Commercial and contracts

Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Durham County Council (18 017 480)

    Statement Not upheld Commercial and contracts 04-Oct-2019

    Summary: Mr C says the Council was at fault for insisting he should demolish a garage he rented at the end of his rental agreement. He says he rented the site with a garage already on it and should not have to demolish it. The Council was not at fault. Mr C signed a contract which explicitly required him to demolish the garage. The Council is not at fault for relying on the signed contract.

  • Birmingham City Council (19 001 312)

    Statement Not upheld Commercial and contracts 12-Aug-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains there was fault in the way the Council dealt with a tender process he took part in. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X's complaint further. It is unlikely we could achieve a worthwhile remedy and Mr X may challenge the decision in court.

  • Bristol City Council (18 019 536)

    Statement Not upheld Commercial and contracts 05-Aug-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council wrongly prevented his company from submitting a tender for a CCTV contract in March 2018. The Council did not prevent Mr X from submitting a bid but it did invite three other companies to submit a bid. This action is in line with the Council's procurement policy. There is no fault either in the Council's decision to invite direct bids or to use companies other than Mr X's.

  • East Sussex County Council (18 018 767)

    Statement Not upheld Commercial and contracts 05-Aug-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault by the Council on Mrs L's complaint of it failing to give clear information about eligibility criteria for a grant. The criteria and limits of the grant were explained to her. It was not the type of finance she arranged that was the problem, but the length of its term. When alerted to this, the Council suggested a possible solution to help her.

  • London Borough of Brent (18 016 630)

    Statement Not upheld Commercial and contracts 02-Aug-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains he is unable to access the garages he rents from the Council due to it failing to take enforcement action against vehicles parked on yellow lines outside of the garages. There is no fault by the Council as the yellow lines are unenforceable.

  • London Borough of Bromley (19 003 874)

    Statement Upheld Commercial and contracts 01-Aug-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the hiring of a room which was not honoured by the Council. This is because the Council has provided a fair response and there is not enough remaining injustice to warrant an investigation.

  • London Borough of Tower Hamlets (18 015 225)

    Statement Not upheld Commercial and contracts 28-Jun-2019

    Summary: The complainant says the Council is overcharging her for a storage unit she rents from it. The Ombudsman found no evidence of fault by the Council and for this reason he has ended his consideration of this complaint.

  • Sedgemoor District Council (18 002 468)

    Statement Not upheld Commercial and contracts 27-Jun-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council handled recovery of outstanding rent and the cost of dealing with dilapidations, after his business vacated a shop unit in its area. We have stopped investigating Mr X's complaint. The central issue is one that has been to court, so we cannot look at that or the issues related to it. The Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to consider Mr X's concerns about information sharing. Other issues we could investigate have likely not caused Mr X a significant injustice, and it is unlikely we could add to previous investigation by the Council.

  • 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.