Decision search
Your search has 55414 results
-
Sheffield City Council (25 001 755)
Statement Upheld Enforcement 07-Jan-2026
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly investigate or take appropriate enforcement action in relation to breaches of planning permission at a neighbouring property. Mr X also complains the Council has wrongly approved a retrospective planning application and included a planning condition that does not secure its objective. We found the errors and delays in considering and responding to Mr X’s concerns about breaches of planning control are fault. As is the failure to specify the level of obscurity to be retained in the planning condition. These faults have caused Mr X distress and uncertainty. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Mr X.
-
London Borough of Newham (25 001 852)
Statement Upheld Housing benefit and council tax benefit 07-Jan-2026
Summary: Mr X’s representative complained on his behalf about the Council’s handling of his housing benefit reviews. They complained it had incorrectly calculated his housing benefit, delayed in responding to his requests for review and had not provided Mr X with his appeal rights. The Council was a fault for delaying to completing Mr X’s housing benefit review. However, the Council has now recalculated Mr X’s housing benefit and backdated it to 2022 which remedies part of the injustice caused to Mr X. The Council agreed to apologise and pay a symbolic payment to Mr X for the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by the delay.
-
New Forest National Park Authority (25 001 944)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 07-Jan-2026
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Authority’s handling of a prior notification application. There is insufficient evidence that fault by the Authority has caused the complainant a significant personal injustice.
-
Lancashire County Council (25 002 113)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 07-Jan-2026
Summary: Mrs B complained the Council has failed to update her son’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan since the first annual review and its communication with her has been poor. There was fault by the Council. It did not meet statutory timescales during the annual review process and issuing of the amended final EHC Plan. It also did not take sufficient action to ensure provision was consistently secured for Mrs B’s son, as outlined in his existing EHC Plan. The Council’s communication with Mrs B was also poor. Because of the fault, Mrs B suffered distress, frustration, uncertainty, and her appeal right to the Tribunal was delayed. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B, make symbolic payments, and issue staff briefings.
-
London Borough of Enfield (25 002 515)
Statement Upheld School transport 07-Jan-2026
Summary: There was fault by the Council, because it cannot show it properly followed the legal process when refusing an application for school transport. The Council has agreed to write a formal letter of apology for this, and take steps to ensure its staff understand and can apply the law when making similar decisions in future.
-
Statement Not upheld Homelessness 07-Jan-2026
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to consider medical evidence she provided in relation to her housing application and failed to treat her as homeless and provide interim accommodation. We cannot consider whether the Council was at fault for not treating Ms X as homeless as she has already sought a remedy through the courts. We find no fault with how the Council considered Ms X’s medical evidence.
-
London Borough of Camden (25 004 216)
Statement Upheld Allocations 07-Jan-2026
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to properly consider her medical and safety needs when assessing her housing application. We find no fault in the Council’s decision not to award her medical priority points. However, we find fault in the Council’s failure to consider whether it was reasonable for Miss X and her children to remain in their current accommodation in light of the harassment she was experiencing, and in its failure to appropriately signpost her to, or coordinate with, its homelessness service. These failings caused Miss X uncertainty about whether she should have received additional advice or assistance. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Miss X, assess whether Miss X’s current circumstances give rise to homelessness duties, and take action to improve its services.
-
Buckinghamshire Council (25 005 140)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 07-Jan-2026
Summary: The Council failed to make sure that Mrs X’s child received the speech and language therapy set out in their Education Health and Care Plan. It also failed to make sure that the therapist circulated a report in time for the annual review of the Plan. This caused Mrs X distress and frustration, and meant that her child missed speech and language therapy for over a year. I have recommended the Council make a symbolic payment in recognition of the therapy Mrs X’s child missed out on.
-
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (25 005 800)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 07-Jan-2026
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision not to fund a residential placement for her child and said the Council’s complaint response did not address all the issues she raised. We have ended our investigation. This is because the Council has already reassessed Mr Y’s needs, reviewed its earlier decision, and put in place additional care and support. There is nothing further an investigation by the Ombudsman could achieve at this stage. As we are not investigating the substantive matters, it would not be a proportionate use of public resources to investigate the Council’s complaint handling.
-
Isle of Wight Council (25 005 809)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Alternative provision 07-Jan-2026
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to provide alternative education for her child when they were out of school. Mrs X also complained her child was not receiving the special educational provision in their Education, Health and Care Plan. We have not investigated this complaint as the matters complained about were either part of Mrs X’s appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Tribunal or were too closely linked to the appeal.