Other archive 2019-2020


Archive has 183 results

  • Cheshire East Council (19 005 456)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 29-Aug-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the adequacy of a bridge between two new housing developments. The matter does not cause Mr X significant personal injustice and we cannot say the Council must alter or replace the bridge as he would like.

  • Hertfordshire County Council (19 005 907)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 28-Aug-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about road signs in the highway causing damage to his car. Mr X’s claim is one of negligence by the Council causing damage to his property. The Council insurers rejected Mr X’s claim. The courts can decide on issues of negligence and make an award of damages. The appropriate route for Mr X to pursue his claim would be to court. Since bringing his complaint to the Ombudsman, Mr X and the Council have reached an agreement. The Ombudsman could not achieve such a settlement for Mr X here.

  • Stoke-on-Trent City Council (19 000 873)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 27-Aug-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council refuses to maintain an alleyway behind a property he owns. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as we have not seen any evidence of fault in the Council’ actions.

  • Buckinghamshire County Council (19 005 270)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 23-Aug-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about damage to his car from a pothole. This is because it is reasonable for him to seek compensation through the courts.

  • Staffordshire County Council (18 017 552)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 22-Aug-2019

    Summary: Mrs B complained about the implementation of a major road plan, drawn up over twenty years ago. She considers an error has prevented her having vehicle access to her property via this road. It affects deliveries and emergency services being able to access her property. We consider the status of the road is a matter for the courts to decide and the issue of her right of way is the subject of ongoing court proceedings.

  • Cambridgeshire County Council (19 005 226)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 19-Aug-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about damage to his car when he hit a pothole. It is reasonable to expect Mr B to use his right of remedy in the courts for the compensation he seeks.

  • London Borough of Havering (19 000 464)

    Statement Not upheld Other 14-Aug-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained about the extension work the Council carried out on the dropped kerb in front of his property. The Council was not at fault in the way it completed the dropped kerb extension work Mr X requested.

  • London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (19 002 029)

    Statement Not upheld Other 13-Aug-2019

    Summary: Mr B complains a Council officer threatened him. He says the Council has not complied with his request for information or progressed his complaint to stage two. The Ombudsman will discontinue this investigation as the substantive matters are outside our jurisdiction.

  • Staffordshire County Council (18 018 106)

    Statement Upheld Other 29-Jul-2019

    Summary: The Council failed to respond in a timely and effective manner to Mr X’s letters about a grass verge near his home. The Council’s significant delays and poor responses caused avoidable frustration and put Mr X to unnecessary time and trouble. To put this right, the Council agreed to apologise to Mr X, pay him £250 and agree how to deal with the grass verge. The Council also agreed to review how its Highways Department handles correspondence from residents.

  • Wakefield City Council (19 003 053)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 24-Jul-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council allowing a media company to place a communications equipment cabinet on the highway close to his property. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of any fault by the Council and any damage caused to his property would be a legal matter for insurers or the courts to determine.

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings