LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council issued a warning letter about his behaviour. The law says we cannot investigate the actions of the Council when it is acting as a social landlord.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council refused to increase his priority banding. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to process a change of council tax liability in a timely manner. She says the Council’s actions caused her avoidable distress and negatively impacted her mental health. We have ended our investigation because Ms X has appealed to the Valuation Tribunal.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council unfairly rejected his application to hold a circus on its land and poor complaint handling. We found the Council was at fault because it did not respond to his complaint or several enquiries by us. This caused Mr X avoidable distress, time and trouble. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr X and take action to improve its service. We did not find fault with the Council’s decision to refuse his application because it was entitled to decide not to host any large events on its land. We found no evidence of an incon

Summary: Neither the Housing Ombudsman (HOS) nor the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) find fault with the Council's handling of Mr X's reports about uncontrolled dogs. Both HOS and LGSCO find the Council delayed acting on Mr X's reports of verbal harassment. LGSCO find fault with the Council for failing to consider whether to use its powers to tackle this anti-social behaviour. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr X and act to improve its services.

Summary: Mrs B says the Council failed to take appropriate enforcement action, wrongly granted retrospective planning permission, failed to identify issues with the paperwork the applicant submitted and failed to address all her concerns when responding to her complaint. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with enforcement issues or the planning applications. The Council gave Mrs B some wrong information and failed to respond to some of the issues mentioned in her complaint. An apology is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Discretionary Housing Payment or a complaint the Council did not provide homelessness support. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because part of the complaint has not completed the Council’s complaints process.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action on the reports of noise nuisance. 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 made too late and there is no reason the complainant could not have contacted us much sooner.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take effective action when his family was threatened with homelessness. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with the homelessness application. However, the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments in respect of disability needs which is fault.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning matter. The complaint falls outside our jurisdiction because Mr X has applied to the court to challenge the Council’s decision.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council has installed inaccurate signs and benches which are not accessible for disabled people at a local park. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council causing Mrs X significant injustice. We cannot hold the Council responsible for the alleged criminal actions of third parties.

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 that a Council employee incorrectly claimed that the complainant had made comments about a third party. This is because we could not add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and the issues raised have not cause the complainant a significant enough injustice to warrant further investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council forced the complainant into private rented accommodation and will not help her move to a different council area. This is because it is a late complaint, there were review rights the complainant could have used, and because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.