East Lindsey District Council (24 012 340)

Statement Not upheld Other 31-Mar-2025

Summary: Mr X complained that he was unable to challenge a Fixed Penalty Notice because of fault on the part of an Enforcement Agency contracted by the Council. We found no fault by the Enforcement Agency or the Council. Another agency is better placed to deal with Mr X’s complaints about data retention and deletion.

Ipswich Borough Council (24 019 594)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 30-Mar-2025

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council carrying out Community Protection activities and approaching the Police. This is because an alternative remedy has been used and the issues complained about relate to matters subject to legal proceedings in court. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

London Borough of Barnet (24 010 743)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 30-Mar-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a Council officer and the decision to issue an Improvement Notice. We will not consider the complaint about the issuing of the Improvement Notice as we have previously considered this. We cannot require the Council to discipline the officer so we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking. We cannot decide whether the Council is liable to pay the complainant compensation or damages. Finally, it is not a good use of public funds to investigate concerns about the complaint process when we are not investigating the substantive issues.

London Borough of Hackney (24 013 542)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 30-Mar-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council decided a licensing application for the sale of alcohol. This is because the complainant objected to the application having made relevant representations during this process, and therefore has a right of appeal to the magistrates’ court. We consider the complainant could reasonably exercise that appeal right if he disagrees with the Council’s decision. We therefore have no jurisdiction to investigate.

City of Wolverhampton Council (24 002 391)

Statement Not upheld Other 28-Mar-2025

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly consider evidence and take action over a rat infestation from her neighbour’s property. There was no fault in how the Council took the decision to take no further action, and I therefore cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.

Nottingham City Council (24 001 921)

Statement Not upheld Other 25-Mar-2025

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to act over the condition of two derelict properties near her home. She said the condition of the properties encourages fly-tipping and rodents, which is a public health issue impacting her, and the community. There was no fault in the Council’s consideration of its available powers or in its response to the issues Ms X complained about.

London Borough of Hillingdon (24 017 519)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 25-Mar-2025

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to plant up an area which is subject to persistent flytipping or take action in relation to her neighbour’s boundary wall. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

West Northamptonshire Council (24 018 944)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 19-Mar-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Mr X’s report of Japanese Knotweed spreading into his garden from a neighbouring property. This is because his complaint is made late.

Sunderland City Council (24 019 633)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 13-Mar-2025

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to accept liability for damage to her car. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mrs X to take the matter to court.

Tandridge District Council (24 002 983)

Statement Not upheld Other 12-Mar-2025

Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council decided to close an enforcement case against a neighbouring property. She said the Council misinterpreted the Ombudsman’s recommendations and did not account for all relevant factors in its decision-making. We have not found the Council acted with fault in its decision-making. We cannot therefore question the decision the Council made. The Council has confirmed it would consider any new reports or evidence it receives.