Commercial and contracts


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Thanet District Council (20 010 143)

    Statement Not upheld Commercial and contracts 11-May-2021

    Summary: Mr C complains the Council failed to correctly assess his bid for a consultancy services contract. The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation because the outcome sought by Mr C is not achievable.

  • Wakefield City Council (20 000 985)

    Statement Not upheld Commercial and contracts 25-Mar-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council has not dealt properly with the tendering process for a contract. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X's complaint further because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to take the matter to court.

  • City of York Council (20 006 365)

    Statement Upheld Commercial and contracts 18-Feb-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complains the Council wrongly disposed of belongings from a garage it leased to her husband for a second time. The Council has accepted there was fault. It has apologised, made service improvements and offered payments for Mrs X's time, trouble and distress. I am satisfied these are a suitable remedy for the injustice caused. The courts are better placed to deal with the dispute about the value of the lost property.

  • London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (20 001 099)

    Statement Upheld Commercial and contracts 26-Nov-2020

    Summary: Ms B complains abut delay by the Council in completing repairs to garages she rents from it. The Ombudsman finds there was fault by the Council in this matter. In addition, there was fault in the Council's communications with her abut the repairs and in its handling of her complaint. These faults led to injustice for Ms B for which a remedy has been agreed.

  • Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (19 011 304)

    Statement Upheld Commercial and contracts 30-Sep-2020

    Summary: Mr B, the Chief Executive of a not-for-profit company providing care services, complains the Council made prolonged and unjustified attempts to tarnish his reputation and do him personal harm after it received allegations from members of the company's staff. The Ombudsman finds no evidence to link Mr B's claims of significant personal harm to the actions of the Council in this matter. There was some however fault in the way the Council described Mr B's character in an email, and in its handling of his complaint. That caused injustice for which a remedy has been agreed.

  • London Borough of Hounslow (19 015 853)

    Statement Not upheld Commercial and contracts 14-Aug-2020

    Summary: Ms X complains about how the Council handled the marketing and bidding for a business property she wanted to rent. She says she suffered disappointment and uncertainty as a result. The Council is not at fault.

  • Northampton Borough Council (19 006 847)

    Statement Upheld Commercial and contracts 27-Jul-2020

    Summary: Mr B complained the Council failed to provide alternative parking before demolition works as it had promised to do, failed to deal with his complaint properly and failed to ensure contractors followed health and safety practices when removing asbestos. The Council failed to explain the delay in providing extra parking but mitigated that by offering Mr B an alternative garage. That limited Mr B's injustice to frustration, for which an apology is appropriate. The Council properly responded to the complaint but did not follow its complaints procedure which it should do in future. There is no fault in how the Council handled the issue of removal of asbestos.

  • East Sussex County Council (18 015 271)

    Statement Upheld Commercial and contracts 28-May-2020

    Summary: Mr C complains that there was fault in the way the Council ran a tender for a contract for which his company bid successfully, but which was later awarded to a competitor. The Ombudsman has found that the Council was at fault because it did not establish whether Mr C's bid was compliant before awarding him the contract. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr C, pay him £250 for the frustration that he experienced at having the contract rescinded, and review its procurement procedures.

  • London Borough of Enfield (19 010 925)

    Statement Not upheld Commercial and contracts 31-Mar-2020

    Summary: There is no evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with a tendering exercise for businesses to provide services.

  • Great Yarmouth Borough Council (19 012 493)

    Statement Not upheld Commercial and contracts 06-Mar-2020

    Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council dealt with his tenancy of a retail business. He said it delayed issuing a lease and made his business unviable. We will not investigate Mr X's complaint because it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, we cannot achieve the outcome he wants, and he had an alternative, available legal remedy.

Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.