LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s planning application. This is because Mr X has used his right of appeal to challenge its decision not to grant planning permission.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient injustice caused by the slight delay in the Council assessing her housing register application and insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making to justify our involvement.

Summary: X complained about the Council’s planning enforcement decisions relating to development on land next to their home. We decided not to investigate this part of their complaint further, because we consider it is unlikely to result in a finding of fault or any other meaningful outcome for X. X also complained that the Council restricted their contact with officers. We found no fault with this part of the complaint because the Council considered and followed its policy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how a Council has handled Council Tax liability on a property. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with possible breaches of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

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

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the management of a council meeting. This is because the issues raised have not caused the complainant a significant enough personal injustice.

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

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to support her when she became homeless because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: Miss X complained about the way the Council handled her homelessness application after she fled domestic abuse. The Council was not at fault for the way it dealt with Miss X’s homelessness. There was fault in the way it allocated her interim accommodation which required significant repairs and in the way it communicated with Miss X about the need to move interim accommodation. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Miss X to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty this caused. It has also agreed to review the case to identify any lessons to be learned regarding the

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his planning application and appeal. This is because Mr X has used his right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate and we cannot alter the outcome of his appeal. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s refusal to allow him to reapply for planning permission for free, and if Mr X wishes to show his proposed development does not require planning permission it would be reasonable for him to apply for a formal decision and appeal against any refusal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application for a site next to the complainant’s home. There is not enough evidence to conclude that any fault has affected the planning outcome, so the complainant has not been caused a significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application for a site next to the complainant’s home. There is not enough evidence to conclude that any fault has affected the planning outcome, so the complainant has not been caused a significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint that a Council refuse lorry damaged her planter. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs B to pursue her compensation claim by taking the Council to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to issue Mr X with two penalty charge notices. This is because he has used his right of appeal for one of the notices and still has right of appeal for the other. This complaint is therefore outside of our jurisdiction.

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council supported him after he became homeless. There was fault in how the Council decided to reduce the funding it provided to protect Mr X’s possessions and how it delayed acting on his request for large print documents. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and review its decision about how much it should contribute to the storage of Mr X’s belongings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to consider legal advice and case law when determining planning applications for developments near to sports playing areas. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to have contacted us sooner about the earlier applications and, in any case, there is not enough evidence that fault by the Council has directly caused him a significant personal injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council processing of planning applications. We have seen no reason why the complainant could not have come to us much sooner about events occurring more than twelve months ago. Complaints about these matters are late. Also, the complainant had a right to appeal to the Planning Inspector against non-determination of a planning application. He can also appeal should the Council refuse the application.

Summary: Mr C complained about the Council providing insufficient spaces in the residents’ parking zone where he lived which he considered resulted in him receiving numerous Penalty Charge Notices and the recovery of debts from him by bailiffs. We have found no fault in the Council’s actions with regard to those aspects of the complaint within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a complaint made against one of its officers. This is because an investigation is unlikely to usefully add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a 2016 planning application for a development to the rear of Ms X’s property. This is because the complaint is a late complaint and so falls outside our jurisdiction and because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council in relation to its more recent response to Ms X’s concerns.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about penalty charge notices as Mr X had the right to appeal against them to an independent parking tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s and Ms Y’s complaints about the Council’s handling of a planning application for development near their homes. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigating, we could not add to the Council’s responses to the complainants, and we cannot achieve the outcome they seek.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has failed to take appropriate action to remove or replace his neighbour’s fence, which he considers is too tall. This is because the matter does not cause him significant enough injustice to warrant investigation and we cannot achieve the outcome he wants.