Mr X complained the Council failed to take enforcement action to protect him from his neighbour’s boiler flue. There was no fault in the way the Council made its decision
The Council acted properly in negotiating a S106 planning obligation with the complainant. It then properly processed his planning application. The later liability for the Community Infrastructure Levy placed on the complainant was not due to any fault by the Council.
There was no fault in the Council’s consideration of the highway matters when considering the planning application.
The Council was not at fault in its communications with the complainant about what information it needed to provide her with a certificate of regularisation for building works undertaken without building control consent. It is also not at fault for not issuing the certificate without further inspection or suitable evidence from the complainant about the work undertaken
Mr X complains about the grant of planning permission for a holiday home near his house. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.
Ms X complains that the Council has placed its actions against her concerning planning enforcement complaints on its website. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault.
The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaints about the Council’s processing of a planning application and decision not to take enforcement action at his neighbour’s property. It is unlikely we will find fault in the Council’s actions.
The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a Council Planning Enforcement Officer. This is because we could not add anything further to the Council’s response. Additionally, other aspects of the complaint concern personnel matters and these are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
There was no fault in the way the Council considered and determined a planning application next to the complainant’s home
The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr Y’s complaints about the Council granting planning permission for a house on agricultural land. This has not caused Mr Y any personal injustice.
The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint on behalf of himself and five local residents. We are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council decided to grant planning permission for up to forty homes on two sites near to where he lives. Also the injustice he says he will suffer because of ten more homes built across the two agreed development sites is not sufficient to warrant an investigation.
Mr N complains about the Council’s decision not to take any enforcement action over damage to a protected tree. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as she has not seen enough evidence of fault with the Council’s decision to criticise it.
Mrs C’s complaint about planning enforcement was upheld as there was fault by the Council but the Ombudsman does not consider it caused Mrs C an injustice requiring a remedy.
There is no fault in the way the Council reached decisions not to take enforcement action against the material used in an agricultural building and the installation of silencer coverings and fans in the roof.
There was no fault in the Council’s decision not to take formal enforcement action against breaches of planning control at a neighbouring property.
There is no evidence that the Council failed to take appropriate action to limit the growth of a clay pigeon shooting range near Mr B’s address. It appropriately investigated Mr B’s noise nuisance complaints. Therefore, the Ombudsman will not challenge the merits of its decisions. But at times its communication with him was poor.
The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a housing benefit overpayment. This is because the Council has provided a proportionate response by waiving repayment and offering to cover the complainant’s legal fees. It is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.
The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s priority on the housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that his current property is unsuitable and he should be in a higher allocations band. This is because it is unlikely further investigation would find fault.
The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to place the complainant in the lowest band on the housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Mrs X complains the Council placed her in the wrong banding for housing allocation, which meant she spent a period of time in unsuitable accommodation unnecessarily. My investigation has not found the Council at fault.
The Council was at fault for refusing Mr and Mrs B’s right to buy application. In response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries, the Council has agreed to change its original decision and allow Mr and Mrs B to buy their council house through the right to buy process. But, there is no evidence of fault regarding the advice the Council gave Mr and Mrs B about their application or the sale of their second home.
There is no fault by the Council in the advice it gave, or in the way it assessed an application for a discretionary housing payment. There is no fault by the Council in its charges for an alarm system. The Council’s offer to refund the charge for a six week period when the alarm was broken is fair. There is no fault in the way it assessed a request to transfer properties.
The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about unsuitable housing and the housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council
The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the housing register because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s revision of a parish boundary as part of a decision to create a new parish and parish council. The Council’s decision has not caused Mr X significant injustice and it is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault in the way it was reached.
Property & Estates
Council delays did not prevent Mr B securing a boat concession. The Council properly valued the concession.
The Council was wrong to invite a bid after the advertised deadline. However, this fault did not directly cause the loss of the sale of Mr X’s business
Mrs X complained about the way the Council sited a road sign across her driveway. The Council agreed to site a smaller sign, at its expense, and apologised for any frustration Mrs X has suffered.