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.

Other


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • East Sussex Fire Authority (20 014 016)

    Statement Not upheld Other 30-Sep-2021

    Summary: Mr B complained about the Authority's decision not to prosecute anyone in connection with a fire that destroyed the block of flats where he lived. He considered the Authority had not provided a clear explanation of how it reached the decision and the basis for it. He considered the failure to take such action meant that he, and the other affected residents, felt the trauma they went through had not been taken seriously. And the wider public interest of holding the relevant bodies to account had not been served. There was no fault by the Authority.

  • London Borough of Southwark (21 005 149)

    Statement Upheld Other 26-Sep-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council banned him from several forums and is withholding information he has asked for. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council has agreed to carry out the overdue review of the ban which is a suitable remedy to this part of the complaint. It is reasonable for Mr X to complain to the Information Commissioner's Office about access to information.

  • Liverpool City Council (21 002 029)

    Statement Upheld Other 23-Sep-2021

    Summary: Mr and Mrs B complained the Council failed to tell them that limits imposed on their contact with the Council under the unreasonable behaviour policy had ended. The Council accepts it did not tell Mr B it had lifted restrictions and said that Mrs B was not monitored under the policy. Mr and Mrs B say this has caused them delay and uncertainty. We find the Council were at fault for failing to tell Mr B his restrictions had ended and for failing to adequately explain Mrs B's status under the policy and the Council has agreed to remedy the injustice of uncertainty.

  • Norfolk County Council (20 014 019)

    Statement Not upheld Other 10-Aug-2021

    Summary: Ms X complains about a council officer's inaccurate note of a public meeting. She also complains about how the Council has implemented its unreasonably persistent complainant policy against her. We have discontinued our investigation because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council and we cannot achieve the outcome Ms X wants. Ms X's complaint is also premature.

  • Gravesham Borough Council (21 003 624)

    Statement Upheld Other 30-Jul-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to follow its complaints procedure. We consider the Council's offer of £100 as a gesture of goodwill is a suitable remedy to the injustice caused.

  • Pendle Borough Council (20 007 992)

    Statement Upheld Other 23-Jul-2021

    Summary: Ms Y complains about the Council's failure to properly consider its duties under the Equality Act when assessing how Ms Y's disability impacts her use of a barrier which is currently owned and maintained by the Council. We find the Council failed to have full regard to its duties, and it should apologise to Ms Y. However, the Council is now arranging a long-term solution which should resolve the problems Ms Y experiences.

  • Wakefield City Council (20 007 581)

    Statement Upheld Other 20-Jul-2021

    Summary: Mr and Mrs F complained about the Coroner's Offices administration of an inquest into the death of Mr G. Mr and Mrs F said the problems they experienced with the Service caused them distress and financial loss. There was fault with the Coroner's Service's complaint response. We do not consider this to have caused Mr and Mrs F significant injustice.

  • Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (20 008 800)

    Statement Not upheld Other 29-Jun-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to take adequate steps to find a family member while it was arranging his brother's funeral. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters so have completed our investigation.

  • East Lindsey District Council (20 008 404)

    Statement Upheld Other 04-Jun-2021

    Summary: Mr D complained the Council made an error when completing an Attendance Allowance claim for his wife. We find the Council was at fault when it sent the referral to an incorrect email address and failed to act when it received an undelivered email notification. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

  • Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (20 013 122)

    Statement Upheld Other 21-May-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate this complains about unsolicited emails sent by the Council to the complainant. This is because the Council remedied any injustice during its complaint procedure, and it is therefore unlikely we could add to their investigation. If he feels the Council has mishandled his data, he can raise his complaint with the Information Commissioner.