London Borough of Enfield (19 008 942)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 18-Oct-2019

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her application for a dropped kerb. This is because the complaint is late and the Council has provided a suitable remedy for its delay. We also cannot achieve the outcome Ms X wants.

Lancashire County Council (19 002 934)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 17-Oct-2019

Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to carry out changes designed to ease traffic congestions in the town where he lives. The Ombudsman does not intend to investigate this complaint because the information provided does not suggest Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice. And it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

Bath and North East Somerset Council (19 008 906)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 17-Oct-2019

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council is refusing legal liability for his wife Mrs X’s losses after part of her car was stolen while parked in a Council car park. The complaint is one of negligence and legal liability. The Ombudsman cannot make such legal findings. It is the court’s role to rule on the legal questions raised by the complaint, so it is reasonable for Mrs X to pursue her claims against the Council in court.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (19 000 993)

Statement Not upheld Other 16-Oct-2019

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to implement a new parking scheme in the village centre. The Council was not at fault. It considered the results of the informal consultation process and decided to approve the scheme. It commissioned independent road safety audit reports during the process, and properly considered the safety recommendations within them.

Transport for London (18 017 867)

Statement Upheld Other 15-Oct-2019

Summary: Mr X complains that Transport for London did not deal with his application for a resident’s discount for the congestion charge. Transport for London is at fault as it did not activate Mr X’s resident’s discount in November 2016 when he supplied documents to support his application. Transport for London is also at fault for failing to deal with Mr X’s complaint between 2017 and late 2018. Transport for London has agreed to apologise to Mr X, make a payment of £100 and refund the difference between the congestion charge paid and the discounted rate.

Milton Keynes Council (19 007 890)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 15-Oct-2019

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council says the complainant must pay a fee for obstructing the highway. He is unlikely to find fault by the Council and the courts are better placed to decide if the complainant committed an offence under the Highways Act 1980.

London Borough of Havering (19 007 031)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 12-Oct-2019

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint that the Council has failed to take action to prevent a resident from blocking the highway. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault on the Council’s part.

Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (19 008 473)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 11-Oct-2019

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to charge householders for repairs to a retaining wall alongside the public highway. They dispute responsibility for the wall and the cost of repairs. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because it concerns matters which he was aware of outside the normal 12-month period for receiving complaints. It also relates to the ownership of private property and this is a matter which can only be determined by the courts.

Broxbourne Borough Council (19 008 092)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 11-Oct-2019

Summary: Mr X complains the Council removed his vehicle from private land and destroyed it. He says the Council’s actions have deprived him of the use of his car and he wants compensation for his loss. The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because the matters he complains about have already been considered in court and therefore are out of our jurisdiction.

Norfolk County Council (19 008 172)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 11-Oct-2019

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to cut down a hedge which affects his visibility when joining the public highway. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.