LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s unhappiness with the Council tax he is required to pay. This is because the complaint is about matters which affect all or most of the people in Mr X’s area.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to properly respond to Mrs X’s reports of noise nuisance. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

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

Summary: The Council's delay providing Miss X with interim accommodation when she was homeless because of domestic abuse was fault. This left Miss X living with avoidable fear of further abuse for 24 days. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Miss X. It should also act to improve its services.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that Mr X is intentionally homeless. It was reasonable for him to appeal the decision to the County Court following his statutory review outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about errors with a property registration. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The complainant has already appealed to the First Teir Tribunal Property Chamber. Therefore we cannot investigate.

Summary: Mr X complained that the Council misled him and his wife into believing it would remove a homeless man’s dog from their garden but then failed to do so. We found the Council was at fault in raising their expectations. In recognition of the distress caused, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr and Mrs X and make a payment to them.

Summary: Ms X complains about how the Council dealt with her council tax. The Council was at fault because it failed to consider whether it should make reasonable adjustments for Ms X. Although it did not affect the decision about Ms X’s liability for council tax, or the debt owed, fault by the Council caused her avoidable distress. The Council agreed to apologise, agree reasonable adjustments it will make for Ms X, and pay her a financial remedy. It will also issue reminders to its staff.

Summary: there was fault in the way the Council considered Mrs X’s request for a review of her priority band on the Home Choice Plus scheme. But the evidence does not indicate it would have awarded a higher priority band before October 2023 if this fault had not occurred. The injustice is limited to Mrs X’s frustration with the Council’s failure to make a written decision when she first requested a review and its delay in responding to her complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint from Mr X, about how the Council dealt with the homelessness of Mr Y, who was living in Mr X’s garden. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. Mr X did not hold any legal authority to bring this complaint on behalf of Mr Y. And Mr Y’s family do not agree to Mr X making this complaint.