LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the discharge of a planning condition in 2025. Mrs X had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector it would have been reasonable to use.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council’s handling of Ms X’s personal data. This is because this is a matter best dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a complaint about the conduct of a councillor. This is because we are unlikely to find fault and the complainant has not suffered significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a councillor conduct complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault or fault causing a significant injustice, to justify our further involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the pre-planning application provided by the Council. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a disabled facilities grant or the Council’s decision not to waive a local land charge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of noise when determining the complainant’s planning applications. It is reasonable to expect him to have used his right of appeal to the Planning Inspector, and we will not pursue any concerns about the complaints process in isolation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s release of incomplete planning documents. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to pursue his complaint with the Information Commissioner.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council forged a warrant to enter his property and wrongly disposed of his personal belongings. That is because the complaint it late.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not enforcing against his neighbour’s roof light window. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning enforcement process to warrant us investigating, and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks from his complaint.

Summary: Mr X complained development on neighbouring land causes flooding to his garden. We found no fault in the Council’s consideration of neighbouring drainage and landscaping plans, or their impact on Mr X. However, the Council was at fault for significant delays investigating Mr X’s planning enforcement complaints.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a request for pre-application planning advice or the complainant’s planning applications. This is because parts of the complaint are late. The complainant also had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Summary: We have found no fault with how the Council handled a planning enforcement case. It considered the information available and took proportionate action.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to award him a Restart Grant at a lower level than expected, causing distress and financial loss. We found no fault in the Council’s decision making but we found fault in its communication. We recommended the Council provide Mr X with an apology.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council not following legislation as it has no policy regarding how it will decide if a manager of a mobile homes site is fit and proper. This is because Mr X has not suffered any significant personal injustice.

Summary: Ms X complained about development on land near her home, and disturbance from construction works. There was fault because the Council took no action following an enforcement visit and did not keep a proper record of what it had found during the visit. This caused Ms X disturbance and distress. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and make a symbolic payment of £100. It has appropriately remedied the injustice Ms X experienced due to its failure to communicate properly with her.

Summary: Ms X complained about development on land near her home, and disturbance from construction works. There was fault because the Council took no action following an enforcement visit and did not keep a proper record of what it had found during the visit. This caused Ms X disturbance and distress. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and make a symbolic payment of £100. It has appropriately remedied the injustice Ms X experienced due to its failure to communicate properly with her.

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

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council provided inaccurate information to the police, which is now going to be considered in court. This is because we cannot investigate matters that are subject to court proceedings.

Summary: Mr X complained about development on land near his home, and disturbance from construction works. The Council had already offered compensation to some residents, for taking too long to respond to their concerns and comments. However, it offered no explanation for its failure to act earlier in the same year, when work first began. There was fault because the Council took no action following an enforcement visit and did not keep a proper record of what it had found during the visit. The Council has agreed to our remedy for the injustice caused by the fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a site next to the complainant’s home, or its handling of the subsequent complaint. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the application was determined, and the Council’s apology is an appropriate way to remedy the delay in responding to the associated complaint.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion investigate this complaint about the Council’s discharge of planning conditions for drainage of a neighbouring development in 2020. The complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mrs X could not have complained to us sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s actions relating to his commercial waste collection service. His complaint about the Council’s actions in 2019 are late and there is not enough evidence of fault in its more recent actions causing Mr X significant injustice.

Summary: Mrs X says the Council failed to inform her that a sequential test was necessary before she submitted a planning application. There was fault by the Council because the planning officer Mrs X consulted was unaware of the sequential test requirement. The complaint was closed because the Council already acted to remedy the injustice to Mrs X.