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:

  • North Western Inshore Fisheries & Conservation Authority (21 008 100)

    Statement Upheld Other 30-Jun-2022

    Summary: Mr B says the Authority's decision to prosecute his company was flawed at the outset; we find no fault in that action. We find the Authority failed to acknowledge Mr B's correspondence, and it could have responded and managed Mr B's expectations at that stage, which might have avoided some of Mr B's frustration and distress. The Authority will apologise for this fault.

  • London Borough of Harrow (22 000 589)

    Statement Upheld Other 20-Jun-2022

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to give adequate notice for the cancellation of the supply of products and services, so should pay the associated invoices. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The Council has already proposed an appropriate remedy for the complaint.

  • Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (21 012 945)

    Statement Upheld Other 09-Jun-2022

    Summary: Mr B complained the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments to enable him to access its services. We find the Council was at fault for failing to make reasonable adjustments. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

  • Essex County Council (21 011 373)

    Statement Upheld Other 29-May-2022

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council has not dealt with his father's death properly. The Council is at fault because it did not provide information, took too long to allocate a Coroner's Officer and did not offer the opportunity to view the body. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, pay Mr X £100, provide information and provide guidance to staff.

  • Essex County Council (21 013 721)

    Statement Upheld Other 24-May-2022

    Summary: Ms X complains the Council has not dealt with her mother's death properly. The Council is at fault because it did not provide information, delayed sending the death certificate and did not respond to Ms X's complaint clearly. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X, pay Ms X £175, provide information, provide guidance to staff and review its complaint responses.

  • London Borough of Waltham Forest (21 010 743)

    Statement Upheld Other 24-May-2022

    Summary: Mr and Ms X complained the Council carried out a marriage ceremony instead of the civil partnership ceremony they had requested. The Council was at fault when it carried out the wrong ceremony and later provided Mr and Ms X with an incorrect version of events. It has agreed to make Mr and Ms X a distress payment and if they submit a divorce or annulment application within 18 months of the date of the ceremony, refund the fees relating to the previous ceremony and pay the court fee.

  • Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (21 016 380)

    Statement Upheld Other 22-May-2022

    Summary: Mr X complains the Coroner's office failed to tell him his sister's brain had been removed at a post-mortem. This caused him and his family distress and financial loss. We find fault with the Council. We have made some recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

  • 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.