Archive has 224 results
-
Middlesbrough Borough Council (19 011 462)
Statement Not upheld Other 24-Mar-2020
Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not comply with a court order about contact with his son, care planning meetings and expert recommendations. I have discontinued my investigation because the matter is due to go back before the Court. Mr X’s complaint can be re-opened if he remains unhappy once the outcome is known.
-
Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (19 018 704)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 20-Mar-2020
Summary: The Ombudsman will not and cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about inaccurate documents. We cannot investigate documents used in legal proceedings and the Information Commissioners Office is better placed to consider if the Council needs to amend its records.
-
Essex County Council (19 019 523)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 19-Mar-2020
Summary: Miss X complains the Council have her employer false information which it is using in an employment tribunal and court case. The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint as it is outside his jurisdiction.
-
Coventry City Council (19 018 400)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 19-Mar-2020
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council failed to act on concerns she raised about her children. Ms X has known about the complaint for more than 12 months and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to accept the complaint now.
-
Suffolk County Council (19 007 878)
Statement Upheld Other 18-Mar-2020
Summary: The complainant is concerned about the Council’s child protection actions in respect of her child. The Council has considered the complaint under the Children Act 1989 statutory complaint process. The Council has upheld some complaints and offered appropriate apologies and procedural changes. The Ombudsman does not consider that there are any outstanding complaints for him to consider. But he is concerned about the length of time taken to deal with the complaint. However, the Council has agreed the recommended action to remedy the avoidable distress caused to the complainant by this delay.
-
Stoke-on-Trent City Council (19 017 761)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 18-Mar-2020
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about whether the Council holds inaccurate information about her. It is reasonable to expect Ms X to tell a Court if she thinks the information affects its decision. And the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to decide if the information needs changing.
-
Durham County Council (19 018 816)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 14-Mar-2020
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that council officers lied during court proceedings and in reports written for the Court. This is because we have no powers to consider matters which could have reasonably been raised in court, and we cannot consider complaints about decisions taken in court.
-
Surrey County Council (19 015 160)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 13-Mar-2020
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the way in which the Council managed safeguarding referrals made by the complainant. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.
-
Southampton City Council (19 017 384)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 13-Mar-2020
Summary: Mr X complained the courts made an unlawful restraining order based on the Council’s advice, when the Council should instead have started care proceedings. We will not investigate this complaint, as all issues Mr X complains about were considered in court or inextricably linked to the court proceedings.
-
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 13-Mar-2020
Summary: Mr X complained the Council held inaccurate information about him on file, and then shared that information with another council but would not share it with Mr X. We will not investigate this late complaint. This is because Mr X could reasonably have complained sooner, and in any event the Information Commissioner’s Office is best placed to consider his complaint as it relates solely to the Council’s information practices.