Recent statements in this category are shown below:
Statement Not upheld Other 15-Apr-2019
Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about alleged maladministration by the Council in connection with a local voluntary group. This is because the voluntary group is not carrying out an administrative function of the Council and the substantive complaints Mrs X made are outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction.
Statement Not upheld Other 09-Apr-2019
Summary: Mr Q complains about the Council's decision to contact the police about him. He says the Council told lies about him to the police. The Ombudsman finds no fault with the Council for contacting the police.
Statement Upheld Other 05-Apr-2019
Summary: Mr X complains about the Authority's decision making on a contract for services, resulting in his employer losing the opportunity to secure the contract and unfairness. The Ombudsman finds fault in the Authority's decision making. We recommend the Authority provides an apology to Mr X and acts to ensure staff follow its policy correctly in future.
Statement Upheld Other 03-Apr-2019
Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain the Council has not taken appropriate action following a data breach during an adoption process. In error, the Council sent the birth parents a copy of the adoption application including personal data for Mr and Mrs X. The Council has already taken appropriate action by reporting the matter to the Information Commissioner's Office and making a substantial payment to Mr and Mrs X.
Statement Upheld Other 27-Mar-2019
Summary: The Council is at fault for not routinely providing copies of Council Tax bills and correspondence in large print to someone who is partially sighted. The Council has removed all recovery costs from Council Tax arrears. So, although there is no financial injustice, the complainant has been put to unnecessary time and trouble in having to constantly ask for documents in large print and this injustice needs a remedy. Devising a system that does not rely on the complainant asking for large print documents every time, remedies this complaint.
Statement Not upheld Other 20-Mar-2019
Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint that the Council did not stop motorists parking in front of a garage owned by the complainant.
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.
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.
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.
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.