LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the purchase of a burial plot. This is because it is unlikely investigation would add anything significant to the responses the Council has already made to the complaint, or reach different conclusions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complainant is not complaining as a member of the public.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to investigate her complaints of noise nuisance from her neighbours. The Council failed to investigate Mrs X’s noise complaints in line with its noise nuisance policy. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £200 to acknowledge the frustration and uncertainty that caused. It also agreed to review its procedures around how it investigates noise complaints.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council not removing a Tree Preservation Order from a neighbour’s tree, and not agreeing to fund work to that tree. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process here regarding the condition and ownership of the tree to warrant investigation. Even if we were to investigate, we could not find Ms X’s claimed injustices are caused by Council actions or inactions. Ms X’s concern about future damage to her property by the tree is speculative, and would be a private civil matter between her and its owner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about two Penalty Charge Notices because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide her assisted bin collections. The Council’s failure to routinely provide assisted bin collections is fault which caused Ms X an injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council demanding Mr X pay historic business rates. It is unlikely we could reach a clear enough view on balance that the Council was wrong to say it had got liability orders, or that its calculations of the unpaid rates are wrong. The Council has done enough to recognise Mr X’s alarm and distress from related matters. Mr X can go to court if he wants any liability orders put aside.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his planning application. This is because Mr X had a right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate which it would have been reasonable for him to use.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that a parish council was overcharged for a Council service. This is because we cannot investigate complaints made by public bodies such as parish councils.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about a Freedom of Information request. This is because it is reasonable for Mr B to complain to the Information Commissioner, and if needed, appeal to the tribunal.

Summary: Mrs B complains the Council failed to properly consider a planning application for floodlighting to a tennis court and will suffer from excessive levels of light intrusion and glare. We have found fault by the Council in its decision making process but consider the agreed action of an apology, £250 and an assessment of the impact of the floodlighting with any necessary mitigation is enough to provide a suitable remedy.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain the Council failed to properly consider a planning application for floodlighting to a tennis court and will suffer from excessive levels of light intrusion and glare. We have found fault by the Council in its decision making process but consider the agreed action of an apology, £250 and an assessment of the impact of the floodlighting with any necessary mitigation is enough to provide a suitable remedy.

Summary: Ms C complains the Council failed to properly consider a planning application for floodlighting to a tennis court and will suffer from excessive levels of light intrusion and glare. We have found fault by the Council in its decision making process but consider the agreed action of an apology, £250 and an assessment of the impact of the floodlighting with any necessary mitigation is enough to provide a suitable remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a Code of Conduct complaint made against a councillor. This is because the Council has now responded to Mr X’s complaint and amended its processes, and an investigation would achieve no useful outcome.

Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault by the Council on Mrs T’s complaint about how it responded to her reports about the use of a site breaching planning consent which also caused a statutory nuisance. It gave the owner and his agent time to provide the required information. It decided it could keep more control over the land through a planning application than enforcement action. This was because the owner could use the land for this purpose for a certain number of days a year anyway, which had not been exceeded.