LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her husband about the Council’s actions when they became at risk of homelessness. I find no fault in the Council’s actions leading up to the family’s eviction, nor in its actions in trying to secure suitable temporary accommodation. However, I do find fault in the family being placed in hotel accommodation for a total of 23 weeks. We recommend the Council apologises and makes a payment to Mr Y.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s bin collection crew removing two rubbish bags from his bin and leaving them on his drive. This is because the matter did not cause Mr X significant injustice and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application and the pre-application planning advice it provided. This is because the complainant has appealed to the Planning Inspector. It is unlikely we would find fault in relation to the remaining issues complained about.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about historic council tax arrears because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr C’s complaint about the Council’s refusal of his planning applications because Mr C appealed to the Planning Inspector. We do not have the power to investigate the actions of the Planning Inspector.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of council tax arrears. This is because the matter is subject to court proceedings. The Information Commissioner is better placed to consider how the Council has dealt with Miss X’s requests for information.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council decided to approve a planning application. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The complaint is late and here are no good reasons to exercise our discretion to investigate it.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council provided him with an incorrect email address regarding his request for a review of his Freedom of Information (FOI) enquiry. This is because an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve any additional outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council is not providing enough support to help the complainant pay her rent. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: The Council properly investigated Mrs B’s reports of noise from her neighbours and problems with building work. The Council’s website was not clear that it has powers to tackle noise from premises under antisocial behaviour (ASB) legislation. This has not impacted on Mrs B as it is unlikely the Council would have used ASB powers. However, the Council has agreed to review its website so that it is clear that it will consider its ASB powers to tackle noise from premises.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the operation of a parking payment machine and the information provided by the Council. This is because the complainant could have appealed to the tribunal and because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of matters relating to the installation of a footpath and road widening at a development site in her locale. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about Council Tax support as it is reasonable to expect her to apply using the Council’s web application. And the Information Commisioner’s Office is better placed to consider her subject access request complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault affecting the Council’s decision or to show the issues Mr X raises caused him significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s approval of a planning application and its enforcement of the approved plans. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mr L complains the Council failed to take sufficient action over breaches of planning approval on a neighbouring development. Our view is the Council did respond as the law expects it to. In the absence of any administrative fault, the merits of the decisions the Council made about enforcement are not something we can criticise. So we do not uphold the complaint.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council has failed to properly investigate or take appropriate enforcement action in relation to an unlawful mobile home on land next to a property he is purchasing. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Mr X’s concerns about a breach of planning control.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of matters relating to Ms X’s neighbour’s extension. This is because an investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Mr X’s housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decisions on his planning applications for a former military site. It was reasonable for him to use his appeal to the Planning Inspectorate if he disagreed with the Council’s planning decisions. Mr X’s complaint about the Council preventing him using his Inspectorate appeal in 2019 is late, there are no good grounds to investigate it now, and investigation would not achieve a different outcome. It was not fault for the Council to not provide Mr X with alternative development proposals for his land.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint which 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 about the Council’s investigation of noise from a care home.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of planning matters concerning a development site close to her home. We will not investigate the complaint because an investigation is unlikely to add to the investigation already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about changes the Council has introduced to the waste and recycling service. This is because the changes affect all the households in the Council area.

Summary: the complainant, Mr X, complained the Council failed to properly consider a planning application or use its planning enforcement powers to control unauthorised development resulting in hazardous material spilling onto his land. The Council says it followed the correct procedures and considered all the information presented. We found the Council acted without fault.