LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council has dealt with her housing application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a change in priority date for housing as it is unlikely we will find fault by the Council.

Summary: Mrs C complained the Council acted in breach of the Homeless Code of Guidance for Local Authorities when she had served notice on her tenants. She said she experienced distress and had financial losses as a result. We found fault by the Council for causing unnecessary delays in the homelessness process for Mrs C’s tenants, and its failure to include Mrs C in the process. The Council will apologise, make payment to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty it caused her, and complete service improvement recommendations.

Summary: The Council failed to consider all of Mr X’s housing needs when deciding what priority he should have on its social housing register. It also failed to tell Mr X of his right to request a review of the Council’s decision. This meant the Council placed him in the wrong priority band for 15 months. The Council also did not give Mr X enough notice to place a bid on a potential property. This caused Mr X distress and frustration. The Council has agreed it will make Mr X a direct offer on the next suitable property and apologises to him. The Council will also make service improvements to p

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement case and the subsequent complaints process. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision on the enforcement case, and the delay in reaching that decision does not, on balance, cause a significant enough injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to tell her and other residents about proposals before installing an electric vehicle charging point on the road outside Miss X’s home. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Also we do not consider Miss X has suffered a significant personal injustice and we cannot achieve the outcome she is seeking.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a home visit by the Council and its decision to reduce Ms Y’s banding following this. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the accessibility of seating at a Council park. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, and we have no power to decide if the Council has breached the Equality Act 2010.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about changes to parking provision affecting the use of a disabled car park pass card in different vehicles. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council ending one of the complainant’s two allotment tenancy agreements. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, and insufficient evidence of significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the removal of a tree near his home because there is insufficient evidence of fault. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about damage caused by the tree’s removal or about trespass because the Council is not responsible for the issues complained about. An investigation into Mr X’s complaint about delay in the Council’s complaint process is unlikely to achieve any further outcome.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly decided he was not eligible for medical priority on the housing register. Mr X says this meant he is living in unsuitable accommodation which impacted his mental health. We find the Council at fault which caused Mr X injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a fresh decision considering all relevant information.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant cannot place a bench next to a grave. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Miss D says the Council failed to correctly assess her housing needs. We have found evidence of fault by the Council. We have completed the investigation and upheld the complaint. The Council has agreed to our proposed remedy including paying redress to Miss D.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s priority on the housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate the Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint about his neighbour’s overgrown trees, hedges and shrubs. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is no fault in the Council advising Mr X this is a civil matter between him and his neighbour.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not taking planning enforcement action against a report of a breach of planning control. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We found fault on the complaint made by Mr B on behalf of Mr and Mrs C about the way the Council considered the neighbour’s application to discharge a planning condition. It failed to check whether the report received was amended or show it considered there was a satisfactory solution to the development’s impact. There was no evidence of the tree protection and mitigation measures officers agreed. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to investigate his reports of a statutory noise nuisance which was causing him distress. The Ombudsman intends to find fault with the Council for delaying taking reasonable action to address the noise nuisance. This caused Mr X significant distress. The Council has agreed to make financial payment and carry out a service remedy.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that Mr X was not eligible for a two bedroomed property on the housing register. That is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to address noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour arising from a nearby business. Mr X also says the Council failed to communicate effectively with him about his complaints. We have found fault with the Council’s actions, causing an injustice to Mr X. We have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to keep contact restrictions in place for Mrs X following a review at the conclusion of the initial restriction period. There is insufficient evidence of injustice to warrant an investigation.

The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complained about the Council’s burial charges for non-residents. Mr X’s father recently passed away and the Council charged the non-resident burial rate. This is higher than the amount charged to bury those who were resident in the Council’s area. Mr X wants the Council to refund the difference.