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.


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • 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.

  • London Borough of Croydon (20 007 050)

    Statement Upheld Other 14-May-2021

    Summary: Mr B complained about the Council restricting his contact with it, which he considers unfair and discriminatory. We find there was fault by the Council in failing to apply its policy or document having done so. The Council has agreed to our recommendation that it should issue an apology to Mr B and review its position in this matter.

  • Lancashire County Council (20 001 188)

    Statement Upheld Other 21-Apr-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains about inadequate services and support provided by the Council's Syrian Resettlement Programme. The Council is at fault but remedied this with an apology before Mr X approached the Ombudsman.

  • Spelthorne Borough Council (20 007 341)

    Statement Upheld Other 14-Apr-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's decision not to let him see his father when he visited a day centre; its failure to contact him after he left his contact details at the day centre and its decision to limit his future contact with staff at the day centre. Mr X says the actions of the Council caused unnecessary distress. The decision not to let Mr X see his father was based on a duty of care and Mr X was correctly referred to Adult Social Care. There is no fault in the procedure followed to limit Mr X's ongoing contact with the day centre staff. There was fault by the Council in taking Mr X's contact details when it had no intention of using them to contact him.

  • London Borough of Barnet (20 000 880)

    Statement Upheld Other 17-Mar-2021

    Summary: Ms X complained the Council repeatedly failed to make reasonable adjustments to how it communicates with her. Despite saying it would communicate by email it has sent letters by post and telephoned her causing significant distress. While the Council has taken further action to ensure staff are aware of the agreed reasonable adjustments and do not make further errors the Council, issues are still occurring. So further recommendations have been made so the Council keeps to the agreed reasonable adjustments.

  • Leicester City Council (18 019 953)

    Statement Upheld Other 14-Jan-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council did clearance works to the garden of his home without giving him any notice. Or, if any notice was given, it was not in large print which he needs because of his visual impairment, which the Council is aware of. He considered to remedy the damage done would cost £30,000. There was fault by the Council which has caused some injustice to Mr X. The Council will apologise and review its procedures.

  • Norfolk County Council (19 017 606)

    Statement Not upheld Other 17-Dec-2020

    Summary: Mrs X complained the notes of a meeting of the Norfolk Autism Partnership Board, of which the Council is a member, misrepresent her role at the meeting. The Ombudsman has discontinued his investigation. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants, and another organisation is better placed to consider the complaint.

  • London Borough of Bromley (19 003 471)

    Statement Upheld Other 04-Dec-2020

    Summary: Ms D complained the Council failed to exercise sufficient scrutiny over aircraft movements at Biggin Hill Airport. We uphold the complaint finding the Council delayed in replying to Ms D and did not fulfil certain commitments given to her. We find this caused her unnecessary time, trouble and frustration. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by providing Ms D with an apology and further response to those outstanding matters identified in this statement.

  • London Borough of Bromley (20 004 816)

    Statement Not upheld Other 20-Nov-2020

    Summary: The complainant brought a complaint alleging defamation by the Council which he perceives has damaged his reputation. The Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction to consider a complaint for defamation and he cannot enforce a remedy associated with this. Further, the complainant complains the Council has unfairly restricted his contact with councillors and staff, though the Ombudsman cannot determine any fault in this regard.