Essex County Council (19 008 913)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 04-Nov-2019

Summary: The Ombudsman does not propose to investigate Mr X and Miss Y’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant their neighbour's application for a dropped kerb. This is because the Council’s decision has not caused Mr X and Miss Y significant injustice.

Stevenage Borough Council (19 011 124)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 31-Oct-2019

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council will not pay for repairs to her car after it was damaged by a Council road sweeper. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mrs X to resort to court action for the compensation she seeks.

London Borough of Havering (19 008 747)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 30-Oct-2019

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of matters relating to the presence of a green utilities cabinet directly outside her home. This is because the complaint is a late complaint and so falls outside our jurisdiction and because an investigation is unlikely to lead to the outcome Ms X seeks.

Swale Borough Council (19 001 560)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 29-Oct-2019

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to prevent the private road on which she lives from being accessed by tankers and traffic from a nearby estate. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because it concerns matters which she was aware of for more than the normal 12-month period for receiving complaints. It also concerns access to a private road which is a legal matter between residents and the other users, such as the water authority.

Worcestershire County Council (19 005 177)

Statement Not upheld Other 25-Oct-2019

Summary: There was no fault by the Council when it intervened to stop unauthorised works to a public footway.

Staffordshire County Council (19 010 553)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 23-Oct-2019

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council will not allow him access to documents relating to his claim for compensation for damage to his car. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is best placed to deal with Mr X’s complaint.

Braintree District Council (19 007 794)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 23-Oct-2019

Summary: Mr X complains the Council wasted taxpayer’s money by painting yellow lines on roads which were due for resurfacing. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. Any loss to the taxpayer is a matter which concerns all or most of the residents in the Council’s area. The law forbids the Ombudsman from investigating such complaints.

Hertfordshire County Council (19 009 291)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 22-Oct-2019

Summary: Mrs X complains about damage caused to her car by a defective speed hump. She says the Council has not reimbursed her for the cost of the repairs to her car and refuses to accept it has been negligent. She states this has caused her to suffer a considerable financial loss and she wants the Council to compensate her. She also wants it to repair the speed humps and potholes on the road where the damage occurred. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because it is reasonable to expect Mrs X to use her right of redress in the courts to recover the cost of her repairs. Moreover, she can apply to a Magistrates’ court if she wants the speed humps and potholes repaired.

Essex County Council (19 003 049)

Statement Upheld Other 21-Oct-2019

Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not carry out effective repairs to a pedestrian crossing and did not update her. There was fault causing injustice when the Council failed to respond to some fault reports and failed to address some of the issues in a reasonable timeframe.

West Yorkshire Combined Authority (19 001 637)

Statement Upheld Other 21-Oct-2019

Summary: Mr X complained the Combined Authority retendered for a subsidised bus service without consulting appropriately or assessing the impact of the decision on equality of access to services. He says this means he and others now cannot easily access the city centre by public transport in the evening. The Combined Authority’s review of its passenger transport subsidy guidelines was at fault. It did not properly consider the Equality Act and Public Sector Equality Duty in its approach. This means Mr X is uncertain whether the tendering decision would have been different, but for the fault. It has agreed to apologise to him and review its approach to prevent reoccurrence of this fault.