London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (21 003 930)

Statement Upheld Other 21-Feb-2022

Summary: Mr B complains that the Council wrongly approved his application for a dropped kerb even though it did not meet the criteria because of the presence of a disabled parking bay. He says that, because of the position of the parking bay and the absence of double yellow lines, his drive is frequently blocked by parked vehicles preventing him from using it. The Ombudsman found the Council was at fault in failing to inform Mr B that the parking bay could not be relocated and that the access to his drive would have to be installed at an angle. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B and make a payment.

London Borough of Hillingdon (21 015 426)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 21-Feb-2022

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a vehicle crossover. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council as it has considered and decided Mr X’s application in line with its current published policy for crossover applications.

Bristol City Council (21 015 797)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 21-Feb-2022

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about damage to his car caused by a pothole. This is because this is a complaint about negligence which is a legal matter for the courts to consider and decide should the Council deny liability on his claim.

Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (21 015 653)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 21-Feb-2022

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal of Mrs X’s vehicle crossing extension application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Surrey County Council (21 004 846)

Statement Upheld Other 17-Feb-2022

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council handled his application for a mini s278 agreement under the Highways Act. The Council was at fault for not clearly managing Mr X’s expectations about the timescales involved and for delay in completing the agreement. The delays caused Mr D frustration but did not lead to any delay in the completion of the work. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X for the frustration caused. It has already revised its guidance pack to more accurately reflect the timescales involved.

London Borough of Bromley (21 014 973)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 17-Feb-2022

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant cannot have a dropped kerb. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (21 014 296)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 16-Feb-2022

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of an obstruction placed on a road in his locale. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

West Sussex County Council (21 016 750)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 16-Feb-2022

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a vehicle crossover licence. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (21 016 092)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 09-Feb-2022

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s and its insurer’s refusal of liability for pothole damage to his car. It is for the courts to establish liability in property damage complaints. It is reasonable for Mr X to pursue the matter in court. We do not investigate councils’ internal claims or complaints processes in isolation when not pursuing the core issue giving rise to them. It is reasonable for Mr X to refer his complaint about the Council’s Freedom of Information (FOI) responses to the ICO, which is the body best placed to consider it.

London Borough of Hillingdon (21 013 639)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 09-Feb-2022

Summary:Mr C says the Council alleges he installed a gate in his fence giving him access to a Council car park when he was not supposed to. Mr C is unhappy the Council issued him with a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN), but has changed its position on what law applies.