LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the complainant’s Right to Buy application. This is because it is reasonable to have expected the complainant to use the statutory notice of delay procedure, and ultimately to take the Council to court.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mx X’s complaint about the Council’s decision and handling of her housing benefit. The complaint is outside our jurisdiction as Mx X has appealed to the Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s investigation into an alleged statutory nuisance from a neighbouring business. This is because

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a Council Parking Enforcement Officer. This is because key matters in the complaint relate to an ongoing police investigation.

Summary: Mr B complained that the Council had not followed its own policy when it banned him from trading at one of its markets. We found the Council did not follow its policy on giving warnings, but this did not cause Mr B injustice as he had been allowed to continue trading for a considerable period of time despite repeatedly missing the food hygiene standards. The Council has agreed to improve its procedure for the future.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax liability because there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to uphold its planning policies when approving a new development near his home. Mr X said the development is overbearing and will impact his privacy. We found there was fault in the Council’s initial assessment of the application by considering it against the wrong policy. However, there was no injustice because the Council re-assessed the application under the correct policy. We found no fault in the updated assessment or in the Council’s decision-making.

Summary: Mrs X complained there was fault in the Council’s assessment of a neighbouring planning application. Mrs X said the new development will be overbearing, and she will suffer loss of privacy and reduced residential amenity. We found there was fault in the Council’s initial assessment of the application by considering it against the wrong policy. However, there was no injustice because the Council re-assessed the application under the correct policy. We found no fault in the Council’s updated assessment or decision-making.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council assessed a neighbouring planning application. Mr X said the new development will be overbearing and cause loss of privacy and overlooking to his home. We found there was fault in the Council’s initial assessment of the application by considering it against the wrong policy. However, there was no injustice because the Council re-assessed the application under the correct policy. We found no fault in the Council’s updated assessment or decision-making.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Ms X’s neighbour’s development or the way it dealt with her complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, and we will not investigate complaint handling as a standalone matter. Any effect of building work next door on Ms X is a private law matter not involving the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to publish all comments received on planning applications. The Council confirms it will now publish all comments it receives on planning applications, further investigation on this point will not lead to a different outcome. Also, we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council deals with applications for non-material amendment applications.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a stray dog. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, and we could not achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about car parking charges. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Mr X clearly disagrees with the charges but it is not for us to say the Council must change them.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. This is because an investigation by this office could not add to the response the Council has already provided via its own investigation of the matter.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council mistakenly removed her personal items from a garage she rents from the Council. This is because it is reasonable for Ms X to take the matter to the Council’s insurers and, ultimately, the courts.

Summary: We cannot investigate the Council’s decision to take possession of a property. That is because we have no jurisdiction to investigate complaints where the Council is acting as a social landlord. We also will not investigate Mr X’s complaint he was not eligible to join the housing register. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to take action against planning breaches reported by Mr X and about its handling of his complaint about the matter. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s Council Tax account. This is because there is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s treatment of Mr X’s housing application. The complaint is late.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Mr X’s request for housing help. There is not enough evidence the Council was at fault.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council offered her a property at short notice before retracting the offer due to an admin error. Ms X states the Council’s actions caused her and her son Y great distress and inconvenience. There was fault when the Council offered Ms X the property by mistake. This fault caused Ms X and Y inconvenience and financial loss. The Council apologised to Ms X, increased her priority banding to its highest band and offered her a £200 gesture of goodwill. The Council has made changes to its system and reminded its staff of the importance of paying attention to detail when

Summary: Ms X complained the Council has missed bin collections and its customer service is poor. The Council’s failure to routinely provide bin collections is fault which caused Ms X distress and put her to avoidable time and trouble.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to award him small business rates relief. This is because the issue is more appropriate for consideration by the courts.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage to shrubs on the complainant’s property and the Council’s handling of his complaint. It is not unreasonable to expect the complainant to go to court if his claim is not resolved to his satisfaction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about problems with a controlled parking zone. Any fault by the Council did not cause Mr X a significant enough injustice for us to investigate.