Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Liverpool City Council (18 010 350)

    Statement Upheld Other 12-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council has not properly reviewed the contact restrictions it renewed in June 2017. He also says he made valid service requests during the past 12 months which the Council did not deal with, despite saying it would. The Ombudsman has concluded the way the Council dealt with Mr X's contact while the restrictions were in place was not fault. However, although a review happened in June 2018, the failure to tell Mr X the result was fault. It caused him an injustice because the end of the contact restrictions coincided with the date of a planning committee hearing he wanted to attend and he was uncertain about whether he could or not. We recommended the Council should apologise to Mr X and change its approach in future and it agreed to do so.

  • Stoke-on-Trent City Council (18 009 585)

    Statement Upheld Other 04-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mrs K complains the Coroner's office for Stoke-on-Trent and North Staffordshire did not tell her the date of an inquest into her father's death. We uphold this complaint as the Coroner recognises not sending notice of the inquest as required by law. This caused Mrs K injustice as distress; not having chance to attend or take part in the inquest. The Council has agreed action to provide a remedy to the complaint, including improving relevant administrative procedures.

  • Folkestone & Hythe District Council (18 008 611)

    Statement Not upheld Other 11-Feb-2019

    Summary: Mr P complains about waste water charges by the Council. The Ombudsman has not found any evidence of fault and has completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

  • Three Rivers District Council (18 007 812)

    Statement Not upheld Other 05-Feb-2019

    Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council consulted on a proposed play area. The Ombudsman has stopped investigating the complaint because it is unlikely we would find significant fault and any injustice caused is not significant enough to warrant the Ombudsman's continued involvement.

  • London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority (18 008 315)

    Statement Upheld Other 28-Jan-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains about the London Fire Brigade's response to a water leak at his property. He says officers attended but refused to deal with the issue and then falsely told his housing association the leak had been fixed when it was not. The Ombudsman finds the London Fire Brigade resolved the incident itself appropriately. However, the assumption by an attending officer that Mr X had claimed there was a risk of fire was fault, and call recordings prove it provided inaccurate information to Mr X's housing association. This caused Mr X an injustice in the form of frustration and inconvenience. The London Fire Brigade has accepted our recommendation to remedy this by apologising to Mr X and taking steps to prevent it happening again.

  • Plymouth City Council (18 010 029)

    Statement Upheld Other 25-Jan-2019

    Summary: The Council failed to follow its draft policy for dealing with vexatious customers and did not properly explain how Ms B could appeal its decision to restrict her contact with the Council. This failing did not cause Ms B any significant injustice.

  • Buckinghamshire County Council (18 000 170)

    Statement Upheld Other 22-Jan-2019

    Summary: Miss C complained about the coroner's service in relation to her stepfather's death. The Ombudsman finds the Coroner failed to meet service standards set by the Ministry of Justice. The Ombudsman considers the agreed actions of an apology, payment and for the Council and Coroner to review how to respond appropriately to future coroner's office complaints are enough to provide a suitable remedy to Miss C.

  • South Gloucestershire Council (17 018 408)

    Statement Upheld Other 09-Jan-2019

    Summary: Mr B complains about the way the Council handled issues arising from access rights to his property. He says that as a result of the Council's failings he has not been able to get a mortgage to build the new house for which he has planning permission or to sell the whole parcel of land with the rights necessary to complete the development. There was fault by the Council in how it responded to Mr B's request to lift the restrictions in his deed limiting rights of access to one dwelling. The Council did not consider properly the information it held about rights the property already had. Had it done so it should have shared that information with Mr B and not asked for the sum of money it did. The Council has already paid to Mr B £750 which remedies the injustice caused him.

  • Rossendale Borough Council (18 006 486)

    Statement Not upheld Other 08-Jan-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed in removing a restriction against her property. The Council is not at fault.

  • Lancaster City Council (18 009 721)

    Statement Not upheld Other 04-Jan-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council entered into a disingenuous contract with his company. This issue is outside our jurisdiction as it has been dealt with, or is best dealt with, by the courts. Mr X also complained about the way the Council investigated a complaint about a councillor's conduct. The Council was entitled to decide the matters raised were legal matters and not for the Councillor to deal with. The Council was not at fault.