LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about councillor conduct as the complainant is not caused a level of injustice that would justify our further involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to remove domestic bins from Ms X’s local area. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council did not respond to the complainant’s correspondence about council tax accounts. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her personal data, a data breach and a failure to apply a council tax exemption. The information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider her complaints about data handling and there is a right of appeal to a tribunal about council tax exemption decisions.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s oversight of the building of her neighbour’s extension, it not investigating issues with the development, and not supporting her. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant us investigating. There is insufficient evidence that Council action or inaction caused Mrs X’s claimed injustices. It would be reasonable for Mrs X to take the private civil matters caused by the neighbour’s development to court if required. We also cannot achieve the outcomes she wants from her complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to Ms X’s reports of odour and noise from a nearby industrial site. This is because it does not meet the tests set out in our Assessment Code. We are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s contractor dumping grass cuttings in a local green space. This is because Mr B has not suffered a serious or significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that a street cleaning vehicle damaged his car. This is because it is reasonable for Mr B to put in a compensation claim, and if needed, take the Council to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s correspondence about a planning matter. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council charging Mr X for council tax liability back to 2023 when he inherited a property and the exemption expired. It was reasonable for Mr X to challenge the liability for the property by appealing to the Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of his son, Mr Y, who is a disabled adult, about how the Council assessed Mr Y’s priority for social housing allocation. There was fault by the Council which caused avoidable distress to Mr Y, and avoidable distress, time, and trouble to Mr X. It also may have caused Mr Y a missed opportunity to bid on a property that is suitable for him. The Council agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy, and reconsider Mr Y’s application, backdating this as needed. It will also consider whether it should make changes to its processes or staff guidance to address the fau

Summary: Mr X complains the bailiff went to collect a debt from him in breach of the Individual Voluntary Arrangement (IVA) he had in place. We find fault with the bailiff acting on behalf of the Council for failing to log to IVA correctly, sending an enforcement letter and sending an agent to collect the debt from Mr X. We have agreed a symbolic payment for the distress caused to Mr X as a result.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to consult on a prior approval application for a 5G telecommunication mast. We do not consider the complainant has suffered enough injustice to warrant an investigation. Nor can we order the Council to remove the mast.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a council tax discount as there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council plus we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant seeks.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a disabled facilities grant application for her child. She says the Council has been vague about what is covered by the grant. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide local land charge search results following a cyber attack. He said it caused delay in the sale of his property. The Council failed to provide a service, but its response limited any injustice to Mr X.

Summary: Mr D says the Council repeatedly failed to collect his recycling in 2021. The Ombudsman found evidence of fault, upheld the complaint, and completed the investigation. The Council has accepted our recommended actions including financial redress.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about noise abatement notices issued by the Council. This is because it was reasonable for the complainant to appeal the notices to the magistrates’ court. The complainant has now lodged an appeal after she was found guilty of breaching one of the notices. This means the matter is outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Mrs X’s complaints about data protection issues as it would not be in the public interest for us to do so.