LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council took enforcement action against him. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a prior approval application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in determining the complainant’s planning application. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to have used her right of appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on a code of conduct complaint about a councillor. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way it reached its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the availability of payment dates for council tax. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mrs F complained that both Councils failed to agree adaptations to the family home needed by her husband and children. We upheld the complaint, finding both Councils acted with fault contributing to an impasse where no application for grant funding had been made. This caused distress. The Councils accepted our findings and at this statement, we set out the action they have agreed to take to remedy this injustice and improve services.

Summary: X complained about the Council’s decision to approve development on land near X’s home. We did not investigate this complaint further, as we were unlikely to find fault, recommend a remedy or achieve any other meaningful outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council imposing an area Tree Preservation Order (TPO) years ago on a property he recently bought, not reviewing the TPO for many years, deciding not to revoke the TPO, and how it dealt with his complaint. Complaints about the Council’s decision to apply the TPO and lack of reviews is late. There are no good reasons for us to investigate them now, nor any different outcome investigation would achieve. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s process when deciding not to revoke the TPO to warrant investigation. We do not

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council has dealt with a planning application. We do not consider the complainant has suffered sufficient personal injustice to warrant an investigation. Also, we cannot achieve the outcomes the complainant is seeking.

Summary: Mr X complained about his housing allocations priority banding and priority date. We did not find fault in the Council’s consideration of Mr X’s housing priority. The Council considered Mr X’s evidence and made its decision about his priority banding and date in line with its allocations scheme.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the complainant’s council tax account. This is because it was reasonable to expect the complainant to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s intention to end its homelessness duty in a man’s case. This is because the man will have a right of appeal to the county court concerning the Council’s final decision, and anyway we cannot achieve the outcome he wants from his complaint.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council decided his housing application and about the actions of his housing officer. The Council was at fault in the way it reviewed Mr X’s bedroom entitlement. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council agreed to carry out a new review. We did not find evidence of fault by Mr X’s housing officer, or in the way the Council arranged Mr X’s temporary accommodation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s consideration of his neighbour’s outbuilding and decision that it is permitted development. There is not enough fault in the Council’s planning process to warrant an investigation. We also cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the complainant has been subject to witness intimidation and harassment relating after she provided a statement which led to court proceedings against a third party. This is because the issues raised are criminal matters which can only be dealt with by the police. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered her request to seek an injunction, If Ms X feels there are legal grounds to do so, it would be reasonable to expect her to go to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to issue a Scoping Opinion. There is not enough evidence of fault in the process the Council followed before issuing the Opinion. And the claimed injustice is speculative.

Summary: Ms C complains the Council failed to properly consider a reserved matters planning application for a housing development which has resulted in unacceptable levels of overlooking and loss of light and outlook. We have found no fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with her fence. This is because she has a right of appeal against the Council’s enforcement notice with the Secretary of State.

Summary: Ms D complains about noise and odour nuisance from a nearby Council depot. The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation because Ms D has not made any reports about nuisance in the period we can investigate. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mr D complains about the Council’s approval of a drainage scheme for a development next to his home and its actions after he raised concerns about the scheme. We have found no fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council changing the collection point for the complainant’s clinical waste bin. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The Council has taken satisfactory action to resolve the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a detached single garage and workshop. We have not seen evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: We upheld complaint from Mr X about a lack of support from the Council when his daughter’s through-floor lift broke down. The Council failed to offer interim support or meet Mr X’s costs when the family had to stay away from their home. As a result, Mr X and his family suffered a significant injustice. The Council agreed to pay a financial remedy to recognise the injustice caused and review its internal procedures.