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.

COVID-19


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (20 009 882)

    Statement Not upheld COVID-19 14-Sep-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's decision to remove a segregated cycle lane it installed. He said this resulted in there being no safe cycle route for Mr X to use. He considers the Council's decision discriminates against him as a disabled person and fails to meet its public sector equality duty. The Ombudsman did not find fault in the Council's decision.

  • Transport for London (20 009 844)

    Statement Not upheld COVID-19 12-Aug-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained Transport for London (TfL) refused to renew his residents' congestion charge discount, meaning he had to pay the full congestion charge. Mr X sought a refund of the money he considers he should not have had to pay. The Ombudsman found TfL acted without fault and was entitled to refuse Mr X's discount request.

  • Transport for London (20 007 472)

    Statement Not upheld COVID-19 12-Jul-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained Transport for London (TfL) refused to issue a refund on his annual railcard for the period where he did not use it due to the COVID-19 national lockdown. Mr X lost money because he could not use his railcard for five months of the year. The Ombudsman found TfL acted without fault and was entitled to refuse Mr X's refund request.

  • Hertfordshire County Council (20 009 130)

    Statement Not upheld COVID-19 30-Jun-2021

    Summary: There was no fault in the Council's decision to implement a road closure, as part of its response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Although this limited access to some disabled parking bays, we are satisfied the Council considered its equality duties and ensured there was adequate provision elsewhere. In the absence of fault, we cannot recommend a remedy relating to any perceived loss of trade to the complainant's business arising from the road closure.

  • Devon County Council (20 003 743)

    Statement Not upheld COVID-19 04-Jan-2021

    Summary: Mr F complains about the Council's decision to close the road he lives on in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. We do not uphold the complaint, finding no fault in the Council's actions.

  • London Borough of Camden (20 002 344)

    Statement Not upheld COVID-19 01-Dec-2020

    Summary: The Council provided clear information to the public on its website about temporary changes to parking enforcement during the first lockdown. It acted in line with guidance from London Councils and so there is no fault.

  • London Borough Of Barnet (20 001 248)

    Statement Not upheld COVID-19 18-Nov-2020

    Summary: The complaint is about a council suspending controlled parking zones during lockdown. There is no fault by the Council because it acted in line with COVID-19 guidance issued by London Councils. The Council also acted in line with its hardship policy when refusing to refund Mr X the fee for the period of suspension.