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.

Other


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Birmingham City Council (21 010 088)

    Statement Upheld Other 07-Apr-2022

    Summary: Mr and Mrs C complained the Council refused their application for a dropped kerb. They said this caused them inconvenience because there was limited road parking. The Council was at fault for assessing their application against a draft, unpublished policy and this caused them injustice. To remedy this injustice, the Council will reconsider their application based on the policy in place at the time.

  • Transport for London (21 009 612)

    Statement Upheld Other 27-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mr C complains about the way the Authority dealt with his vehicle scrappage scheme application. Mr C says the Authority wrongly rejected his application and he spent unnecessary time and trouble in trying to resolve the matter. We have found fault in the Authority's handling of Mr C's application but consider the agreed action to review information provided to applicants together the action already proposed by the Authority of an apology and £250 is enough to provide a suitable remedy.

  • Birmingham City Council (21 002 994)

    Statement Not upheld Other 23-Mar-2022

    Summary: We found no fault in how the Council dealt with X's application for a dropped kerb.

  • Transport for London (21 008 461)

    Statement Upheld Other 18-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained the Authority wrongly refused his applications under its Light Van Scrappage Scheme. There was no fault in how the Authority assessed Mr X's grant applications. However, it did not reply to some later messages from Mr X. This caused him avoidable frustration for which the Authority agreed to apologise.

  • Derbyshire County Council (21 007 929)

    Statement Upheld Other 17-Mar-2022

    Summary: There was fault by the Council. There was poor communication by officers and the Council said it had refunded an application fee, when it had not. This complaint is upheld. Refunding the fee, and a payment towards Mr X's time and trouble remedies the injustice caused.

  • Transport for London (21 007 328)

    Statement Upheld Other 08-Mar-2022

    Summary: Company X has made a complaint in relation to Transport for London's decision to not pay a grant under the Mayor of London's Scrappage Scheme. Company X says TfL has refused to make a grant payment due to it not satisfying the evidence requirements in time and in accordance with the Scheme's terms and conditions. We found TfL failed to consider Company X's circumstances and the reasons for the delay in providing evidence. It also failed to adhere to the established expectation that it would honour the grant payment on receipt of satisfactory evidence about the vehicles Company X purchased. This caused Company X an injustice, and TfL have agreed to remedy this.

  • London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (21 003 930)

    Statement Upheld Other 21-Feb-2022

    Summary: Mr B complains that the Council wrongly approved his application for a dropped kerb even though it did not meet the criteria because of the presence of a disabled parking bay. He says that, because of the position of the parking bay and the absence of double yellow lines, his drive is frequently blocked by parked vehicles preventing him from using it. The Ombudsman found the Council was at fault in failing to inform Mr B that the parking bay could not be relocated and that the access to his drive would have to be installed at an angle. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B and make a payment.

  • Surrey County Council (21 004 846)

    Statement Upheld Other 17-Feb-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council handled his application for a mini s278 agreement under the Highways Act. The Council was at fault for not clearly managing Mr X's expectations about the timescales involved and for delay in completing the agreement. The delays caused Mr D frustration but did not lead to any delay in the completion of the work. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X for the frustration caused. It has already revised its guidance pack to more accurately reflect the timescales involved.

  • London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (20 011 162)

    Statement Upheld Other 04-Feb-2022

    Summary: Mr and Mrs B both complain the Council has not dealt properly with an application for a dropped kerb and the introduction of a controlled parking zone (CPZ). The Council is at fault because it didn't properly advise Mr and Mrs B and failed to follow its complaints process. Mr and Mrs B lost the ability to apply for a dropped kerb under a previous policy. The Council has agreed to pay Mr and Mrs B £50 for their time and trouble and consider Mr and Mrs B's vehicle crossover application under the previous policy in place when they approached the Council in early January 2020.

  • London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (21 000 115)

    Statement Upheld Other 04-Feb-2022

    Summary: Mr and Mrs B both complain the Council has not dealt properly with an application for a dropped kerb and the introduction of a controlled parking zone (CPZ). The Council is at fault because it didn't properly advise Mr and Mrs B and failed to follow its complaints process. Mr and Mrs B lost the ability to apply for a dropped kerb under a previous policy. The Council has agreed to pay Mr and Mrs B £50 for their time and trouble and consider Mr and Mrs B's vehicle crossover application under the previous policy in place when they approached the Council in early January 2020.