Other


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • West Berkshire Council (18 016 544)

    Statement Not upheld Other 05-Jul-2019

    Summary: Mr P complains about a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charge he had to pay to the Council. He says the Council failed to explain or assist him. The Ombudsman has not found evidence of significant fault by the Council and has completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

  • Mid Sussex District Council (18 015 596)

    Statement Not upheld Other 03-Jul-2019

    Summary: Mr X says the Council was at fault in how it responded to his concerns about how it determined a planning application for a neighbouring property. The Ombudsman found no evidence of fault with the Council's replies to Mr X and so has ended his consideration of this complaint.

  • East Lindsey District Council (18 011 856)

    Statement Not upheld Other 28-Jun-2019

    Summary: Mr X has complained that the Council has failed to provide a brief relating to the work required to comply with the conditions attached to the planning permission for a detached house. There is no fault by the Council.

  • Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council (18 013 810)

    Statement Not upheld Other 25-Jun-2019

    Summary: Mr C complains about the Council's consideration of a retrospective planning application for change of use for paintballing. Mr C says he suffers from excessive noise and floodlighting from the site which also causes problems on the access lane. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault by the Council in its consideration of the application.

  • London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (18 017 318)

    Statement Not upheld Other 21-Jun-2019

    Summary: Mr B complains that the Council will not enforce a planning agreement to prevent his service charge increasing. We have ended our investigation. This is because the Council has explained why it does not consider it can use the planning agreement to stop the service charge increase. Also, Mr B can appeal to the tribunal against the service charge increase. The tribunal is in the best position to decide the matter.

  • Elmbridge Borough Council (18 017 252)

    Statement Upheld Other 17-Jun-2019

    Summary: Mr P complains the Council failed to review the Affordable Housing Contribution on his "self-build" home in 2017. The Council has already accepted some fault before the case came to the Ombudsman. We have upheld the complaint but not found any outstanding injustice to Mr P and have completed the investigation.

  • Durham County Council (18 017 081)

    Statement Not upheld Other 06-Jun-2019

    Summary: There is no fault by Durham County Council in relation to this complaint about actions of the Council's archaeology team.

  • South Somerset District Council (18 016 784)

    Statement Upheld Other 28-May-2019

    Summary: Mr and Mrs Y complain the Council failed to add a condition about the use of materials to a neighbour's planning permission. As a result of this fault, the neighbour has used plastic cladding when the Council intended natural timbers to be used. The use of this material has impacted on Mr and Mrs Y's visual amenity. An appropriate remedy is agreed.

  • Mid Suffolk District Council (18 011 068)

    Statement Upheld Other 10-May-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council gave him wrong advice about his liability for a Community Infrastructure Levy. Mr X says that because of this, he lost the opportunity to apply for an exemption. There was fault in the way the Council responded to Mr X's enquiry, which it agreed to remedy.

  • Tendring District Council (18 015 287)

    Statement Upheld Other 29-Apr-2019

    Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain of fault with the Council's decision not to take enforcement action against unauthorised development at a neighbouring property as well as its handling of enforcement matters at that property. There was fault by the Council because the planning enforcement officer acted partially towards the owner of the neighbouring property. However, the identified fault did not cause Mr and Mrs X significant injustice.