Highway adoption archive 2015-2016


Archive has 16 results

  • Mendip District Council (15 008 498)

    Statement Upheld Highway adoption 29-Mar-2016

    Summary: I uphold Mr C's highways complaint as there was fault by the Council. However, I do not consider it caused Mr C an injustice which would need the Council to take further action.

  • Pendle Borough Council (14 018 539)

    Statement Upheld Highway adoption 05-Feb-2016

    Summary: There was fault by the Borough Council in the way it failed to use its powers properly to ensure a new road on a housing estate was built to a standard the Highways Authority requires to adopt and maintain it at public expense. The Borough Council has suggested a possible remedy which is acceptable to the Ombudsman.

  • Lancashire County Council (15 003 889)

    Statement Not upheld Highway adoption 01-Feb-2016

    Summary: There was no fault by the County Council in the way it used its powers as a Highways Authority in dealing with the road on a housing estate.

  • Coventry City Council (15 013 772)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Highway adoption 22-Dec-2015

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the construction of a pavement crossover as she is unlikely to find fault in the Council's actions.

  • London Borough of Lambeth (15 005 575)

    Statement Upheld Highway adoption 17-Dec-2015

    Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council decided not to move a parking bay from in front of Miss B's house. The Council delayed responding to Miss B's request to remove it. The Council has now provided a full response.

  • Cheshire East Council (15 012 626)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Highway adoption 04-Dec-2015

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council's proposals for the route of a new road. The route has not yet been finalised and so no significant injustice has arisen because of the Council's decision. In addition if the final route does pass through the complainant's property he will have a right of appeal to a government minister and so any complaint about the chosen route is outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction.

  • Surrey County Council (15 005 749)

    Statement Not upheld Highway adoption 22-Oct-2015

    Summary: The Council correctly decided a disabled parking bay application.

  • Cheshire East Council (14 013 638)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Highway adoption 25-Sep-2015

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate B and Co's complaint because it is reasonable to expect their clients to go to court.

  • Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (15 004 778)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Highway adoption 07-Aug-2015

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X's complaint that the Council is failing to maintain the road used to access her house. The Council has taken reasonable steps to address Ms X's complaint. An investigation is unlikely to achieve more for Ms X. If Ms X believes the Council has a duty to repair the road, she can go to court.

  • Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (15 004 247)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Highway adoption 29-Jul-2015

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about planning and highway matters as she is unlikely to find fault in the Council's actions which has led to significant injustice to the complainant.

;