Decision search
Your search has 51938 results
-
London Borough of Haringey (24 008 677)
Statement Not upheld Parking and other penalties 16-Apr-2025
Summary: Mr X complained the Council refused to return his motorbike to him even after he had paid the fees for parking contraventions. We did not find fault in the Council’s actions.
-
Suffolk County Council (24 008 929)
Statement Upheld Other 16-Apr-2025
Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council failed to provide any support for her wellbeing when it carried out a parent carer needs assessment. The Council was at fault as it failed to consider Mrs X’s circumstances and fettered its discretion when refusing to provide financial support to meet Mrs X’s eligible outcomes. This fault caused distress and uncertainty to Mrs X. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice to Mrs X by apologising and considering again what support it can offer Mrs X to meet her eligible outcomes as a result of caring for two of her children.
-
Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (24 010 247)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Antisocial behaviour 16-Apr-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to noise nuisance. This is because parts of Ms X’s complaint are late. And of the parts that are not late, it is unlikely we would find fault, and further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome for Ms X.
-
Kent County Council (24 012 580)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 16-Apr-2025
Summary: We upheld Mr Y’s complaint about a failure to provide appropriate communication support, about the charge for his care and about a poor complaint response. The Council will apologise, waive charges, complete a fresh assessment for disability expenses and make Mr Y a payment of £500 to reflect avoidable distress and confusion.
-
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (24 012 644)
Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 16-Apr-2025
Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council assessed Mr X’s care needs, therefore the Ombudsman cannot question the merits of its decision.
-
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 16-Apr-2025
Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not provide education after her son no longer had a place at the school named on his Education, Health and Care Plan. She also complains than an annual review was delayed. Her child, Y, missed two terms of education. An apology and payment to the family remedies the injustice caused.
-
London Borough of Harrow (24 014 415)
Statement Upheld Homelessness 16-Apr-2025
Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to provide Mr X with interim accommodation when he was homeless. Mr X slept rough, which is an injustice. The Council also made inadequate inquiries and took too long to issue formal homelessness decisions. This delayed Mr X’s access to his review and appeal rights. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a new decision, and make a payment to Mr X. It will also act to improve its services.
-
North Northamptonshire Council (23 020 171)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 16-Apr-2025
Summary: There was fault by the Council which delayed amending Y’s Education Health and Care Plan following an annual review meeting. There was also poor communication and delay in complaint handling which caused avoidable distress. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment of £500 and will make the payment of £2475 it already offered to reflect Y’s loss of educational provision.
-
Liverpool City Council (24 005 716)
Statement Upheld Looked after children 16-Apr-2025
Summary: Miss Y complains about her experiences as a care leaver, particularly around the standard of accommodation provided to her and the Council’s failure to properly consider an allegation she made against a staff member at her placement. Miss Y complained to the Council, but the investigation was not robust and did not offer an appropriate personal remedy. We find fault causing injustice which the Council has agreed to acknowledge with a payment of £3750.
-
Brighton & Hove City Council (24 006 224)
Statement Not upheld Charging 16-Apr-2025
Summary: Miss X complained about the financial assessment the Council completed. She said it did not include all her disability related expenditure, and her assessed weekly contribution is unaffordable. As a result, Miss X had to go without essentials for her disability. There was no fault in the Council’s decision-making.