LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s use of public money to set up a pest control business as it is not within our legal remit.

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council handled his reports of noise and anti-social behaviour. We found the Council at fault for how it dealt with Mr X’s case, its complaints handling, and flaws in its anti-social behaviour case review policy. The Council’s actions caused Mr X avoidable distress. The Council has agreed to apologise, carry out a review of Mr X’s case and make a payment to recognise his distress. The Council will also make changes to improve its service.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complaint is late. It is also unlikely we would find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with breaches of planning control. This is because the complainants have used their right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about her housing register priority banding. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to send Mr X correct council tax bills. This is because the Council has acknowledged the fault, corrected the account and provided Mr X with an apology. Further investigation would be unlikely to result in a different outcome.

Summary: Mrs X and Mr Y complained about the way the Council considered and responded to reports of breaches of planning control at a neighbouring property. We find no fault with how the Council considered and responded to breaches of planning control. We find the Council at fault for not having a published process, causing uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and publish an enforcements process.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council placed her in unsuitable accommodation after she made a homelessness application. She said the Council’s actions negatively impacted her mental and physical health. We found no fault by the Council and have concluded our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a Council Tax banding change and the Council’s decision to backdate this. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to have appealed to the Tribunal about the banding and it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s decision to backdate the increased charges.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a note posted through the complainant’s door. The complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We could not add anything to the Council’s response.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council not refunding a parking overpayment. This is because Mr B has not suffered a serious or significant injustice which would justify an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council publicised a planning application or how it considered concerns around sewage. That is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We found fault in the way the Council collected refuse and recycling from the complainant’s (Mrs X) property.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council deals with planning applications. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The complainant is complaining on behalf of a Parish Council and not as a member of the public.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to provide the pre-application planning advice he paid for, and that it was also late in responding to his complaint through its complaint’s procedure. We did not investigate the complaints further because we cannot provide the remedy Mr X wants or any other meaningful outcome.

Summary: We upheld Mrs X complaint the Council repeatedly missed her recycling collections, and its service improvements did not resolve the problem. The Council has agreed to pay Mrs X £150 for her inconvenience and monitor the collections for six weeks.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of matters relating to the planning change of use of agricultural buildings on a site in her locale. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s pre-application planning advice. This is because the complaint is late and I have seen no good reasons to exercise our discretion to investigate it.

Mr X complains about lack of planning enforcement against a nearby development. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council and part of the complaint is out of time.