Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • 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.

  • Torbay Council (20 000 829)

    Statement Upheld Other 20-Nov-2020

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council incorrectly spelt his middle name on his father's death certificate and required a £90 payment to amend this. Mr X says he has paid to have this amended but the Council has refused to refund his payment. The Ombudsman has found fault with the Council. The Council agreed to refund Mr X the £90 fee and provide an apology.

  • Blackburn with Darwen Council (20 004 795)

    Statement Upheld Other 26-Oct-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council providing misinformation when trying to register a death. This is because the Ombudsman would not be able to achieve the outcomes the complainant wants, and because an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

  • Spelthorne Borough Council (19 016 359)

    Statement Upheld Other 28-Sep-2020

    Summary: Mrs X says the Council is at fault in how it handled her request to lease a building it owned. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council in this matter which resulted in Mrs X's expectations being raised and put her to avoidable expense, time and trouble in pursuing a lease. In recognition of the injustice caused to her he recommended the Council apologises and pays her £750. The Council agreed.

  • London Borough of Waltham Forest (19 016 717)

    Statement Upheld Other 02-Sep-2020

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not tell her it had organised a community event at the same Council venue and time as her wedding ceremony. The Council was at fault. It failed to advise Mrs X of the planned event and its marketing material did not make it clear the venue may be open for public events at the same time. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £150 to acknowledge the frustration and distress caused.

  • Birmingham City Council (19 008 037)

    Statement Not upheld Other 24-Aug-2020

    Summary: Mr F complains the Council has overcharged for the installation and maintenance of vehicle activated speed signs. The Ombudsman has found no fault.

  • Royal Borough of Greenwich (20 001 975)

    Statement Upheld Other 17-Aug-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a delay by the Council in issuing a £1.50 refund. This is because the Council has provided a proportionate response and there is not enough injustice to warrant an investigation.

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.