Other archive 2017-2018


Archive has 114 results

  • Staffordshire County Council (17 013 327)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 29-Mar-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X's complaint about photographs taken by a Council officer and used in court proceedings. This is because we cannot investigate complaints about information used in court proceedings.

  • East Riding of Yorkshire Council (17 010 856)

    Statement Upheld Other 29-Mar-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsman found fault with the Council's failure to explain why it considered the complainant was no longer suitable to operate a bus service. This meant the complainant was not given an opportunity to make a proper appeal against the decision. The Council agreed to apologise for this fault and give the complainant a further opportunity to appeal.

  • Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (17 007 346)

    Statement Not upheld Other 29-Mar-2018

    Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint alleging it harassed the complainant over the alleged abandonment of his vehicle on private land.

  • Halton Borough Council (17 010 692)

    Statement Upheld Other 27-Mar-2018

    Summary: There was fault when the Council failed to investigate a nuisance complaint about a waste site. There was no significant injustice to the complainant. This was because the Council did carry out other visits to monitor the site which found no statutory nuisance. The Environment Agency also confirmed the site was being operated in accordance with its permit.

  • Chesterfield Borough Council (17 016 797)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 22-Mar-2018

    Summary: we will not investigate this complaint about the Council's investigation into missing postcards Ms X and others sent it asking it to take action to protect bees. There is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice to justify an investigation.

  • London Borough of Haringey (17 012 917)

    Statement Upheld Other 05-Mar-2018

    Summary: The Council was at fault when it delayed in responding to reports of a cockroach infestation in Mr B's flat. However, it was not at fault when it eventually took action to address the problem.

  • London Borough Of Brent (17 017 297)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 02-Mar-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council unreasonably issued a Fixed Penalty Notice for littering. This is because it is not our role to decide if someone has committed a criminal offence. The complainant can defend her case in the magistrate's court if she refuses to pay the penalty fine.

  • London Borough of Lambeth (17 017 690)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 02-Mar-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council unreasonably issued a fixed penalty notice for littering. It is the courts' role, not the Ombudsman's, to decide if someone has committed a criminal offence. The complainant could have defended his case in a magistrates' court if the Council had prosecuted him.

  • London Borough of Redbridge (17 017 262)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 01-Mar-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to respond to reports of rats. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

  • London Borough of Lambeth (16 016 691)

    Statement Not upheld Other 27-Feb-2018

    Summary: there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council regarding a fixed penalty notice that it issued to the complainant for littering.