LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s recovery of money and handling of Ms X’s Subject Access Request (SAR) as it was made late. Ms X has the right to raise her SAR concerns with the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s recovery of council tax arrears. It is reasonable for the complainant to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal if she disagrees with the liability for the debt. We will not exercise discretion to investigate events earlier than 2024 because this is outside the normal 12-month period for receiving complaints.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about missed waste collections. This is because the complaint is made late and there are not good reasons to investigate now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council publicised and considered Mr X’s neighbour’s planning applications. We have not seen enough fault in the Council’s actions to warrant our involvement.

Summary: Miss B complained that the Council had failed to properly include her in the Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) application process leading to a poorly finished outcome which differed from the approved plans and was unsafe. We found fault causing injustice to Miss B. The Council has agreed to apologise to her, pay her £500 and carry out a site visit to determine what outstanding works are required. It has also agreed to remind staff of the Council’s responsibility to ensure the DFG work is completed in accordance with the approved plans and meets the applicant’s needs.

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

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about enforcement agents engaging in intimidating behaviour as they took videos and photographs of his property and vehicle, and remained parked outside his home for some time. He also complains the agent discussed their visit with a neighbour. This is because the alleged fault has not caused any significant injustice. In addition, there is another body better placed to consider Mr X’s complaint about a breach of privacy.

Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council has dealt with her homelessness application and about its communication with her. We found some fault with what the Council did, which caused Ms X confusion. The Council has apologised and made service improvements.

Summary: We cannot by law investigate this complaint about the Council seeking recovery of council tax arrears which the complainant disputes. This is because the Council has obtained a liability order the amount demanded which means the issues raised have been subject to legal proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with a planning application for a site next to the complainant’s home. Nor will we investigate their complaints about the Council’s consideration of their reports of noise nuisance from the site. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

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

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council advised her to apply for a certificate of lawfulness and then told her to withdraw her application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Ms Y complained the Council wrongly accused Mr X of fraud and was poor in its communications in reviewing his test and trace support payment causing distress, time and trouble. We have found no fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council did not grant a longer period of council tax exemption or discretionary relief following the impact of the Covid-19 lockdown. We cannot lawfully question the Council’s exemption policy. There was a right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal which it was reasonable to use on the refusal of relief.