Privacy settings

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.

COVID-19


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (21 014 087)

    Statement Not upheld COVID-19 15-Jun-2022

    Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into this complaint, about the Council's private hire driver licensing process during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is because the Council has already addressed the main issues and further investigation will not achieve anything significant.

  • Sheffield City Council (21 011 239)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 07-Jun-2022

    Summary: It was for the Council to decide whether to suspend indoor collections of bulky waste, because of concerns about the spread of COVID-19. The Council should have ensured it made an assessment of the likely impact of this suspension on disabled people, but this did not cause a direct injustice to the complainant. There was an injustice to the complainant caused by the delay and confusion in the Council's complaint handling, which it has now agreed to remedy. We have therefore completed our investigation.

  • Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (21 007 452)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 16-May-2022

    Summary: Mr G complained about delays in obtaining a taxi licence. We found fault in the time taken for the Council to resume testing of candidates, suspended at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic and in misleading statements it made to Mr G during that suspension. This caused Mr G some avoidable distress and frustration. The Council accepts these findings and at the end of this statement we set out the action it has agreed to take to remedy Mr G's injustice.

  • Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (21 012 292)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 11-May-2022

    Summary: There was no fault in the Council's decision to licence several bars and restaurant to install parklets for external dining, near the complainant's home. Although it accepts this has caused some problems with waste disposal, we do not consider this now causes an injustice to the complainant. We are also now satisfied with the action the Council has taken to address the complainant's concerns about littering and anti-social behaviour.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Bedford Borough Council (20 006 898)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 02-Jul-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed removing harmful waste from his neighbour's garden. He said this affected his health and well-being and spoilt the enjoyment of his home. The Ombudsman found fault causing injustice when the Council allowed matters to drift and failed to consider alternate enforcement measures sooner.