Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (18 013 165)

    Statement Not upheld Other 10-Apr-2019

    Summary: Mr Y complained on behalf of Mr X, that the Council failed to repair and maintain the public toilets at Oldham bus station. The Council is not at fault.

  • Mole Valley District Council (18 009 826)

    Statement Not upheld Other 28-Mar-2019

    Summary: The Council acted without fault and proportionately in responding to concerns about grass cutting and about concerns over health and safety shortcomings of contractor staff.

  • Shropshire Council (17 019 370)

    Statement Not upheld Other 26-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr C complains the Council did not use its powers to keep a listed building safe and properly maintained. Mr C says the condition of the building deteriorated to represent a safety hazard and has a harmful impact on the amenity of the local area. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault by the Council.

  • London Borough of Redbridge (18 009 048)

    Statement Upheld Other 12-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not tell him it was going to remove his forklift and trailer from private land and destroy them. The Ombudsman finds there was some fault in the Council's procedures but the fault did not cause Mr X significant injustice. The Council has agreed to review and update its abandoned vehicles policy.

  • South Gloucestershire Council (18 011 113)

    Statement Not upheld Other 07-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complains about a CCTV camera at a Gypsy and Traveller Site where she lives. She felt the Council's use of the camera was unreasonable.

  • Pendle Borough Council (18 007 748)

    Statement Upheld Other 06-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr B complains that the Council has failed to take action to deal with a straying dog. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the way the Council has handled this matter. It has taken action to resolve the situation and has kept Mr B informed. The Council was at fault in that it delayed in responding to Mr B's complaint but this did not cause him a significant injustice.

  • Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (18 016 197)

    Statement Upheld Other 06-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains he was not allowed to pay a fixed penalty fine at a discounted rate. The Ombudsman will not investigate as the Council has now allowed Mr X to do this and so the complaint is resolved.

  • Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (17 020 332)

    Statement Not upheld Other 04-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr X says the Council is at fault because it has allowed too much supported housing and too many 'Houses in Multiple Occupation' in the area where he lives. He also says has not acted on fly-tipping and other criminal activity. The Ombudsman has not found any evidence of fault by the Council in the matters he has investigated and for this reason he has ended his investigation of this complaint.

  • Surrey Heath Borough Council (18 011 055)

    Statement Not upheld Other 28-Feb-2019

    Summary: There was no significant fault in the Council's investigation of a complaint about rodent infestation from a neighbours garden. The minor delay in acknowledging the complaint did not cause injustice as the rodent infestation was already being treated, a fact the complainant was aware of. The Council monitored, carried out further treatment, and surveyed to make sure no visible signs of infestation were present before closing the complaint.

  • 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.