Health and safety


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Cotswold District Council (20 001 778)

    Statement Not upheld Health and safety 26-Nov-2020

    Summary: The Council followed the correct process to investigate health and safety in the workplace, following an incident in a child's nursery.

  • London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority (19 004 667)

    Statement Not upheld Health and safety 29-Jan-2020

    Summary: Mr X complains the London Fire Brigade wrongly decided his neighbour, the owner of a commercial building, complied with a legal fire safety notice and that it needs to take no further action. The Ombudsman found no evidence of fault in this case. While Mr X strongly disagrees with the findings of the London Fire Brigade's fire safety inspectors, they followed the correct process and are entitled to reach conclusions about risk as a result.

  • Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (19 000 099)

    Statement Not upheld Health and safety 18-Oct-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly investigate and deal with a rat infestation on his land, which he said was entering from Council land. The Council was not at fault. It carried out an investigation in line with the relevant legislation, but concluded it was unable to find the source of the rats. As the landowner, it is Mr X's responsibility to put measures in place to control the rats entering his land or property.

  • Ryedale District Council (18 012 952)

    Statement Not upheld Health and safety 19-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council carried out a risk assessment of his home under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System and the conclusions it reached. He also complains about the way it handled his concerns about this matter. He says some of the areas in his home are not safe to use during the hours of darkness and he wants the Council to clarify the conclusions it reached about the category of hazards in these areas. We have discontinued our investigation into this complaint. This is because there is no recommendation we could make which would guarantee the ultimate outcome sought by Mr X, and the court system is better placed to deal with his overall complaint.

  • Plymouth City Council (18 008 668)

    Statement Upheld Health and safety 15-Oct-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the condition of the footpath outside her parent's home. This is because the Council has remedied any possible injustice. Consideration of the complaint by the Ombudsman could not achieve anything more.

  • London Borough of Barnet (17 012 637)

    Statement Not upheld Health and safety 30-May-2018

    Summary: There was no fault by the Council in its response to Mr and Mrs X's complaints and concerns about their neighbour Mr Y's use of his wood-burning stove. The Council made its professional judgement decisions on the issues raised without fault.

  • London Borough of Havering (16 018 272)

    Statement Not upheld Health and safety 22-Jan-2018

    Summary: there is no fault by the Council regarding its decision not to pursue a supermarket for failing to report a customer's accident in store.

  • London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority (17 002 462)

    Statement Upheld Health and safety 19-Dec-2017

    Summary: Mr D complains the Authority failed to enforce a fire safety notice. The Ombudsman has found some evidence of fault because there were periods of delay by the Authority. However, it had no obligation to seek formal enforcement action. She has upheld the complaint and completed the investigation because the Authority has agreed to apologise to Mr D for one period of delay.

  • Nottingham City Council (16 015 250)

    Statement Upheld Health and safety 07-Jun-2017

    Summary: The Community Protection Officer acted in line with his job description and training. Therefore, where there is no evidence of fault, the Ombudsman will not challenge the merits of a professional judgment. But the Council has accepted that at times it was insensitive when it responded to Ms B's complaint and apologised.

  • Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (16 010 052)

    Statement Not upheld Health and safety 30-May-2017

    Summary: There was no fault in the Council's investigation of a trading standards complaint. There was a delay in referring the complaint, but this was not the fault of the Council.

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.