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:

  • Lewes District Council (20 007 183)

    Statement Upheld Other 11-Jun-2021

    Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council's failure to respond to a prior notification application within the time limit set out in regulations. There was fault in the way the Council made its planning decisions which it has agreed to remedy.

  • Gloucester City Council (20 008 826)

    Statement Not upheld Other 11-Jun-2021

    Summary: Mrs W complains the Council entered her home and ordered for work on her property to stop without having the legal authority to do so. Mrs W says the Council officer was rude and discriminatory and their actions have caused significant distress. There is some delay in the Council's handling of Mrs W's complaint, but we cannot reach a view on the underlying matters. There are conflicting accounts of the visit and there is no independent evidence which shows the officer entered forcefully or without invitation.

  • Tandridge District Council (20 001 981)

    Statement Upheld Other 10-Jun-2021

    Summary: Mr B complained about the Council's decision to grant a Certificate of Lawfulness for development next to his home. We find that while the decision was one the Council was entitled to make, it failed to properly consider Mr B's representations about the matter or to document such consideration, and that was fault. There was further fault in the Council's handling of Mr B's complaint. These faults led to injustice for Mr B, for which a remedy has been agreed.

  • Vale of White Horse District Council (20 006 891)

    Statement Not upheld Other 04-Jun-2021

    Summary: Mrs B complained about the actions the Council took in response to concerns she raised about breaches of a plan to control construction traffic to a major development site near her home. She said the traffic was dangerous and was spending a lot of time and trouble in pursuing the matter. We cannot find fault with the Council.

  • Durham County Council (20 007 288)

    Statement Not upheld Other 01-Jun-2021

    Summary: Ms D says the Council failed to consider lower cost quotes for the demolition of a property. The Ombudsman has not found evidence of fault and has completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

  • Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (20 006 395)

    Statement Upheld Other 28-May-2021

    Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to notify Mr X about his neighbour's planning application, however this has not caused Mr X significant injustice.

  • Medway Council (20 008 700)

    Statement Not upheld Other 21-May-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council told him construction work his neighbour completed without planning permission was Permitted Development despite his neighbour completing works above roof level. Mr X says his neighbour's property now overlooks his because of the construction work and the Council's failure to act. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council.

  • East Suffolk Council (20 006 994)

    Statement Upheld Other 14-May-2021

    Summary: Mrs B complained about the consideration by the Council's predecessor authority of a planning application for residential development at the back of her home. In particular she said the first-floor lounge and kitchen mean there is an unacceptable degree of overlooking into her home and garden. There was fault by the Council but that did not alter the decision.

  • Daventry District Council (20 007 727)

    Statement Not upheld Other 10-May-2021

    Summary: Mr B complained that the Council wrongly approved the transfer of public open space on the estate on which he lives to a management company despite the transfer document providing no means for the company to recover the costs of maintaining the land from residents. The Ombudsman found no fault on the Council's part.

  • West Berkshire Council (20 006 423)

    Statement Not upheld Other 19-Apr-2021

    Summary: Mr B complained about the Council's refusal to register an address for a flat he purchased. He considers it asked for unreasonable information which is not supported by its policy. It has caused him significant frustration and time and trouble, in addition to the extra costs of a mortgage. We did not find fault with the actions of the Council.