Commercial and contracts

Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (18 012 186)

    Statement Upheld Commercial and contracts 10-May-2019

    Summary: Mrs B complained on behalf of Company C, that the Council had incorrectly advised Company C in 2016 about removing damaged fencing around a games area, which it managed. Company C removed the fencing on the basis of the advice. The Council then issued a breach of condition notice requiring the fence to be replaced. This cost Company C over £10,000. We found fault with the initial advice the Council gave, but do not consider it caused Company C injustice as it was not reasonable for a specialist company to rely solely on that advice to remove the fence.

  • London Borough of Croydon (18 008 524)

    Statement Upheld Commercial and contracts 16-Apr-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B's complaint about the Council's handling of matters relating to a property it leases from her. This is because events which occurred prior to 2018 fall outside our jurisdiction as they happened too long ago to be investigated now and an investigation into events from the last 12 months would be unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

  • Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (18 000 864)

    Statement Upheld Commercial and contracts 13-Mar-2019

    Summary: Ms Y complained on behalf of Mr X. Mr X complained the Council treated him unfairly and excluded him from submitting a proposal for land where he had managed a business for several years. The Council was at fault. It failed to send Mr X details of the procurement process after saying it would do so, however, that did not cause Mr X significant injustice. The Council carried out the procurement process in line with its policy, and did not exclude Mr X from submitting a proposal. The Council was also at fault for the delay in handling Mr X's complaint, for which it had already apologised. The Council has agreed to pay Mr X £150 to recognise the frustration and uncertainty caused by the delay in responding to his complaint.

  • Reigate & Banstead Borough Council (18 011 132)

    Statement Not upheld Commercial and contracts 22-Feb-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains of delay in the construction of new Council shop units. While there was delay due to the original builder going bust, this was not fault by the Council. Any costs and inconvenience experienced by Mr X due to the construction delays were not as a direct result of any fault by the Council.

  • Hertfordshire County Council (18 006 610)

    Statement Upheld Commercial and contracts 20-Feb-2019

    Summary: Mr C complains about the way the Council dealt with his company during a procurement exercise which allowed another company to gain the benefit of his financial and other commercially sensitive information and caused financial loss to his company. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council and is satisfied the Council's own actions largely remedy the complaint with the additional agreed actions of a payment of £1,000 to Mr C's company and review of its procurement process.

  • London Borough of Islington (17 017 665)

    Statement Upheld Commercial and contracts 17-Dec-2018

    Summary: Mr Y complains the Council unreasonably withheld consent for alterations to his leasehold property because it insisted on the agreement of a neighbouring leaseholder, Mr X. The Council acknowledged some delay in the process and offered a remedy payment amounting to £450. The Council has agreed to increase the payment, in line with our guidance on remedies, to £500

  • Northampton Borough Council (17 017 834)

    Statement Upheld Commercial and contracts 22-Oct-2018

    Summary: the Council delayed progressing the surrender of a lease and delayed refunding rental payments once the lease had been surrendered. That delayed Mr B selling his business and led to him going to time and trouble to pursue his complaint. An apology and payment to Mr B is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

  • Stoke-on-Trent City Council (17 014 756)

    Statement Not upheld Commercial and contracts 27-Sep-2018

    Summary: Mr X complained about poor advice given by the Council during an application for grant funding. This led to his application for grant finding being refused. I have found the Council was not at fault.

  • Durham County Council (18 004 066)

    Statement Upheld Commercial and contracts 19-Sep-2018

    Summary: The complainant says the Council issued an allotment tenancy agreement to her without spelling her name correctly and failed to deliver the promised agreement clarifying her responsibility for external boundaries of the allotment site. The Council recognised errors and has now issued the corrected agreement which makes it clear who has responsibility for external boundaries. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds the Council acted with fault but has remedied the fault.

  • Rossendale Borough Council (18 001 791)

    Statement Upheld Commercial and contracts 17-Sep-2018

    Summary: There was fault in the way the Council dealt with a property that Ms X leased to the Council under an empty property scheme. The Council has already made a payment to partly resolve Ms X's complaint. It should make a further payment to waive the empty property council tax premium and to reflect the time and trouble she was put to when pursuing the complaint.