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.


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Fylde Borough Council (21 000 468)

    Statement Upheld Other 13-Dec-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has failed to take effective action against the owner of dangerous dogs. The Council is at fault because it delayed considering issuing a community protection warning. The Council is not at fault regarding its consideration of further enforcement. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X, pay her £200 and issue guidance to staff.

  • London Borough of Lambeth (20 013 111)

    Statement Upheld Other 08-Dec-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take proper action in response to complaints about the impact of work at a redevelopment site close to his home. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council, causing injustice to Mr X. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising and making a payment to reflect the distress caused.

  • Allerdale Borough Council (21 001 271)

    Statement Upheld Other 07-Dec-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council handled his complaint about his neighbour feeding birds in his garden. There was fault in the Council's record keeping, communication and complaint handling. The Council agreed to apologise and pay Mr X £100 to recognise the frustration and uncertainty caused.

  • Cambridge City Council (20 008 600)

    Statement Upheld Other 14-Oct-2021

    Summary: Mr D complains about how the Council used rat poison at his home, which he says which he says his dog came into contact with, resulting in veterinary fees. We have found there was fault causing injustice. The Council should forward Mr D's claim for a refund of vets' fees to its insurer and pay him £100 to acknowledge the time and trouble he has been caused.

  • South Norfolk District Council (20 008 783)

    Statement Upheld Other 16-Sep-2021

    Summary: Mrs C complained about the Council's private water supply testing service. Mrs C says she incurred additional costs and spent unnecessary time and trouble in trying to resolve the matter. We have found fault by the Council in its communication with Mrs C but consider the actions it has already taken of an apology and staff training provide a suitable remedy.

  • Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (20 012 745)

    Statement Not upheld Other 07-Sep-2021

    Summary: Mr and Mrs C say the Council is at fault for failures, both in its planning and environmental health departments, concerning a pub next door to their house. They say the Council made errors when approving the planning application to install the pub's new kitchen and has since failed to take action to prevent the pub making noise and odours. They say this has caused them injustice because the pub disturbs their enjoyment of their property. The Council was not at fault. It investigated Mr and Mrs C's concerns and continues to do so.

  • Middlesbrough Borough Council (20 011 701)

    Statement Upheld Other 01-Sep-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained about visits to his property from Council officers, the Council's failure to deal with complaints about these visits and the designated point of contact who failed to respond or deal with his concerns. The Council was not at fault for visiting Mr X's premises as it did so in response to concerns raised by members of the public. It failed to clearly explain the limits and boundaries of the designated point of contact and did not respond to one of Mr X's complaints. It has agreed to apologise to Mr X for this

  • Nottingham City Council (20 010 534)

    Statement Upheld Other 23-Aug-2021

    Summary: Miss A says the Council delayed resolving a faulty alley gate lock. The Ombudsman has found some evidence of delay. He has upheld the complaint and completed the investigation because the Council agrees to pay Miss A redress.

  • Herefordshire Council (20 009 387)

    Statement Upheld Other 13-Jul-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly issued him with a Community Protection Notice warning letter without properly investigating the allegations against him. We found there was fault in how the Council investigated the allegations made against Mr X. The Council has agreed to pay Mr X £100 for the distress it caused him.

  • Luton Borough Council (20 010 398)

    Statement Not upheld Other 15-Jun-2021

    Summary: The investigation of this complaint will be discontinued as it is unlikely the Ombudsman could decide what was said in private conversations between two individuals where they do not agree. It is unlikely there will be enough evidence to prove, either way, allegations made about the conduct of a Council Officer.