Other


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (18 017 735)

    Statement Upheld Other 03-Sep-2019

    Summary: Mr C complains about the way the Council responded to his reports of nuisance from rabbits entering his garden which have caused damage. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council in the delay in advising Mr C it did not own the land the rabbits were entering his property from and in providing the landowner's details. However, the Ombudsman considers the agreed action of an apology is enough to provide a suitable remedy.

  • Isle of Wight Council (19 001 732)

    Statement Not upheld Other 28-Aug-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman has discontinued his investigation of this complaint, about the Council's handling of a statutory nuisance investigation. This is because all substantive matters are out of time.

  • Bristol City Council (18 019 085)

    Statement Upheld Other 09-Aug-2019

    Summary: Mr B complains the Council has not resolved the problems of litter near to where he lives following a previous complaint to the Ombudsman. He says the Council did not respond to his report of continued littering and then did not respond to his complaint. There was delay in responding to the last investigation decision and fault in how the Council responded to Mr B when he reported continuing problems. There is not fault in the action the Council has now taken to address the problems.

  • Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (18 016 694)

    Statement Not upheld Other 05-Aug-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault on Mr D's complaint that the Council failed to follow the correct procedures and guidance when it investigated him and his family for fly tipping. The officer did not question his wife before cautioning her. Nor was there evidence that vindictiveness was a motive for changing the venue of the interview as claimed.

  • Charnwood Borough Council (18 017 168)

    Statement Upheld Other 26-Jul-2019

    Summary: Mr D complains the Council has failed to properly investigate and take enforcement action for breaches of planning control and noise nuisance caused a boating company. The Ombudsman has found evidence of delay by the Council. He has upheld the complaint and completed the investigation because the Council agrees to the recommended actions.

  • London Borough of Sutton (18 014 751)

    Statement Upheld Other 03-Jul-2019

    Summary: Mr D complains that the Council has failed to clean his street to the required standard. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the way the Council is maintaining the street. But the Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for the delay in dealing with Mr D's complaint.

  • London Borough of Lambeth (18 016 266)

    Statement Not upheld Other 27-Jun-2019

    Summary: The Council is not at fault for removing the complainant's boat and trailer from a road and wanting him to pay fees for their return. The Council properly followed the law.

  • Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (18 019 558)

    Statement Upheld Other 25-Jun-2019

    Summary: Ms C complains that the Council delayed in arranging a follow up pest control appointment after she complained about a previous visit. I have concluded my investigation on the basis that there was fault which led to a delay in arranging the follow up visit. The Council has agreed to offer a financial remedy to Ms C.

  • Leicester City Council (18 013 098)

    Statement Upheld Other 19-Jun-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's actions relating to wheelie bins, which were left out on the street after collections. We have not investigated his complaint about fixed penalty notices, because Mr and Mrs X had the right to appeal to tribunal. The Council was at fault when it invoiced Mr and Mrs X for costs of its investigation, which it did not have the power to do without taking court action. This caused stress and anxiety for Mr and Mrs X. The Council has agreed to apologise and decide whether it will pursue a claim for its costs through the county court. It will also consider whether it has put others in the same position as Mr and Mrs X.

  • Epping Forest District Council (18 013 509)

    Statement Not upheld Other 18-Jun-2019

    Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council decided Transport for London did not need to apply for prior consent to carry out noise generating activities near Mr B's home. The Council has not received any statutory nuisance complaints and has no power to deal with Mr B's other concerns about the works because they do not require planning permission and the Council is not the Highways Authority.