Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • 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.

  • 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.