LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of enforcement action for a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). This is because there is not enough evidence of fault, in how the Council made its decision, to justify an investigation.

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

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a planning officer working for the Council entering his home without permission. The remaining injustice is not significant enough to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s approval of metal guttering on a neighbouring development. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly investigate his reports of water contamination in his home. We find fault with the Council’s complaint handling, but we find it has already acted to remedy the uncertainty and frustration caused by this.

Summary: We have no grounds to criticise the Council’s decision that a noise does not amount to a statutory nuisance. However, there was fault by the Council, because it has considered irrelevant factors as part of its decision-making. This did not cause an injustice to the complainant, but the Council has agreed to issue guidance to its staff.

Summary: Mr X and Mrs Y complained about how the Council decided to approve a planning application for a development near to their home. We do not find fault with how the Council considered this application. We find the Council at fault for not sending Mr X and Mrs Y a consultation letter but find the Council has already addressed the injustice this has caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with possible breaches of planning control. This is because the complainant has not suffered significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

Summary: We find the Council was at fault in delaying deciding a variation planning application that required changes to a housing development next to Mr X’s property. The Council also failed to make good land it owned that had been affected by the building work, which caused Mr X an injustice. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and make him a symbolic payment to remedy that injustice. Other matters raised by Mr X are for the Council to decide whether to enforce.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to pursue further action over noise nuisance reported by the complainant. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

this complaint about the Council’s failure to deal with problems Mr X has reported about his tenancy since 2022. We cannot investigate complaints about the actions of a social housing landlord with regard to tenancy management, repairs and direct management moves. We also cannot investigate Mr X’s compalint about the Council serving him with a Community Protection Notice. It was reasonable for Mr X to appeal the Notice if he wished to challenge it.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to decline to determine the complainant’s planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about drainage because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council decided to approve a planning application. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We cannot by law investigate this complaint about the way the Council handled the complainant’s planning applications. This is because the complainant exercised his right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate which considered the issues. We have no legal jurisdiction to investigate in these circumstances.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take further action over noise nuisance reported by Mrs X. there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to address dust nuisance from a construction site near her home. We found the Council failed to properly record or explain its findings when it closed its nuisance investigation, and failed to record evidence of dust suppression. This caused Mrs X frustration. The Council also failed to follow its nuisance investigation procedure on site visits, but this did not cause significant injustice. The Council was entitled to reach the view that no statutory nuisance exists.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council billing the complainant for council tax, as well as taking court action for non-payment. This is because the issues raised have been considered during legal proceedings. Further, it would have been reasonable for the complainant to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal if she disagreed with the Council billing her for council tax.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled his request for information. This is because it is better dealt with by the Information Commissioner's Office.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about unsuitable accommodation, benefits, enforcement agents, homelessness, and complaint handling. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. There are other bodies better placed to consider some parts of Ms X’s complaint, and some parts of her complaint are late. Finally, it is not a good use of resources to investigate the Council’s complaint handling where we are not investigating the substantive matters complained of.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage caused to Mr X’s property by development work near to his home. it is reasonable for him to seek a remedy by making a claim against the developers or the Council and to seek redress in the courts if liability is not accepted.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage caused to Mr X’s property by development work near to his home. it is reasonable for him to seek a remedy by making a claim against the developers or the Council and to seek redress in the courts if liability is not accepted.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a local sports/leisure complex as the matter does not cause him significant injustice. We will not investigate Mr X’s concerns about the Council’s delay in dealing with his complaint as it would not be a good use of our resources to look at the issue in isolation. The Council has apologised and this provides a suitable remedy for the matter.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly consider his application for an asset of community value for a pub in his village, and it failed to consider his complaint about the matter. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to take enforcement action against Ms X’s neighbour’s extension. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.