LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a council tax premium for a long term empty property. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Mr X can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal regarding the Council’s decision about a discretionary reduction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing a warning letter for littering. This is because the injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council acted inappropriately when it issued him with a community protection notice for anti-social behaviour. We found fault because there was an issue with the Council’s wording on the notice. This caused Mr X avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to him.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about a missed refuse collection. This is because Mrs B has not suffered a significant injustice which would justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application for the house next to Ms X’s home and about the way it dealt with her complaint. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s investigation into dust nuisance from a nearby business. The Council investigated Mr X’s concerns without fault. It was satisfied the business has taken all reasonable steps to mitigate the dust and that no statutory nuisance exists.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s policy for single sex changing rooms at a leisure centre. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, and we cannot achieve the outcome Ms X wants.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council left her family in temporary accommodation that was unsuitable, despite accepting this following a suitability review. We have concluded our investigation and found the Council at fault for allowing the family to remain in unsuitable housing for nearly five months. This caused significant disruption and distress, particularly given the family’s vulnerabilities. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a complaint about the conduct of a councillor. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council handled his homelessness and housing register applications. Mr X said he did not have the correct priority on the housing register and did not receive the homelessness assistance he should have. We found the Council at fault for closing Mr X’s homelessness application early which meant there was a delay with him receiving the correct priority on the housing register. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to make a payment to Mr X for the distress caused, backdate his priority on the housing register and carry out a service improvem

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council approving an application for a Certificate of Lawful Existing Use or Development. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council determined the application.

Summary: We will not investigate the part of this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against alleged breaches of planning control. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision. We will not investigate the part of this complaint about the content of the Enforcement Notice issued in 2019 as it is too late.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of private housing disrepair reports from his landlord. The Council has upheld the complaint and agreed to remedy Mr X’s injustice by paying him £200.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about problems with the recycling collections. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about steps in the Council’s handling of a caravan park licence application. This is because the Council has not yet issued a licence so there is not enough evidence of it being at fault, and the complainant has not yet suffered injustice which could form the basis of a complaint as required by law. We have no powers to intervene in ongoing matters or speculate about what might or might not happen in future.

Summary: A woman complained that the Council had unreasonably decided to end its homelessness duty in her case after she refused an offer of accommodation. But we will not investigate this matter because the woman has separate review and appeal rights she can use to dispute the Council’s decision, and we could not provide the result she wants from her complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not paying Mr X the council tax rebate for energy costs. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s planning process leading to its decision to grant permission for a new house near her property. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its decision-making process which would have affected the planning outcome to warrant us investigating. We will also not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s responses to her concerns and complaints because we are not investigating the core issue which gave rise to the complaint.

Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council dealt with her homelessness application. There was no fault in how the Council offered, and ended its duty to arrange, interim accommodation, gave Miss X advice about its housing allocation scheme or communicated with her. There was fault in how the Council first decided Miss X was not homeless. The resulting delay caused Miss X avoidable distress and uncertainty for which the Council agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy. The Council also agreed to remind its staff to properly consider affordability in homelessness cases.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to tell Ms X to remove fencing at her property. This is because she has a right of appeal to the Planning Inspector and there is no reason why she cannot use this if she is unhappy with the Council’s decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that work caried out under a Disabled Facilities Grant was not completed. That is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to prevent the noise nuisance caused by the pub next door to his property. Mr X also complained the Council failed to take suitable enforcement action in response to the pub installing unauthorised structures in the pub garden. Mr X also complained about the merits of the Council’s decision not to install double-yellow lines in the village. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the actions or decisions of the Council. Despite no fault, the Ombudsman recommended the Council installed noise monitoring equipment into Mr X’s property given the ongoing n

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council allegedly causing damage to the complainant’s property. Any injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning approval for fencing for a development near his home. This is because there is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered and approved plans.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action regarding his neighbour’s new windows, or request the neighbour to submit a retrospective planning application for the works. There is not enough evidence of Council fault in its decision-making process to warrant an investigation.