Land archive 2014-2015

Archive has 47 results

  • St Edmundsbury Borough Council (14 015 424)

    Statement Upheld Land 31-Mar-2015

    Summary: Mr A complains the Council inappropriately advised him to apply for planning permission before seeking the lifting of a restrictive covenant on his land. There was some limited fault by the Council and in recognition of this it has agreed to my proposal that it pay Mr A £100 to settle the complaint.

  • Liverpool City Council (13 018 980)

    Statement Upheld Land 24-Mar-2015

    Summary: The Council was at fault in not responding to letters from Mr C's solicitor for over 18 months. But, Mr C would not have pursued matters any differently if this delay had not occurred.

  • London Borough of Croydon (14 012 430)

    Statement Not upheld Land 23-Mar-2015

    Summary: The Council has offered a reasonable remedy for any possible damage to the complainant's fence. Paragraphs 10, 14, 15, 17 and 20 explain why the other aspects of the complaint relating to access, damage to property and collection of waste will not be investigated further.

  • London Borough of Wandsworth (14 018 355)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Land 10-Mar-2015

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A's complaint about the Council providing witness statements which contain wrong information or its decision not to meet with him to discuss these points. This is because the matters he complains of are for the tribunal or the courts to decide and it would be reasonable for Mr A to use this remedy.

  • Essex County Council (14 004 031)

    Statement Upheld Land 27-Feb-2015

    Summary: The Council was at fault in offering to sell land to a local group but then selling it at auction without telling the group or taking adequate steps to tell them about the auction. So, the group lost their opportunity to bid for the land. The Council has acted to improve its procedures for the future. The Council and its agent have agreed to apologise to each group member and pay them each £100 (and £200 in one case) to put right the injustice caused to them. I uphold this complaint.

  • North East Lincolnshire Council (14 007 873)

    Statement Upheld Land 27-Feb-2015

    Summary: The Ombudsman upheld Mr B's complaint that the Council took too long to decide his application for listing a holiday park as an asset of community value. This is because there was fault. There was poor communication between the Council and Mr B as well as between its assets team and legal department. These faults did not cause Mr B a significant injustice. The Council agreed to review procedures.

  • Warwick District Council (14 005 939)

    Statement Upheld Land 26-Feb-2015

    Summary: There is no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision that it was not responsible for maintaining land next to Mr X's property. But the Council is at fault as it wrongly told Mr X that it owned the land and wrongly advised Mr X that it had some responsibility to maintain the land in its response to his complaint. The Council has agreed to complete previous agreed works which are outstanding. This is sufficient to remedy the injustice caused to Mr X by the Council providing incorrect information about its responsibilities.

  • Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (13 019 038)

    Statement Not upheld Land 13-Feb-2015

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council misled tenants leasing a plot of land, refusing to renew the lease, despite telling tenants it would. The Ombudsman has found no fault with the way the Council investigated Mr X's complaint.

  • London Borough of Southwark (14 017 011)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Land 10-Feb-2015

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B's complaint that the Council failed to disclose information about a certificate of lawfulness it issued in 2000. She would not find fault by the Council.

  • North Yorkshire County Council (14 016 993)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Land 09-Feb-2015

    Summary: Ms X complained about the Council's refusal to compensate her for an injury to her dog caused by a dangerous gate on a public footpath. She says the owner of the gate should pay her for the vet bill which she incurred. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. Claims about injuries or damage to property are civil matters and can only be decided by insurers or the courts.