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:

  • Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (20 011 152)

    Statement Upheld Other 01-Jun-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council's decision not to proceed with her vehicle crossover (dropped kerb) which it had previously approved in June 2017. She says the Council has retrospectively imposed a time limit to the approval. We find fault with the Council and have made recommendations.

  • London Borough of Croydon (20 005 159)

    Statement Upheld Other 21-May-2021

    Summary: Ms X complained about the Council's decision to refuse her application for a dropped kerb. The Ombudsman found fault causing injustice when the Council failed to show it properly considered Ms X's son's disability and failed to properly explain its decision. The Council agreed to review its procedures and offer a remedy.

  • West Sussex County Council (20 003 540)

    Statement Upheld Other 14-Apr-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's decision to refuse his application for a second vehicle crossover at his home. He said it also refused to consider his complaint under its complaint's procedure. The Council was not at fault for refusing Mr X's application for a second vehicle crossover. It should have considered his complaint under its complaint's procedure, but this fault did not cause Mr X a significant injustice as it directed him to us and we have investigated his complaint.

  • Devon County Council (20 007 378)

    Statement Not upheld Other 23-Mar-2021

    Summary: The Council was not at fault for removing Mr and Mrs B's traffic cone from outside their home, or for its consideration of their allegations about the behaviour of its highways officer, who removed the cone. It looked into their allegations but decided the officer's behaviour did not justify disciplinary action. There was no fault in how the Council made this decision, so we cannot question it.

  • Herefordshire Council (20 001 618)

    Statement Upheld Other 08-Mar-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council refuses to uphold its statutory duty to keep the highway free from obstacles. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as it is outside his jurisdiction. Mr X has a remedy in court.

  • Central Bedfordshire Council (20 003 643)

    Statement Upheld Other 02-Mar-2021

    Summary: Mrs Y complains about the way the Council dealt with her application for a vehicle crossover from her property onto the public highway. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this by making a payment of £250 to Mrs Y to reflect the distress, time and trouble caused by the fault.

  • Isle of Wight Council (20 006 705)

    Statement Upheld Other 26-Feb-2021

    Summary: Mrs B complained the Council's Contractor wrongly cut a large hole in her hedge without following the legal process required. She experienced distress from the damage caused and she had costs to repair the hedge. The Council was at fault because its Contractor failed to follow the legal process available. It has agreed to make payment to acknowledge the distress and damage caused. It also agreed to ensure its Contractor reminds its workers of the process it must follow before it takes action to cut overgrown vegetation.

  • London Borough of Lambeth (19 004 471)

    Statement Upheld Other 24-Feb-2021

    Summary: Miss D complains the Council delayed processing her application to remove a disabled parking bay so she could have a dropped kerb installed. The Ombudsman has found evidence of fault by the Council. He has upheld the complaint and completed the investigation because the Council agrees to the recommended actions including a time and trouble payment.

  • 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.