LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council approved a prior approval application. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. And we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered and approved an application for retrospective listed building consent. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. And it is reasonable to expect the complainant to contact the Information Commissioner’s Office with her concerns about the Council withholding information.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how Mr X and his family were treated when using a leisure facility. The Council has already investigated and responded. It is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control or its decision to register the complainant’s property as an Asset of Community Value. This is because the complainant had the right to appeal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alleged data breach as it is best dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: Mx X complained about transphobia, misgendering and harassment by the Council’s civil enforcement officers (CEOs), and further misgendering when they appealed a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). We found no fault with the way in which the Council investigated the actions of its CEOs. We found that Mx X was misgendered once during the PCN appeals process. We concluded that the Council had already remedied the injustice caused by this fault.

Summary: Mr C complains about the Council’s handling of a planning application for a large residential development and its discharge of conditions several years ago. He also said it had failed to properly consider the concerns it received about the approved road layout’s impact on the wellbeing and safety of residents following a decision to keep a nearby connection to a highway open. We found Mr C’s concerns about the Council’s planning decisions were brought to us late. There was no fault in the process the Council followed to reach its view not to reopen or seek amendment to the approved pl

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application before granting planning permission. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant our involvement.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s housing application. The Council has offered to put the matter back to its Social Points Panel. It is reasonable for Mr X to take up that offer at this stage.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered Mr X’s complaint. From the information we have seen, further investigation is unlikely to led to a different outcome.

The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms X, complained about the conduct of Parish Councillors involved in the allocation and management of allotments.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about car parking charges. This is because there is not significant enough injustice to justify our investigation and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Council dealt with the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning application. This is because the complainant had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: Mrs B complains the Council did not take enforcement action against noise and odour from a takeaway below her flat for several years. She says the noise prevented her from sleeping and eventually meant she had to sell her flat and move. The Ombudsman finds fault in the delay in the Council acting on a statutory nuisance and in its handling of the case.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to take enforcement action against the complainant. This is because the complainant appealed to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: The Council’s contractors have often failed to provide Mrs Y’s assisted bin collection. This has been continuing for years, and despite the Council overseeing the service, the problems persist. This has caused injustice to Mrs Y who is chronically ill and physically impaired. The Council will oversee Mrs Y’s collections for a further three months and acknowledge Mrs Y’s distress, time and trouble with an apology and payment of £250.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax liability. This is because the complainant can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal to have the charges removed or amended.