Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • West Yorkshire Combined Authority (19 001 637)

    Statement Upheld Other 21-Oct-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained the Combined Authority retendered for a subsidised bus service without consulting appropriately or assessing the impact of the decision on equality of access to services. He says this means he and others now cannot easily access the city centre by public transport in the evening. The Combined Authority's review of its passenger transport subsidy guidelines was at fault. It did not properly consider the Equality Act and Public Sector Equality Duty in its approach. This means Mr X is uncertain whether the tendering decision would have been different, but for the fault. It has agreed to apologise to him and review its approach to prevent reoccurrence of this fault.

  • Essex County Council (19 003 049)

    Statement Upheld Other 21-Oct-2019

    Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not carry out effective repairs to a pedestrian crossing and did not update her. There was fault causing injustice when the Council failed to respond to some fault reports and failed to address some of the issues in a reasonable timeframe.

  • Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (19 000 993)

    Statement Not upheld Other 16-Oct-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's decision to implement a new parking scheme in the village centre. The Council was not at fault. It considered the results of the informal consultation process and decided to approve the scheme. It commissioned independent road safety audit reports during the process, and properly considered the safety recommendations within them.

  • Transport for London (18 017 867)

    Statement Upheld Other 15-Oct-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains that Transport for London did not deal with his application for a resident's discount for the congestion charge. Transport for London is at fault as it did not activate Mr X's resident's discount in November 2016 when he supplied documents to support his application. Transport for London is also at fault for failing to deal with Mr X's complaint between 2017 and late 2018. Transport for London has agreed to apologise to Mr X, make a payment of £100 and refund the difference between the congestion charge paid and the discounted rate.

  • Gloucestershire County Council (19 002 423)

    Statement Not upheld Other 04-Oct-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council removed and disposed of a concrete bollard from his land after a vehicle damaged it. Mr X said the Council then carried out sub-standard repairs to his driveway. I have discontinued the investigation. That is because we cannot establish liability in damage claims. Such decisions are matters for the courts to decide not the Ombudsman.

  • Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (19 000 498)

    Statement Upheld Other 10-Sep-2019

    Summary: Mr C complains that a Council employee was abusive and threatening towards him. He also says the Council delayed in responding to his complaint. The Ombudsman finds the Council properly investigated Mr C's complaint and responded in a timely fashion, but the response was not sent because of a technical error. The Ombudsman considers the Council's apology and its offer to make a payment to Mr C represents a satisfactory remedy for the injustice he suffered.

  • London Borough of Havering (19 000 464)

    Statement Not upheld Other 14-Aug-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained about the extension work the Council carried out on the dropped kerb in front of his property. The Council was not at fault in the way it completed the dropped kerb extension work Mr X requested.

  • London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (19 002 029)

    Statement Not upheld Other 13-Aug-2019

    Summary: Mr B complains a Council officer threatened him. He says the Council has not complied with his request for information or progressed his complaint to stage two. The Ombudsman will discontinue this investigation as the substantive matters are outside our jurisdiction.

  • Staffordshire County Council (18 018 106)

    Statement Upheld Other 29-Jul-2019

    Summary: The Council failed to respond in a timely and effective manner to Mr X's letters about a grass verge near his home. The Council's significant delays and poor responses caused avoidable frustration and put Mr X to unnecessary time and trouble. To put this right, the Council agreed to apologise to Mr X, pay him £250 and agree how to deal with the grass verge. The Council also agreed to review how its Highways Department handles correspondence from residents.

  • Warrington Council (18 018 064)

    Statement Not upheld Other 23-Jul-2019

    Summary: Mr B complained about the way the Council dealt with a complaint about an incident with an officer outside his property. We consider the Council investigated the matter properly and took appropriate action.