Other


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (18 000 703)

    Statement Not upheld Other 10-Jan-2019

    Summary: Mr B complains about the Council's decision not to pay a grant for flood defence works to his property that the Council initially agreed to pay. Mr B says because of the Council's decision he had to pay for the works himself. The Council's decision not to pay the grant was not affected by fault. So, we have completed our investigation.

  • Scarborough Borough Council (18 008 623)

    Statement Not upheld Other 07-Jan-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains there was fault in the consultation process for a Dog Control Public Space Protection Order which extended the dog control area on a local beach. He says the beach access steps he now had to use were not safe and this discriminated against him and others with health conditions. The Council was not at fault in how it consulted on and approved the Public Space Protection Order.

  • Amber Valley Borough Council (18 009 586)

    Statement Not upheld Other 18-Dec-2018

    Summary: Mr and Mrs B complain about Council officers who visited their home alleging sewage had been discharged from their property on to neighbouring land. The information does not suggest Mr and Mrs B suffered a significant injustice as a result of the Council's decision to visit them. We are unable to say on balance that officers were at fault for the way they conducted the visits. Also, further investigation is unlikely to help us make sound findings on what happened. So, we have ended our investigation.

  • Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (18 003 400)

    Statement Upheld Other 20-Nov-2018

    Summary: The Council took too long to apply for a warrant to inspect the home of Mr B's neighbour. It was aware of genuine concerns about vermin and could not to gain access to the property but it failed to take legal action until eight months later. This resulted in Mr B being subjected to vermin in his property for longer than he should have been.

  • London Borough of Enfield (17 015 551)

    Statement Upheld Other 16-Nov-2018

    Summary: Mr D complains the Council did not act proportionately when it issued him with a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) for fly-tipping and unfairly threatened him with legal action. He also says it did not properly consider his appeal against the FPN. The Ombudsman has found the Council was at fault for not providing Mrs D with an opportunity to ask the enforcement officer to explain the meaning of the caution, and for the way it dealt with Mr D's comments challenging the FPN. This caused him some injustice, but it may also highlight wider issues of poor practice at the Council. In response, it has agreed to apologise to Mr D and make some service improvements to prevent the faults identified from reoccurring.

  • Brighton & Hove City Council (18 003 442)

    Statement Not upheld Other 13-Nov-2018

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take sufficient enforcement action to deal with the untidy condition of his neighbour's front and rear gardens. He also complained the Council failed to take appropriate enforcement action against development his neighbour carried out without planning permission. We found the Council was not at fault.

  • Bristol City Council (18 002 590)

    Statement Upheld Other 25-Oct-2018

    Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council's response to her reports of noise nuisance and says they were not acknowledged or resolved until after she made a formal complaint. We found there was fault by the Council, as the investigating officer did not contact Mrs X to update her on his investigation and did not offer her access to its Noise App sooner. This put Mrs X to the time and trouble of having to complain and left her to live with the nuisance for longer than she might otherwise have done. The Ombudsman recommended the Council should remedy this by apologising to Mrs X, paying her a financial remedy and revising its policy to prevent this happening in future. It agreed to do so.

  • London Borough of Redbridge (18 009 114)

    Statement Upheld Other 24-Oct-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council disposed of a dead cat. This is because the Council has already provided a fair response and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome. In addition, it is unlikely the Ombudsman could achieve the outcome the complainant would like.

  • Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (17 019 766)

    Statement Upheld Other 24-Oct-2018

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council has not investigated or taken action about her reports of water leaking into her flat from her neighbour's property in November 2017. The Council did not investigate this report before deciding not to take any action. It relied on investigations from more than 12 months earlier. This was fault. It has already apologised to Mrs X. It has now agreed to inspect Mrs X's property and decide whether to take enforcement action.

  • Chorley Borough Council (18 005 697)

    Statement Not upheld Other 23-Oct-2018

    Summary: Mrs X complained about the procedures the Council has in place for the use of pest control poisons. The Council has adequate procedures in place and there is no evidence the Council's actions have caused Mrs X an injustice. We have stopped the investigation as there is nothing else to be achieved by pursuing the matter further.

;