Other


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (18 013 091)

    Statement Not upheld Other 08-May-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to provide adequate support to him as a deaf person, causing him stress. The Ombudsman finds no fault by the Council.

  • Northumberland Council (18 002 781)

    Statement Not upheld Other 25-Apr-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr Y's complaint about the Council's responses to his queries about environmental matters being delayed and unsatisfactory. This is because the Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to consider the complaint.

  • Rossendale Borough Council (18 010 039)

    Statement Not upheld Other 17-Apr-2019

    Summary: The Council offered to help Ms X put in place policies for a community group she runs. Ms X says an officer was aggressive in a meeting and threatened to close the group down. The evidence available does not support the allegation.

  • Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (18 015 463)

    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.

  • City Of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (18 013 188)

    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.

  • West Midlands Combined Authority (18 003 946)

    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.

  • London Borough of Hackney (18 012 926)

    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.

  • Leicester City Council (18 001 239)

    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.

  • London Borough of Redbridge (18 012 916)

    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.

  • 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.