LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the amount of council tax the Council charged on his empty and unfurnished property. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council deals with planning permission in principle applications, nor in the way it considered a complaint about a councillor. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Also, it is reasonable to expect Mr X to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office if he believes the Council is withholding information.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about inaccurate information on the Council's website and in a response to a request for pre-application planning advice. We consider that further investigation will not add to that already carried out by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled a non-material amendment application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to pursue enforcement action over a planning condition requiring a former local pub to be refurbished. He also complained the Council refused a local community group’s request to buy the pub using a compulsory purchase order, and the Council’s listing of the pub as an asset of community value failed to include all its garden. We found there was some fault in the Council’s first consideration of the request to use its compulsory purchase powers. However, this did not result in significant remaining injustice. The remainder of Mr X’s complaint is late,

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a council tax error. This is because the Council has provided a satisfactory response and there is not enough remaining injustice to require an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in determining a planning application relating to a site in his area. There is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to him by the time being taken to decide the application to warrant us investigating. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Summary: Mr D complained how the Council handled his case when he approached it for housing assistance. He says the Council failed to take his disability and mental health issues seriously, its communication was poor, and it failed to provide him with adequate support. We do not find the Council was at fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not exempting him from a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on a residential extension to his property, how it dealt with his case, and it not telling him about his rights of appeal. Since Mr X brought this complaint, the Council has reviewed the case and granted the CIL exemption. There is insufficient remaining injustice to him to warrant investigating. The Council advising Mr X that he had no right of appeal against its CIL decision was not fault because there is no such right in residential extension cases.

Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application near her home. There was fault in how the Council considered a non-material amendment application, but this did not affect the outcome. There was also fault in how the Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint which caused her avoidable distress, time and trouble. The Council agreed to pay Mrs X the financial remedy it has offered and issue a reminder to its staff.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council managed the complainant’s council tax for two properties. This is because part of the complaint is late, there is insufficient evidence of fault, and the Council apologised for some faults.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a reported breach of planning control. This is because there is not enough evidence fault to justify a further investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council has failed to take appropriate enforcement action in relation to mounds of soil dumped against his boundary which should have been removed by early 2023. The Council’s failure to keep Mr X updated regarding significant developments in this matter, as agreed, is fault. This fault has caused Mr X an injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to take enforcement action against Mr X’s neighbours’ construction works. 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 response to Mr X’s reports of private housing disrepair. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about failure to collect garden waste on one occasion, because Mr C’s injustice does not justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s accommodation being in disrepair, that the Council refused to allow him to join the housing register, and that the Council used information without his consent. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation. In addition, there is another body better placed to consider the complaint.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handing of his easement application to facilitate access and services to his new-build development. We have found the Council to be at fault. Mr X was given incorrect advice when he was told an easement was already in place. The Council then took too long to process his application. This had an impact on the completion of the associated development and caused Mr X distress and frustration. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment to Mr X and review its procedures.

Summary: Ms K complained the Council failed to tell her of her right to appeal its decision when assessing her Council Tax and Housing Benefit. The Council has accepted it was at fault for not properly explaining Ms K had a right to appeal, putting her to the time and trouble of complaining. We also find this caused Ms K anxiety. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused to Ms K.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about missed garden waste collections because the Council has provided an appropriate remedy and because part of the complaint is late.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about the Council’s handling of matters relating to access to a development site whereby construction vehicles are using a private road adjacent to their property. They complain the Council has failed to follow directions given about access by the Planning Inspectorate. We have found fault with the Council’s record keeping and complaint handling. The Council will apologise to Mr and Mrs X and make a financial payment.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint that the complainant’s land is incorrectly designated in the Council’s local plan policy. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Ms X could not have complained to us sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with complains about Town Councillors. This is because Mr X has not been caused a significant injustice as a result of the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to complete remedial works to her property or rehouse her. That is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council made that decision to justify our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a certificate of lawfulness application. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We cannot accept complaints made in a person’s capacity as a councillor, and there is not enough evidence of fault causing significant injustice.