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:

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.