LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about what happened before a council tax summons. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in responding to Miss X’s request for a single person council tax discount. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to result in a different outcome for Miss X.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to provide her household with an additional general waste bin. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate how the Council dealt with a complaint about the election of a parish councillor as, in part, it is unlikely we will find fault, and the organisation of elections is outside our remit.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s maintenance of a watercourse near Mrs Y’s home. Mrs Y has a legal remedy for her substantive complaints through the courts, and it is reasonable to expect her to do this.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council demolished a garage he rented in its area without notice. This is because the Council already apologised, refunded part of his rent, and paid him a £50 symbolic payment. An investigation is unlikely to achieve anything further, and the remaining injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

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

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about events around the Council issuing a community protection warning. This is mainly because any injustice is unlikely to be significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council considered a policy affecting open spaces. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Additionally, there is not enough significant personal injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about changes to the licence conditions at a park home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s maintenance of a social housing property as this matter is not within our legal remit.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax banding. This is because we cannot investigate the banding decision made by the Valuation Office Agency and the Council is not at fault for using the band decided by the Valuation Office Agency.

Summary: Mr X complained that the Council has failed to establish an effective and legal dog control on two areas of land in its area and has failed to enforce the Public Spaces Protection Order in place. We found the Council was at fault in only allowing consultation responses on the proposed variation of the PSPO to be submitted online. However, this did not cause Mr X an injustice as he submitted comments.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s actions regarding a hedge next to a property he owns. There is insufficient significant ongoing personal injustice to him from the matters complained of to warrant us investigating. Investigation would also not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to take enforcement action against the complainant. This is because the complainant had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s response to his reports of a breach of planning control and poor communication. The Council was not at fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council publishing the complainant’s personal information on its website. This is because the complainant has already complained to the Information Commissioner, who is best placed to deal with these matters. It would be reasonable for the complainant to pursue his claim for compensation through the courts. We cannot investigate the complainant’s concerns about how the Council dealt with his planning application. This is because he has already appealed to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: The Council’s failure to take a homeless application from Mr X in June 2021 was fault. The Council was not at fault for refusing Mr X’s applications for Discretionary Housing Payments. The Council has already remedied its fault in failing to contact Mr X about his application to the housing register. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Mr X £500, and take action to improve its service.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about exemption from council tax as this can be appealed to a Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of matters relating to land it owns which runs adjacent to Mr X’s property. This is because an investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this housing benefit complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the complainant could use his review and appeal rights.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in progressing the complainant’s Right to Buy application. This is because it is reasonable for him to use the Notice of Delay procedure, and if needed, take the matter to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to take enforcement action against a food business. This is because it is reasonable to expect the complainant to have used their right of appeal to the magistrates courts.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to damage to the complainant’s property caused by badger activity. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about court costs for council tax arrears. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.