Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • City Of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (18 003 508)

    Statement Upheld Other 11-Jan-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to follow its own policies and procedures when dealing with his request for CCTV footage of a collision between his vehicle and a third party. There is fault and the Council has agreed to provide Mr X a payment of £250 to remedy the injustice caused.

  • London Borough of Bromley (18 007 509)

    Statement Not upheld Other 21-Dec-2018

    Summary: Miss B says the Council behaved unreasonably and treated her differently by refusing her application for a vehicle crossover when she has planning permission for vehicle hardstanding at her property. The Council's decision to grant planning permission but refuse the application for a crossover was not affected by fault.

  • Staffordshire County Council (18 000 500)

    Statement Upheld Other 19-Dec-2018

    Summary: Mrs B says the Council failed to properly consider the highways impact of a development before giving highways advice on two outline planning applications. The first consultation response was inadequate as it did not explain the highway officer's reasoning although that did not cause an injustice because the District Council refused the application. There is no fault in the Council's consideration of the second outline application.

  • Suffolk County Council (18 009 403)

    Statement Not upheld Other 18-Dec-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsman does not find there is evidence of fault in the Council's refusal to allow crossover from Mr A's home.

  • Staffordshire County Council (18 008 536)

    Statement Not upheld Other 13-Dec-2018

    Summary: Mr B complains the Council will not lower the kerb directly outside his home. Mr B says he needs the pavement lowered to allow ambulance access. The Ombudsman does not find fault. If Mr B believes the Council did not follow its duties under the Equality Act (2010) he can take the matter to County Court or raise it with the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

  • Devon County Council (18 008 299)

    Statement Not upheld Other 07-Dec-2018

    Summary: Ms R complains the Council has not granted requests for controlled parking in her street. The Council has advised it is undertaking a wider review of parking in the town. The Ombudsman sees no evidence or administrative fault, so cannot question the merits of the Council's decision.

  • London Borough of Hillingdon (17 018 555)

    Statement Upheld Other 29-Nov-2018

    Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not assess her application for a vehicle crossover fairly. There was no fault in how the Council assessed her application and came to its decision. However, there was fault in the Council's delay in responding to Ms X's appeal request. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X for the delay and the frustration caused by the delay.

  • London Borough of Southwark (18 003 331)

    Statement Upheld Other 27-Nov-2018

    Summary: Miss X complained the Council destroyed her car without her consent and it caused her distress. The Council made a decision to destroy Miss X's car because it failed to receive a response from her but her insurers did contact the Council on her behalf. The Council also destroyed Miss X's car before it said it would. There was fault and the Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused by making a payment of £250 to Miss X.

  • London Borough of Barnet (18 007 039)

    Statement Upheld Other 12-Nov-2018

    Summary: Ms D complains the Council failed to keep her street clean. The Ombudsman has found evidence of fault by the Council, in particular it made promises to Ms D that it was unable to keep about cleaning schedules. The Ombudsman has upheld the complaint and completed the investigation because the Council agrees to act including paying redress to Ms D.

  • Milton Keynes Council (18 005 531)

    Statement Upheld Other 09-Nov-2018

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council is not operating its Residents' Parking Scheme in accordance with the provisions of the Traffic Regulation Order. The Council's decision to amend its parking permit scheme without making the necessary changes to the TRO amounts to fault. This fault has not caused Mr X a significant injustice.