LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s actions related to historical council tax arrears. Part of the complaint is late and there is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision to take recovery action.

Summary: We will not investigate how the Council dealt with a councillor conduct complaint as it does not cause the complainant a level of injustice that would justify our further involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing the complainant’s planning application. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to have used her right of appeal against the decision, and there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the proposal.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her council tax arrears. The Council has upheld her complaint and acted to remedy the injustice caused. It is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about difficulties the complainant had setting up a new direct debit to pay his council tax. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice.

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

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council responded to her reports of disrepair in her private rented accommodation. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council wrongly set up a Council Tax account in her name, and instructed enforcement agents to collect the debt. We have concluded our investigation having made a finding of fault by the Council. The Council failed to recall the debt from the Enforcement Agent, resulting in the agent continuing to pursue the debt from Mrs X. The Council and Enforcement Agent has made a remedy payment to Mrs X and we consider this proportionate in the circumstances. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Ms X’s complaint about anti-social behaviour by a neighbour. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to allow Mr X a discount on a fee for a landlord licence as there is insufficient evidence of Council fault causing an injustice to Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of public comments on a planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax for a second home. This is because it is a late complaint and because the complainant could have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. The Council has already upheld the complaint and agreed to remedy the complainant’s injustice. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would therefore not be proportionate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council worked with a community group to create a new park. This is because the events happened too long ago and I see no reason why the complaint could not have been made sooner.

Summary: Mr X complained, on behalf of company A, about the way the Council applied relevant guidance when deciding the company was not eligible for expanded retail discount. The refusal added to the financial difficulties the company suffered as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Council was at fault for a delay in sending a written decision with reasons, for which it will apologise. It was also at fault for a long delay in responding to the complaint, for which it has already apologised.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly communicate with her father in-law, Mr Y, in relation to his housing benefits debt. The Council was at fault. It did not inform Mr Y when he had cleared his debt which resulted in him overpaying the debt he owed. This caused Mr Y significant distress. The Council has already put measures in place to prevent a recurrence of fault. However, the Council has agreed it will apologise to Mr Y and pay him £300 to acknowledge the distress the matter caused him.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council held the complainant liable for damage to stock after an incident at a market. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about wrongly being issued with a fixed penalty notice for incorrect waste disposal. This is because the complainant can raise their defence in the magistrates court under the penalty notice enforcement procedure.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council was inappropriately seeking to recover a COVID-19 business grant paid to his business in April 2020. The Council paid the grant in error. This was fault for which it should apologise. It was not at fault for seeking to recover the grant.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council wants her to repay a business grant it awarded her. She said the Council did not properly consider her evidence, and will not let her repay it in instalments. Mrs X said the situation made her ill, caused her to lose sleep, and caused a financial strain on her and her family. We find the Council at fault, and the fault caused Mrs X injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and make a fresh decision considering all of the relevant evidence.