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:

  • Leeds City Council (21 009 599)

    Statement Upheld Other 27-Apr-2022

    Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it considered Mr X's reports of noise nuisance. There was some fault with how the Council communicated with Mr X, however this has not caused Mr X significant injustice.

  • Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (21 009 843)

    Statement Upheld Other 26-Apr-2022

    Summary: Dr B complains the Council has not taken any action following a dog attack on him and his young child. Dr B says both he and his child were injured and is concerned it may happen again to others. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault for not considering whether the use of its powers to tackle antisocial behaviour was appropriate in this case.

  • Lancaster City Council (20 009 091)

    Statement Upheld Other 07-Apr-2022

    Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's handling of anti-social behaviour (ASB) concerns raised by his neighbours about him. The Council was at fault for not handling the ASB concerns in line with statutory guidance and for delay in responding to Mr X's complaints. The Council agrees to remedy the injustice caused to Mr X by making an apology, payment for time and trouble and reimburses his avoidable legal costs. The Council will also issue a written reminder to all relevant staff about the statutory guidance and good practice set out in recent case law.

  • Bristol City Council (21 013 837)

    Statement Not upheld Other 30-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained about the actions the Council took to recover an unpaid fixed penalty notice and the lack of response to a complaint he made in 2017. The Council was not at fault for not sending a court summons to Mr X via email.

  • East Devon District Council (21 007 341)

    Statement Upheld Other 23-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has failed to take sufficient action to stop a resident from feeding birds which is causing a nuisance. The Council is at fault as its investigation drifted. This is because it did not consider if the investigation should be carried out by its Environmental Health Team when its Housing Management Team could not progress the investigation. This caused frustration and uncertainty to Mrs X. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising to Mrs X and drawing up an action plan to ensure its investigations do not continue to drift.

  • London Borough of Havering (21 009 511)

    Statement Upheld Other 18-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mr D complains the Council failed to correctly investigate his reports about rats and mishandled his complaint. The Ombudsman has not found evidence of fault by the Council in respect of the pest control issue. The Council has already acknowledged fault in the complaints handling. In view of this the Ombudsman has upheld the complaint and completed the investigation because there is no outstanding injustice.

  • London Borough of Hillingdon (21 005 792)

    Statement Upheld Other 18-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained about the conduct of civil enforcement officers acting on behalf of the Council in April 2021. We cannot say if the civil enforcement officers acted appropriately on the day, however we have found fault with their administrative practice. The Council agreed to remedy the injustice this caused to Mr X.

  • Transport for London (21 003 359)

    Statement Upheld Other 04-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mr C said Transport for London was at fault for a failure to inform him testing of taxis had resumed after a pause caused by COVID-19. Transport for London was at fault. It said it would contact Mr C when the pause ended. It did not do so. Nor did it tell him of an extended deadline which would have allowed him to renew his taxi licence. This caused Mr C injustice. he was caused significant distress as he could not pay his bills or work. Transport for London has agreed to pay Mr C £999 to remedy the injustice found.

  • Leeds City Council (21 005 937)

    Statement Not upheld Other 03-Mar-2022

    Summary: the complainant, Mr X complained the Council failed to properly exercise its enforcement powers to prevent and remove mud and dust collecting on the public highway. The Council says it considered its powers, investigated the complaints, and issued a statutory notice. It accepts some delay arose due to Covid-19. We found the Council considered and exercised its enforcement powers without fault.

  • St Albans City Council (21 006 367)

    Statement Upheld Other 24-Feb-2022

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council was at fault as it missed waste and recycling bin collections at his property in 2021. But this fault did not cause Mr X an injustice as the Council apologised and resolved the issues. We found no evidence of fault in the way the Council responded to Mr X's concerns about road sweeping, overgrown vegetation, and parking issues near to his home. So, we are completing our investigation.