Other archive 2020-2021


Archive has 101 results

  • Darlington Borough Council (19 017 575)

    Statement Upheld Other 17-Sep-2020

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly treated his car as abandoned and towed it away. He said he incurred costs to release his car and then the Council refused to accept his complaint about the matter. The Council was at fault. The Council accepted its 7-day vehicle removal form contained errors making it invalid, and it should have investigated Mr X’s complaint in line with its corporate complaints’ procedure. The Council agreed to refund Mr X the £318 in fees he paid to release his car. It also agreed to pay him £150 to recognise the frustration, uncertainty and time and trouble caused by its poor handling of his complaint.

  • Surrey County Council (19 019 699)

    Statement Not upheld Other 07-Sep-2020

    Summary: Mrs C complains the Council will not complete remodelling work to update the surface water flood risk for her property which has affected her home insurance. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault by the Council.

  • London Borough of Enfield (20 002 015)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 03-Sep-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council charging to investigate abandoned vehicles on private land. This is because he is unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

  • Environment Agency (19 021 250)

    Statement Not upheld Other 25-Aug-2020

    Summary: Mrs C complains the Environment Agency wrongly designated her property as being at high risk of flooding which has affected her home insurance. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault by the Environment Agency.

  • Middlesbrough Borough Council (20 002 162)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 25-Aug-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about actions taken by the Council under food hygiene legislation. It is unlikely he would find fault by the Council and it was a court that made the order that affected the complainant’s food business.

  • London Borough of Haringey (20 001 608)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 24-Aug-2020

    Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s actions in relation to a lease for premises in her local park. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council and the injustice caused to Ms X is insufficient to warrant an investigation.

  • Bristol City Council (20 001 743)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 20-Aug-2020

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council refuses to require the organiser of a large annual event to meet him to discuss his alternative traffic management proposals. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions. Nor can we achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

  • Basildon Borough Council (20 002 652)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 19-Aug-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about an allegation of littering. This is because he does not provide a right of appeal against allegations that a criminal offence has been committed as only the magistrates court can determine this.

  • Wychavon District Council (20 002 227)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 17-Aug-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr T’s complaint about the Council’s failure to properly conduct a Community Trigger Process. This is because the law prevents us from investigating complaints made by a body constituted for the purposes of the public service, which includes Parish Councils.

  • Northumberland County Council (19 005 084)

    Statement Not upheld Other 13-Aug-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault by the Council on Mr Q’s complaint of it insisting over 3 years he apply for an environmental permit for his business despite him disputing the need for one. Two periods of delay found were not the Council’s fault. The Council told Mr Q in August 2017 he did not need to apply for a permit while it reviewed guidance. This meant he was at no risk of prosecution for not having one during this period.

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