LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage caused to the complainant’s property. This is because the matter is better dealt with in court.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s planning decision. This is mostly because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to exercise his appeal rights.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of planning matters at a site next to where the complainant lived. This is because: it is reasonable to expect the complainant to have contacted us sooner; there is insufficient evidence of fault; it is reasonable for the complainant to contact the Information Commissioner if he has concerns about date processing; and we cannot achieve some of the outcomes he is seeking.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council mishandled the determination of a planning application for a residential care institute. This is primarily because there is insufficient evidence that fault has affected the planning application decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning applications. This is because the complainant has appealed to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. This is because the complainant has appealed to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage to property. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. It is

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of a planning application, because the Council’s decision on planning applications come with a right of appeal, and it would be reasonable for Miss X to have used this. Nor will we investigate her complaint about the conduct of a Council officer because we could not add to the previous investigation by the organisation, and we cannot achieve the outcome she is seeking.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council serving an improvement notice on the landlord of private rented property. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Miss X could not have complained to us sooner. It was reasonable for Miss X to challenge the notice by appealing to the First Tier Tribunal which is the body responsible for deciding challenges to housing notices.

Summary: Mr B complained about delay by the Council in dealing with enforcement issues on a site near his home. We found fault with the Council. We have asked it make a decision on the outstanding enforcement issue, pay Mr B £300 and improve its procedures for the future. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application or a possible breach of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault and the complainants have not suffered significant injustice.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s designation of his land as an ‘important open area’. This is because the complaint is late and the injustice Mr X claims lies in the refusal of his planning application- a decision against which he has appealed.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council decided to grant planning permission for development next to the complainants’ home. We are unlikely to find fault affected the Council’s decision. The Council is currently considering the complainants’ concerns about possible breaches of the planning permission.