Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • London Borough of Sutton (18 014 751)

    Statement Upheld Other 03-Jul-2019

    Summary: Mr D complains that the Council has failed to clean his street to the required standard. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the way the Council is maintaining the street. But the Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for the delay in dealing with Mr D's complaint.

  • London Borough of Lambeth (18 016 266)

    Statement Not upheld Other 27-Jun-2019

    Summary: The Council is not at fault for removing the complainant's boat and trailer from a road and wanting him to pay fees for their return. The Council properly followed the law.

  • Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (18 019 558)

    Statement Upheld Other 25-Jun-2019

    Summary: Ms C complains that the Council delayed in arranging a follow up pest control appointment after she complained about a previous visit. I have concluded my investigation on the basis that there was fault which led to a delay in arranging the follow up visit. The Council has agreed to offer a financial remedy to Ms C.

  • Leicester City Council (18 013 098)

    Statement Upheld Other 19-Jun-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's actions relating to wheelie bins, which were left out on the street after collections. We have not investigated his complaint about fixed penalty notices, because Mr and Mrs X had the right to appeal to tribunal. The Council was at fault when it invoiced Mr and Mrs X for costs of its investigation, which it did not have the power to do without taking court action. This caused stress and anxiety for Mr and Mrs X. The Council has agreed to apologise and decide whether it will pursue a claim for its costs through the county court. It will also consider whether it has put others in the same position as Mr and Mrs X.

  • Epping Forest District Council (18 013 509)

    Statement Not upheld Other 18-Jun-2019

    Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council decided Transport for London did not need to apply for prior consent to carry out noise generating activities near Mr B's home. The Council has not received any statutory nuisance complaints and has no power to deal with Mr B's other concerns about the works because they do not require planning permission and the Council is not the Highways Authority.

  • Birmingham City Council (18 005 318)

    Statement Not upheld Other 14-Jun-2019

    Summary: The Council was not at fault for deciding not to conduct covert surveillance of Mr B's local park to identify individuals responsible for fly-tipping, and for not taking enforcement action. The Council properly considered the use of its powers but decided not to use them, and explained why. As a result, I cannot question its decision.

  • Wealden District Council (18 014 936)

    Statement Not upheld Other 29-May-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly investigate and to take action regarding odour nuisance from a neighbouring farm. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council investigated the odour issue.

  • Environment Agency (18 011 626)

    Statement Not upheld Other 13-May-2019

    Summary: Mr X says the Environment Agency is at fault for not acting to address flooding caused by an unauthorised dam located in a primary watercourse. The Ombudsman has not found any evidence of fault by the Environment Agency and for this reason he has ended his investigation of this complaint.

  • Cheshire West & Chester Council (18 012 059)

    Statement Not upheld Other 10-May-2019

    Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain that in requiring and then approving changes to the layout of the access road to a hotel opposite their house, the Council did not consider the impact headlight glare would have. The Ombudsman found no fault in the Council's approach to deciding this planning application.

  • Colchester Borough Council (18 011 750)

    Statement Upheld Other 09-May-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to properly investigate her complaint of a statutory nuisance caused by burning waste on a neighbouring property. She also complains the Council has poorly managed her complaint. There was no fault in how the Council investigated the matter. However, there was some fault it how it communicated with Mrs X. It gave Mrs X wrong advice and did not inform her of the outcome of a site visit. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and remind its staff of the law related to waste management and the need to keep complainants informed during statutory nuisance investigations.