Archive has 251 results
-
Transport for London (21 007 328)
Statement Upheld Other 08-Mar-2022
Summary: Company X has made a complaint in relation to Transport for London’s decision to not pay a grant under the Mayor of London’s Scrappage Scheme. Company X says TfL has refused to make a grant payment due to it not satisfying the evidence requirements in time and in accordance with the Scheme’s terms and conditions. We found TfL failed to consider Company X’s circumstances and the reasons for the delay in providing evidence. It also failed to adhere to the established expectation that it would honour the grant payment on receipt of satisfactory evidence about the vehicles Company X purchased. This caused Company X an injustice, and TfL have agreed to remedy this.
-
Swindon Borough Council (21 015 959)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 04-Mar-2022
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council is failing to keep highway signs clear and readable and not obscured by tree branches. There is insufficient injustice to Mr X and the Council has agreed to review the situation at one location of concern.
-
City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (21 003 773)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 03-Mar-2022
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not addressing the complainant’s concerns about a parking issue. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The complainant has not been caused injustice that warrants our involvement.
-
London Borough of Croydon (21 016 265)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 03-Mar-2022
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a dropped kerb. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.
-
Essex County Council (21 015 020)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 01-Mar-2022
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to place a disabled parking bay on the road in front of her property. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council and an investigation by this office would be unable to add to the response and explanation already provided via the Council’s previous investigation.
-
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 01-Mar-2022
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council trucks parking in a disabled bay. The Council has confirmed it has directed staff not to park in disabled bays. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
-
London Borough of Haringey (21 016 333)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 01-Mar-2022
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the refusal to refund an application fee for a dropped kerb. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.
-
Wakefield City Council (21 016 163)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 28-Feb-2022
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a neighbour suspending a cable over the highway. This is because the matter has not caused Mr X a significant personal injustice which would merit an investigation. The complaint also lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late.
-
London Borough of Sutton (21 015 792)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 22-Feb-2022
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her application for a dropped kerb. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. It is reasonable for Miss X to appeal the Council’s decision not to remove the tree which caused her application to be refused.
-
Derbyshire County Council (21 015 807)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 22-Feb-2022
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council removing cones from the public highway. There is no fault in the Council removing Mr X’s cones, nor in how it has dealt with cones placed by other residents on the highway. Even if the Council were not removing all others’ cones, that would not cause injustice to Mr X warranting our involvement.