LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice caused by fault on the Council’s part which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse or vary a Tree Preservation Order. This is because we have not found enough evidence of fault to investigate part of the complaint. And because Mrs X has exercised her appeal rights for the other part of her complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. The complainant has also not suffered significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council wrongly issued a prohibition order against her and her husband, which it later revoked, to stop them renting out a property they own. The Council was at fault in how it recorded its decision to revoke the order, but this did not cause Mrs X a significant personal injustice. The Council will remind staff they must keep suitable records of their decision making when they decide to revoke a prohibition order where the person has not completed all the repairs listed in the order.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with breaches of planning control. This is because the complainant had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector. It is unlikely we would find fault with the remaining issues complained about.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with the complainant’s request for pre-planning application advice as we consider an investigation will not lead to a different outcome. Nor will we investigate his complaint about the way it dealt with his application for a Lawful Development Certificate. It is reasonable to expect him to have exercised his right to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. Finally, there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council issued then withdrew a Community Infrastructure Liability Notice to warrant our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to end the main housing duty when Ms X was homeless. It was reasonable for Ms X to use her statutory right of appeal to the county court, and the Information Commissioner is best placed to consider complaints about how the Council handled her data.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mrs Y’s requests for higher banding for housing allocations. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint which 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.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with planning applications, reports of breaches of planning control and a complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about housing allocations because the complaint is late without good reason to exercise discretion to investigate it now.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the way the Council considered her housing application. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision, and investigation into Miss X’s complaints about staff conduct and reasonable adjustments would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Miss B complained how the Council communicated with her about grass cutting issues. She said it failed to adhere to her reasonable adjustments, it provided contradictory information, and it delayed responding to her. She also said it failed to properly deal with the issues when it responded to her complaint. We find the Council was at fault for failing to adhere to Miss B’s reasonable adjustments. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss B for her injustice. The rest of the issues Miss B has raised are better dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office. We cannot achieve an

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s housing register decision because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the recovery of council tax arrears. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decisions to apply a council tax premium on the complainant’s empty properties. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the Council’s implementation of its council tax premium policy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning application. This is because the complainant has appealed to the Planning Inspector. The complainant’s concerns about how the Council dealt with her information request are better dealt with by the Information Commisioner's Office.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement case. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s planning process, granting permission for a development with a change of cladding and roof materials near her property, not telling the Town Council of the materials change, and one of its complaint responses. Even if there has been fault in the Council’s planning process and decision, there is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to Mrs X by the matters complained of to warrant us investigating. We do not investigate council complaint‑handling where we are not investigating the core matter which gave rise to

there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council restricted her and her mother, Mrs Y, from accessing its Handypersons service. She also says the Council failed to consider what reasonable adjustments it could make to provide this service to her in future. We have discontinued our investigation. This is because the Council no longer provides the Handypersons service to its residents. An investigation by the Ombudsman cannot therefore achieve a meaningful remedy for Miss X and Mrs Y.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complainant has not been caused significant injustice.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to prevent vehicle access to a private lane which is a right of way. This complaint which was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about matters relating to a caravan park close to Ms X’s property. This is because there is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council approved a planning application for a mesh façade on a new public building which causes him and his neighbours, significant visual disturbance, nausea and headaches. While we recognise the negative impact of the building, we have not found fault with the way the Council considered the planning application.