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:

  • Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (20 002 955)

    Statement Not upheld Other 31-Aug-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about prolonged negotiations between the Council and the complainant about highways works arising from a planning issue. We cannot provide the outcome the complainant seeks.

  • Suffolk County Council (20 010 170)

    Statement Not upheld Other 27-Aug-2021

    Summary: Mr D, and nine other residents, complain the Council's actions have caused significant damage to an unadopted road beside their homes. They want the Council to pay for the damage. The Ombudsman has discontinued the complaint because the complainants can pursue a claim against the Council through the courts.

  • Kent County Council (20 010 632)

    Statement Upheld Other 09-Aug-2021

    Summary: Ms X complains that the Council delayed in authorising a road closure to enable her to have water and sewage connections installed at her new property. She also says the Council delayed in responding to her correspondence and sent emails to her work address despite being asked not to do so. There was no fault in the way the Council dealt with the road closure application. But it was at fault in sending an email to Ms X's work email address. The Council has provided an adequate remedy for any injustice caused by this.

  • Manchester City Council (20 011 131)

    Statement Upheld Other 04-Aug-2021

    Summary: Mr H has made a complaint about the Council's handling of his application for a dropped kerb. He says the Council made it a requirement he build a hardstanding driveway before works could commence and that it later refused to complete the works because of tree roots. Mr H says he has lost money from building the hardstanding and his application fees. The Ombudsman has not determined fault by the Council with respect to its decision not to continue with the works at Mr H's property. We have however found fault with respect to the Council's handling of his applications and that it required him to have a driveway in place prior to the commencement of works and so we have recommended a remedy.

  • Devon County Council (20 011 247)

    Statement Not upheld Other 29-Jul-2021

    Summary: Mrs A complains the Council did not properly consider the noise impact of a new highway on herself and her neighbours. Mrs A complains the Council only awarded noise payments to some residents. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council for only issuing payments to some residents. This is because the Council followed the legislation on how the noise was measured and which residents were eligible for payment.

  • Devon County Council (20 010 902)

    Statement Not upheld Other 29-Jul-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council did not properly consider the noise impact of a new highway on himself and his neighbours. Mr X complains the Council only awarded noise payments to some residents. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council for only issuing payments to some residents. This is because the Council followed the legislation on how the noise was measured and which residents were eligible for payment.

  • Surrey County Council (20 010 667)

    Statement Not upheld Other 13-Jul-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly advise him on how to apply for a vehicle crossover and changes to the on-street parking bay outside his property. Mr X first requested changes to the on-street parking bays in 2019. He considered the process for altering on street parking is unwieldly and has led to unfair delay. There is no evidence the Council gave Mr X incorrect or misleading information about the process for requesting vehicle crossovers or for requesting changes to parking controls. Nor is there any evidence of delay.

  • Leicestershire County Council (20 011 513)

    Statement Upheld Other 29-Jun-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council did not deal properly with a road closure affecting him. The Council did not provide details of the road closure to the emergency services properly. Mr X was placed at risk of harm for several weeks. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X.

  • Surrey County Council (20 012 801)

    Statement Upheld Other 29-Jun-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council cut down two trees on his property. He also complained about how the Council initially investigated the matter. The Council accepted fault, apologised and offered to replace the trees. In addition, the Council will pay Mr X £100 to acknowledge the time and trouble the matter caused him.

  • 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.