Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • South Lakeland District Council (20 007 197)

    Statement Not upheld Other 23-Feb-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council charged him an added fee to pay for parking using his bank card. He said this was an unlawful surcharge. The Ombudsman has discontinued his investigation. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault, the injustice to Mr X is not significant, and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

  • Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (20 003 116)

    Statement Not upheld Other 19-Feb-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's decision to refuse his request for H-bar or keep clear markings on the road in front of his driveway. The Ombudsman found no fault in the Council's decision making. It was entitled reach the decision it made.

  • Birmingham City Council (20 009 798)

    Statement Upheld Other 16-Feb-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a delay the complainant was having in getting a refund for a dropped kerb application. This is because the Council has paid the refund.

  • Cambridgeshire County Council (20 003 248)

    Statement Upheld Other 02-Feb-2021

    Summary: Ms X complains the Council has wrongly taken highways enforcement action against her. On the evidence seen, the Council took enforcement action it agrees it should not have done. Ms X has suffered distress and had to pay to have a fence moved as well as to challenge the Council's enforcement action. The Council has offered to pay Mrs X £10,000 in respect of her financial costs, distress, harm, time and trouble, and personal outrage. This is an appropriate remedy.

  • London Borough of Sutton (20 006 082)

    Statement Not upheld Other 29-Jan-2021

    Summary: Mrs D complains about the Council's decision to refuse her application for a dropped kerb. Our view is we should discontinue our investigation, to allow the Council the chance to provide a response to Mrs D's complaint.

  • Birmingham City Council (20 001 327)

    Statement Not upheld Other 11-Jan-2021

    Summary: There is no evidence of fault by the Council when installing a disabled parking bay, which reduced the length of a H bar across the complainant's dropped kerb. There was no requirement by the Council to consult neighbours and officers are of the opinion, after looking at the site again, that Mr X's drive is still accessible.

  • Birmingham City Council (20 002 033)

    Statement Upheld Other 08-Jan-2021

    Summary: Mr F complains the Council has not dealt with his application for a dropped kerb fairly. The Council delayed responding to Mr F's application, but this did not cause him a significant injustice as his application could not have been approved. The Council has already apologised for the delay. That is a suitable remedy.

  • London Borough of Hounslow (20 002 092)

    Statement Not upheld Other 04-Jan-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council has unreasonably revoked the permission it gave him to build a crossover to his property . The Council has accepted it was at fault as it failed to realise the land was needed to provide parking to comply with its planning permission for a nearby development. The Council proposes to submit a revised planning application to allow Mr X's crossover to remain. So we have discontinued our investigation to allow the Council an opportunity to resolve Mr X's complaint.

  • Somerset County Council (19 009 033)

    Statement Not upheld Other 16-Dec-2020

    Summary: Mrs D complains about the way the Council dealt with construction of a pavement outside her home. There was no fault.

  • London Borough of Enfield (19 013 915)

    Statement Upheld Other 15-Dec-2020

    Summary: Mr X complained that the Council's contractors wrongly removed and impounded two untaxed cars he had parked in residents' parking bays on a private housing estate. We found the Council and its contractors gave Mr X incorrect information when he first made enquiries but it was not fault to remove the cars. The Council's contractors have since returned the cars to Mr X and written off all the fees and charges. The Council has apologised to Mr X for giving him wrong information.

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.