Decision search
Your search has 57737 results
-
Shropshire Council (25 006 308)
Report Upheld Special educational needs 17-Jun-2026
Summary: We upheld Mrs X’s complaint about a delay in transferring her child Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan when they moved into Shropshire. The delay meant Y did not receive the educational provision in his Education, Health and Care Plan between February and July 2025 which was an important year for him. Mrs X and Y are an armed forces family and the gap in Y’s education made the move and settling into the area more difficult and stressful. Communication was also not in line with our expected standards which caused Mrs X avoidable frustration.
-
London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (25 002 702)
Report Upheld Allocations 04-Jun-2026
Summary: We found the Council failed to properly explain to Mr X its decision about his priority banding. The Council failed to inform Mr X of his right to request a review of this decision. It then took too long to re-consider its decision when challenged which was fault. The Council was at fault for not carrying out homeless inquiries when informed Mr X’s property was no longer suitable to occupy. It also delayed carrying out an Occupational Therapy (OT) assessment. This has caused Mr X distress, frustration and uncertainty.
-
Staffordshire County Council (24 008 676)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 02-Jun-2026
Summary: We upheld Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council handled her child’s Education and Health Care Plan. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by paying Mrs X a symbolic payment to acknowledge the injustice caused.
-
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 02-Jun-2026
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to find a suitable school place for her child, Y, and did not secure enough alternative provision for Y. The Council was at fault for failing to find Y a suitable school place and failing to secure suitable alternative provision. The Council was also at fault for delaying issuing Y’s EHC Plan. This caused Miss X distress and uncertainty and meant Y did not receive a suitable education for around nine months. The Council should apologise and make a payment to Miss X.
-
Statement Not upheld Alternative provision 02-Jun-2026
Summary: The Council was not at fault for the alternative education Miss X’s child received when they were not able to attend school.
-
Bristol City Council (25 003 196)
Statement Upheld Homelessness 02-Jun-2026
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure remedy his injustice following a previous investigation by the Ombudsman about his unsuitable accommodation. We found the Council to be at fault because it did not provide a remedy for the additional time he lived in unsuitable accommodation. This caused distress and frustration. To remedy this injustice, the Council agreed to apologise, make an additional payment and take action to improve its service.
-
Suffolk County Council (25 006 326)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 02-Jun-2026
Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s actions linked to her son’s education. We found fault because the Council did not act decisively in arranging interim education provision when it had committed to do so. The Council also failed to provide updates to Miss X as it said it would. This caused Miss X avoidable distress and meant her son’s interim provision did not start as early as planned. Miss X has already accepted a payment from the Council linked to its decision on missed interim provision. The Council has agreed to apologise to her for not acting decisively in arranging this and for poor communication.
-
Milton Keynes Council (25 007 351)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Friends and family carers 02-Jun-2026
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about care planning for a child, and the Council’s treatment of Mrs X as a foster carer. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about the start of court proceedings or what happened in court. We will also not investigate the part of Mrs X’s complaint about special guardianship financial support. It is reasonable to expect Mrs X to ask the Council for a review.
-
London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (25 008 999)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 02-Jun-2026
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to deliver specialist education to his daughter, Y. We have found fault because the Council did not have oversight of the provision in place and failed to organise psychoeducation specified in her Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused Mr X and Y avoidable distress and frustration. The Council has suggested a remedy for the lost provision and linked frustration. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and Y, make a payment to Mr X, organise appropriate provision and review some of its practices and procedures linked to oversight.
-
Royal Borough of Greenwich (25 009 492)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 02-Jun-2026
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with 2022 reports about the property next door and a later bedbug infestation, and how it replied to his contacts and complaints. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable from investigating a claimed link between the 2022 issues and the infestation. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with the infestation to warrant us investigating, nor enough evidence of Council actions or inactions causing Mr X’s claimed injustices, to justify investigating. We do not investigate council communications or complaint handling where we are not investigating the core issues which gave rise to the complaint. A further complaint about a property extension causes Mr X insufficient injustice to warrant us investigating.