LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a garden waste issue. This is because the matter complained about has not caused Miss X any significant personal injustice which is serious enough to warrant an investigation. Also, it is unlikely we could add to the response already provided via the Council’s own investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action and to restrict Mr X’s communications with officers. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s council tax account as it is unlikely we will find fault by the Council. We cannot investigate the complaint about a liability order as this was decided in court and not therefore within our legal remit.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s level of support for a family facing homelessness. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how a councillor handled his personal data. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to deal with this complaint. We will also not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council refused to carry out an investigation into the councillor. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax reduction because there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about standards committees because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with possible breaches of planning control and an application for a certificate of lawfulness of proposed use or development. This is because part of the complaint is late. It is unlikely we would find fault in relation to the remaining issues complained about.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s consideration of planning applications, failure to take enforcement action and delayed complaint responses. We have found fault which caused Ms X avoidable frustration and time and trouble but consider the agreed action of an apology and symbolic payment provides a suitable remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a planning enforcement notice issued by the Council. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mrs X to appeal against the notice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing a demand for non-domestic rates for business premises which were divided in 2017. The courts are better placed to decide liability for business premises.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of planning matters relating to Mr X’s planning applications and a planning enforcement visit to a site he owns. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation and because Mr X had appeal rights to the Planning Inspectorate which we would reasonably have expected him to have used.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council’s Monitoring Officer dealt with a complaint that the member’s code of conduct had been breached. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council publicised and processed a planning application. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Nor can we order the Council to reconsider an approved planning application.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application with which Mr X has been concerned. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Mr X to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to respond appropriately after the complainant reported wildlife was at risk due to a lack of water. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in determining a planning application for a vehicle crossing. It was reasonable for Ms X to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate to seek a determination once the timescale for a decision was exceeded.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in determining his planning application. We will not investigate a complaint where the complainant has an appeal right it is reasonable for them to use. Mr X had a right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate for non-determination of his application which it was reasonable for him to have used. He has another Planning Inspectorate appeal right against the refusal of his application, which he says he will use, and which it is reasonable for him to use.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application for development on land next to Mr X’s home. This is because the Council considered Mr X’s comments and obtained amended plans from the applicant to better reflect the boundaries between the properties.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council investigated a complaint into his conduct at parish council meetings. The Ombudsman did not find fault with the Council’s actions.

Summary: Mr B says the Council does not support him despite being the victim of bullying and harassment by neighbours, instead it encourages complaints of anti-social behaviour about his household and does not deal with complaints his household makes. The Council is correct to investigate concerns it receives, regardless of the amount. It has not taken any unwarranted action against Mr & Mrs B. The Council failed to deal with concerns Mr & Mrs B raised, for which it has apologised, we recommend no further action. There was delay in its complaint investigation, but that was by agreement with Mr