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:

  • Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (21 010 162)

    Statement Upheld Other 26-Apr-2022

    Summary: Mrs Y complains about how the coroner's office handled the inquest into the death of her late sister. We cannot investigate some of the matters complained about because they are outside of our jurisdiction. However, we found the coroner's office failed to make an audible recording of the hearing, but this did not cause significant injustice to Mrs Y. We also found the coroner's office did not disclose all relevant documents to Mrs Y and the Council failed to respond to Mrs Y's complaint.

  • Bristol City Council (21 013 440)

    Statement Upheld Other 20-Apr-2022

    Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to make a formal record of, or disclose, its reasons for refusing some applications for Community Infrastructure Levy and Section 106 funds. We have found fault with the Council's actions. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and make changes to its procedures to remedy the injustice caused.

  • Surrey County Council (21 018 329)

    Statement Upheld Other 10-Apr-2022

    Summary: Mr X complains a Coroner did not do her job properly. He says wrong information was read out in court and the hearing was not recorded. We cannot investigate the actions of the Coroner or what happened in court. The Council has apologised for failing to record the hearing. Further investigation on this point will not lead to a different outcome.

  • London Borough of Waltham Forest (21 004 840)

    Statement Upheld Other 07-Apr-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained he was excluded from the Council's Rapid Employment Service. He also complained the Council's investigation of his complaint was flawed. The Ombudsman found no evidence the Council excluded Mr X from its service. The Ombudsman did find fault in the Council's record keeping and in the complaint process. It agreed to apologise to Mr X.

  • Herefordshire Council (21 009 270)

    Statement Not upheld Other 31-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council withdrew recognition of him as a representative in October 2021 without good reason. He also complains the Council refused to investigate his complaints under the corporate complaints procedure and refused to investigate his complaint against the chief executive. We find no fault with the way the Council decided it would not recognise Mr X as an advocate or representative. There is also no fault with the way the Council dealt with Mr X's complaints.

  • Surrey County Council (21 011 697)

    Statement Upheld Other 21-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mr X says the Coroner failed to keep him informed of the post-mortem process involving his deceased child. The Council accepted fault and apologised to Mr X. The Council agreed to a financial remedy to reflect the distress caused to Mr X.

  • Surrey County Council (21 009 310)

    Statement Upheld Other 11-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council managed the Coroner's inquest into her father's death. The Council was at fault when it both failed to invite Mrs X to the inquest and provide her with important documents prior to it. It meant Mrs X did not attend the inquest into her father's death and lost the opportunity to ask relevant witnesses questions. The Council agreed to pay Mrs X £300 to recognise the distress, frustration and uncertainty this caused.

  • Lancaster City Council (20 006 664)

    Statement Upheld Other 08-Mar-2022

    Summary: The Council delayed reviewing Mr B's designation as an unreasonably persistent complainant for two years. The result of the review was for the designation and restrictions to remain; therefore, its delay has not caused any significant injustice. The Council has apologised for the frustration caused by its delay, which is appropriate action in response.

  • Wakefield City Council (21 005 727)

    Statement Upheld Other 04-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council ignored her request for a reasonable adjustment leaving her unable to access the Council's complaint process, causing her frustration and additional costs. We found the Council was at fault for not properly considering Mrs X's request for a reasonable adjustment. We recommended the Council provide an apology and payment to Mrs X and act to prevent recurrence.

  • Oxfordshire County Council (21 015 257)

    Statement Upheld Other 04-Mar-2022

    Summary: We uphold Mrs Y's complaint, as the Council breached data protection obligations about Mrs Y's child. The Council has agreed to pay £200 to Mrs Y to recognise the emotional impact of the fault.