Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • South Gloucestershire Council (18 011 113)

    Statement Not upheld Other 07-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complains about a CCTV camera at a Gypsy and Traveller Site where she lives. She felt the Council's use of the camera was unreasonable.

  • Pendle Borough Council (18 007 748)

    Statement Upheld Other 06-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr B complains that the Council has failed to take action to deal with a straying dog. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the way the Council has handled this matter. It has taken action to resolve the situation and has kept Mr B informed. The Council was at fault in that it delayed in responding to Mr B's complaint but this did not cause him a significant injustice.

  • Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (18 016 197)

    Statement Upheld Other 06-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains he was not allowed to pay a fixed penalty fine at a discounted rate. The Ombudsman will not investigate as the Council has now allowed Mr X to do this and so the complaint is resolved.

  • Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (17 020 332)

    Statement Not upheld Other 04-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr X says the Council is at fault because it has allowed too much supported housing and too many 'Houses in Multiple Occupation' in the area where he lives. He also says has not acted on fly-tipping and other criminal activity. The Ombudsman has not found any evidence of fault by the Council in the matters he has investigated and for this reason he has ended his investigation of this complaint.

  • Surrey Heath Borough Council (18 011 055)

    Statement Not upheld Other 28-Feb-2019

    Summary: There was no significant fault in the Council's investigation of a complaint about rodent infestation from a neighbours garden. The minor delay in acknowledging the complaint did not cause injustice as the rodent infestation was already being treated, a fact the complainant was aware of. The Council monitored, carried out further treatment, and surveyed to make sure no visible signs of infestation were present before closing the complaint.

  • London Borough of Sutton (18 008 135)

    Statement Upheld Other 19-Feb-2019

    Summary: Ms T complains that the Council has failed to maintain her road to the required standard. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the way the Council is maintaining the road. But it was at fault in raising Ms B's expectations in January 2018 when it stated the road would be cleaned more frequently. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms B for this.

  • Cheshire East Council (18 008 766)

    Statement Not upheld Other 05-Feb-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council used bullying and intimidating tactics to enforce a fixed penalty notice. He further complains it was wrong for the Council to delete the body camera footage after he paid the fine as he told them he was bringing his complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. He says pursuing the matter has taken considerable time and trouble and the fine is a financial burden. There was no fault in the Council's actions and it deleted the camera footage in line with its policy.

  • Cornwall Council (18 008 410)

    Statement Upheld Other 23-Jan-2019

    Summary: The Council did not follow the correct procedure when it collected Miss J's dog when it strayed. This caused Miss J and her family unnecessary worry and distress as they searched all night for a dog the Council's out of hours dog warden service had already collected and kennelled. The Ombudsman recommends the Council pays Miss J £100 in recognition of the distress that could have been avoided if the kennels had followed the correct procedure.

  • Nottingham City Council (17 016 587)

    Statement Not upheld Other 17-Jan-2019

    Summary: The Council was not at fault for the way in dealt with a Letting's agency when seeking its compliance with Regulations for managing Houses in Multiple Occupation.

  • 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.