LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to Mrs X’s concerns about a neighbours business. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The Council was not at fault with its handling of a planning application, at a site opposite Mr X’s family home.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against development near his home that he described as an eyesore. We found the Council at fault for imposing an unenforceable condition on the development planning permission. The Council also lacked transparency in communicating with Mr X about its later planning enforcement investigation. To address the distress Mr X was caused by the Council’s faults, it agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment.

Summary: X complained about the Council’s decision relating to development on land next to a woodland protected by a Tree Preservation Order. We found fault in the way the Council made its decision. The Council will apologise for the injustice caused to X and for it to review its practices and procedures to avoid the same fault happening again.

Summary: Miss X complained about access works and a wet room installed under a disabled facilities grant. We have ended our investigation as it is unlikely we would find fault with the works to the access and further investigation is unlikely to lead to a worthwhile outcome. Flooding has led to the replacement of the wet room by Miss X’s insurers and any claim for damages is best resolved through the insurers or court.

Summary: We cannot by law investigate this complaint about court and enforcement action taken by the Council in respect of alledged unpaid council tax. This is because the issues have been subject to legal proceedings in the magistrates’ court. We have no legal jurisdiction to investigate in such circumstances.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions on reports of anti-social behaviour. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. And we consider that further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to maintain trees properly. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement case. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to have contacted us sooner in relation to the earlier events, there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the planning enforcement decision was reached, and the Council has now taken appropriate action in response to the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council did not make reasonable adjustments for him. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s Tree Preservation Order (TPO) process from over 15 years ago. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to investigate it now. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in the way it has responded to Mrs X’s concerns about the impacts on her property and family of the privately‑owned tree to warrant an investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to carry out agreed tree works. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part causing injustice to the complainant.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils decision to grant planning permission for a retrospective application. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning application.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his request for an Additional Restrictions Grant, causing him financial loss, distress and wasted time. We found fault in the Council’s communications causing injustice. We recommended the Council apologise to Mr X, consider a late grant application and take action to improve its services.