Decision search
Your search has 54045 results
-
Hertfordshire County Council (25 001 156)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 25-Sep-2025
Summary: Miss Y complained that the Council delayed completing the annual review process for her son, B’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. We found the Council at fault and it has agreed to pay Miss Y £500 in recognition of the avoidable stress and uncertainty.
-
Central Bedfordshire Council (25 001 353)
Statement Not upheld Special educational needs 25-Sep-2025
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide speech and language therapy for his child, Y, between May 2024 and April 2025. We have discontinued our investigation into Mr X’s complaint. The matters in his complaint were part of his appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) Tribunal or are too closely linked to the appeal.
-
London Borough of Lewisham (25 003 182)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 25-Sep-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with Ms X’s homelessness application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.
-
Birmingham City Council (25 004 511)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 25-Sep-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about information the Council has recorded about her and her children. The Council has already investigated and responded to Miss X’s concerns under all three stages of the statutory complaint procedure. It has apologised and offered remedial action for the injustice caused by the faults identified. We could not add to the Council’s responses.
-
Manchester City Council (25 004 531)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 25-Sep-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that a Council officer accused him of lying about his address when he was being issued a Fixed Penalty Notice. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant a further investigation by this office.
-
North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (25 006 950)
Statement Upheld Other 25-Sep-2025
Summary: After the Council disclosed Ms X’s address to a third party, putting her at risk of harm, it delayed information sharing and failed to properly consider whether it owed Ms X a homelessness duty. In recognition of the uncertainty Ms X has been caused by these faults, the Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X £400 and take action to improve its services. There was no fault in the Council’s decision not to write off Ms X’s rent arrears, or its decision she was not eligible to join the housing register.
-
New Forest District Council (25 007 081)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Leisure and culture 25-Sep-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to increase beach hut service charges. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
-
Birmingham City Council (25 007 131)
Statement Upheld Homelessness 25-Sep-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint. The Council has offered a suitable remedy for the injustice caused to Ms X from living in a Bed and Breakfast(B&B) longer than six weeks. Ms X has review and appeal rights she can use to challenge the suitability of her current accommodation. There is not enough injustice from any remaining fault to justify further investigation.
-
Coventry City Council (25 007 810)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 25-Sep-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to allow Mrs X to join its housing register as it is unlikely we will find fault by the Council.
-
London Borough of Barnet (25 007 940)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 25-Sep-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council calling Ms X without notice. This is because Ms X’s claimed injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Nor will we investigate Ms X’s complaint about information sharing and information requests because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider it.