Recent statements in this category are shown below:
Statement Not upheld Other 03-Oct-2019
Summary: Mrs X complains about inadequate signage about dog walking restrictions on beaches and about access to the dog friendly beaches. The decision on beach access for dogs was made in 2013 and is now under review. The best way for Mrs X to make her points and get changes for dog walkers is to participate in the current consultation process on beach access.
Statement Not upheld Other 20-Sep-2019
Summary: Mr S complains about the Council's works to a watercourse near his home. He is particularly concerned about how it dealt with material containing asbestos on the site. The Ombudsman's decision is there was no fault by the Council in the issues we have investigated. Other parts of Mr S's complaint are better considered by courts, not the Ombudsman.
Statement Not upheld Other 18-Sep-2019
Summary: Mr D complains the Environment Agency has not taken into account existing flood defence works when assessing the flood risk for his property. The Ombudsman has found no fault.
Statement Upheld Other 09-Sep-2019
Summary: Mr B complains about works by the Council to a hedge and its response to his subsequent complaint. Mr B says the hedge was left unsightly with large gaps and possible damage which reduced the privacy to the property and left it exposed to traffic noise, pollution and light nuisance. Mr B says this caused his family unnecessary costs, distress and time and trouble. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council but considers the agreed actions of an apology, payment and service improvements in addition to the already offered further works are enough to provide a suitable remedy.
Statement Upheld Other 05-Sep-2019
Summary: Mr B says the Council removed and destroyed his cars, which he had not abandoned. The cars were stationary for a long time so met the test of an abandoned vehicle. The Council followed the correct process in law to remove and dispose of the cars. Although Mr B was in contact with the Council there was no evidence the cars belonged to him. The Council failed to follow its complaints procedure at stage one; it delayed, and the response was from the officer subject to the complaint. This caused Mr B some anger and frustration. The Council will apologise and remind staff they must follow the published complaints procedure.
Statement Not upheld Other 05-Sep-2019
Summary: Mr X complained the Council has not carried out alterations to his property to address noise issues, which was the agreed remedy from his previous complaint to the Ombudsman, and it did not deal with a leak from a neighbouring property. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the way the Council sought to pursue the project to alter Mr X's property or in the way the Council handled the issue of a leak.
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.
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.
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.
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.