London Borough of Bromley (21 015 240)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Covid-19 22-Feb-2022

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s approach to mask wearing when its environmental health officers visit members of the public. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Birmingham City Council (21 007 453)

Statement Upheld Covid-19 16-Feb-2022

Summary: There was no fault by the Council in its decision to suspend part of its pest control service during the COVID-19 pandemic. This was a decision it was entitled to take, and we have no grounds to question it. The Council’s handling of the complainant’s complaint was poor, but this did not cause a significant injustice. We have therefore completed our investigation.

Uttlesford District Council (21 008 290)

Statement Upheld Covid-19 03-Feb-2022

Summary: We found fault with the way the Council handled Mr C’s temporary event notice and the advice it gave about his party. The Council agreed actions to remedy the injustice to Mr C.

London Borough of Southwark (20 013 511)

Statement Upheld Covid-19 07-Dec-2021

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of a complaint about noise nuisance, arising from temporary access arrangements for a leisure centre. This is because the temporary arrangements have now been removed, and so there is no value to further investigation. The Council was at fault, because of how it addressed the situation as a potential statutory nuisance, but this did not cause the complainant an injustice. We have not investigated a complaint about ongoing noise nuisance from the leisure centre, because the complainant has a right to apply to the courts about it.

Wakefield City Council (21 009 676)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Covid-19 09-Nov-2021

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a marshal speaking to Mr X about wearing a face covering. There is not a significant enough injustice and it is unlikely we could achieve significantly more than the Council has already done.

London Borough of Brent (20 001 601)

Statement Upheld Covid-19 11-Oct-2021

Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council responded to reports about noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour from a neighbour’s building site during the first COVID-19 national lockdown. The Ombudsman found there was fault causing injustice resulting from Council delays and periods of inaction. We have not seen evidence that had this fault not occurred the outcome would likely have been different, but the Council agreed to provide an improved remedy.

London Borough of Merton (21 006 713)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Covid-19 26-Sep-2021

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about events at a household reuse and recycling centre. There is insufficient injustice to warrant investigation and any investigation is unlikely to reach a clear enough view about what happened.

Westminster City Council (21 004 905)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Covid-19 15-Sep-2021

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s investigation into his employer’s precautions to reduce the spread of COVID-19. This is because the Council’s actions did not cause Mr X significant injustice.

West Northamptonshire Council (21 005 866)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Covid-19 14-Sep-2021

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about noise from a building site. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Scarborough Borough Council (20 011 085)

Statement Upheld Covid-19 10-Sep-2021

Summary: Mrs B complained the Council charged the full year’s fee for her holiday let waste collection service despite no service being provided at three times during the year. The Ombudsman found the Council failed to give clear information about which waste collection services were suspended. It agreed to offer Mrs B a remedy.