the Council reached its decision.