Other


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Cheshire East Council (19 019 737)

    Statement Upheld Other 13-Nov-2020

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council took two of his cars it thought he had abandoned. Mr X says he managed to collect one car from the Council but it had already destroyed the second car. The Council has acknowledged it should not have destroyed the second car before Mr X had a chance to review the contents. The Council offered £100 for the injustice of Mr X's lost opportunity to collect the second car and items inside. The Ombudsman considers this offer is suitable to reflect the Council's fault and the injustice caused.

  • Southend-on-Sea Borough Council (19 013 407)

    Statement Upheld Other 11-Nov-2020

    Summary: Mr Y complains the Council did not properly consider his application for two dropped kerbs. He says the Council delayed in referring his application to the correct committee. The Ombudsman finds fault in how the Council handled Mr Y's application and for a lack of clarity in its policy.

  • East Sussex County Council (19 018 578)

    Statement Upheld Other 16-Oct-2020

    Summary: Mr X and Ms Y complain about how the Council handled their reports of water coming from a neighbouring property onto the highway and causing damage. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault for not telling Mr X and Ms Y about its decision not to take enforcement action against their neighbour. The Council is also at fault for failing to keep Mr X and Ms Y updated about its discussions with their neighbour following their further reports and complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and Ms Y and pay them £250 to recognise the time and trouble spent pursuing their complaint.

  • London Councils Transport & Environment Committee (20 003 085)

    Statement Upheld Other 29-Sep-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a Freedom Pass. This is because the Authority has offered a fair response and the Ombudsman cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

  • Wokingham Borough Council (19 018 349)

    Statement Not upheld Other 15-Sep-2020

    Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's decision to decline his dropped kerb application. The Council declined the application as the proposed dropped kerb was within 10 metres of an existing junction and considered unsafe. Mr X says the Council did not have any policy which stated this. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council's decision.

  • Oxfordshire County Council (19 015 128)

    Statement Not upheld Other 11-Sep-2020

    Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council's Highways Authority officers acted when asked to advise a local planning authority about his planning application. Mr X said he suffered financial loss because of lost business. There was no fault in the way the Council acted.

  • Central Bedfordshire Council (19 019 653)

    Statement Upheld Other 11-Sep-2020

    Summary: The Council made some administrative errors, which led to delays in the construction of a vehicle crossover. The Council has refunded the complainant's inspection fee in recognition of this, but upon recommendation by the Ombudsman considers, it has agreed to offer a small additional amount to remedy the injustice here.

  • Royal Borough of Greenwich (19 012 150)

    Statement Not upheld Other 10-Sep-2020

    Summary: In refusing Mrs B's application for a dropped kerb, the Council properly applied its policy and explained its decision-making. Because of this, we cannot question the decision itself.

  • Leicestershire County Council (19 021 253)

    Statement Not upheld Other 03-Sep-2020

    Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's involvement as highways consultee and its assessment of the as-built scheme. Mr X says the works have caused serious highway safety issues. The County Council provided its professional judgement on the as-built scheme to the Borough Council. There is no evidence of fault.

  • Wakefield City Council (19 018 720)

    Statement Upheld Other 18-Aug-2020

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to carry out its duties to prevent traffic disruption caused by an event at a local school. The Ombudsman has found no fault by the Council in how it reached its decision. However, the Council is at fault for failing to take actions it promised Mr X it would. The Council has agreed to speak with the School at the start of the next academic year about the traffic disruption. .

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.