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:

  • Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (20 013 567)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 14-Jan-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's decision to impound his car after he thought he left it parked on private land with the owner's permission. He said the Council should have informed the owner of the land and should have given more notice before it removed his car, due to the COVID-19 national lockdown. The Ombudsman did not find fault in the Council's decision to remove Mr X's car. However, we did find fault about the way the Council continued to hold Mr X's car and charge storage fees.

  • Transport for London (20 009 661)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 04-Jan-2022

    Summary: Miss X complained she was given incorrect advice by Transport for London (TfL) about its refund policy when she first asked for a refund on her apprenticeship travel card in April 2020. She is unhappy TfL did not issue a full refund when she asked again in December 2020. The Ombudsman considers there is not enough evidence to make a finding about the advice TfL gave Miss X in April 2020. There was no fault in TfL's decision not to issue Miss X a full refund. However, there was fault causing injustice when TfL gave Miss X incorrect advice after she complained.

  • London Borough of Hounslow (20 011 317)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 10-Dec-2021

    Summary: Mr E complained on behalf of a residents' group about the introduction of a traffic barrier along the road where they live. We found some fault in the Council's consideration of objections to the barrier provided by one of the emergency services. However, we did not consider this caused injustice and we did not uphold other complaints about consultation and potential impacts of the scheme. Consequently, we completed our investigation.

  • Sevenoaks District Council (21 004 024)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 08-Dec-2021

    Summary: Ms X complained about the Council's decision not to issue a refund on her car park season ticket for the COVID-19 lockdown periods between November 2020 and April 2021. The Ombudsman has discontinued his investigation because the Council has now agreed to offer Ms X a partial refund and we cannot achieve more.

  • London Borough of Ealing (20 004 892)

    Statement Not upheld COVID-19 21-Oct-2021

    Summary: We shall not investigate Mr X's complaint about the closure of two roads. This is because court action related to the matter is continuing. Once the court action ends, Mr X can complain to us again if he wishes. We shall then reconsider whether to investigate

  • London Borough of Hounslow (20 005 894)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 29-Sep-2021

    Summary: Mr F complained about the Council's introduction of two experimental road traffic orders as part of its response to COVID-19. We upheld the complaint, finding fault in how the Council introduced these measures. We considered Mr F was caused some uncertainty as a result, although this was limited because one scheme was subsequently stopped and the other amended. The Council accepts our findings and will provide an apology to Mr F as well as reflect on what lessons it can learn.

  • 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.