Decision search
Your search has 57673 results
-
Blackburn with Darwen Council (25 005 441)
Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 21-May-2026
Summary: The Council was not at fault for seeking new information to ensure planned adaptations under a Disabled Facilities Grant were necessary and appropriate. The Council was at fault for the way it handled Mrs X’s complaint, causing confusion and uncertainty over what complaints it had responded to. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X.
-
Statement Upheld Alternative provision 21-May-2026
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to provide his son (Y) with a suitable education and support for his special educational needs when he moved into the area. We found the Council to be at fault. This meant Y was out of education for two terms, affecting Y’s development and well-being, as well as causing Mr X distress and frustration. To remedy this injustice, the Council agreed to apologise and made a symbolic payment.
-
London Borough of Bexley (25 006 650)
Statement Not upheld Special educational needs 21-May-2026
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to promptly organise exams for her son, Mr Y. Miss X said this delayed Mr Y taking the exams and he could not retake if needed. The Council was not at fault.
-
Oxfordshire County Council (25 008 658)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 21-May-2026
Summary: Miss B complained the Council has failed to provide a suitable education to her daughter, who I will refer to as C, for three years. The Council was at fault. It failed to secure suitable education and provision for C as outlined in her Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. As a result, C missed out on education and provision. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss B and make symbolic payments.
-
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 21-May-2026
Summary: The Council delayed issuing an amended Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for Mrs X’s child Y. It also failed to properly respond to Mrs X’s complaint. This caused Mrs X frustration and uncertainty but did not result in Y missing out on the provision in their EHC Plan or receiving alternative educational provision. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Miss X.
-
Plymouth City Council (25 009 498)
Statement Not upheld Adoption 21-May-2026
Summary: Mr X complained about the recommendations following the statutory complaint procedure and said the Council has not completed the recommendations. Mr X said this distressed him. There was no fault in how the Council completed the statutory complaint’s procedure, so we have no grounds to question or reinvestigate its findings. The Council made a merits based decision on the content of the letter to Y and completed the actions from the statutory complaints procedure within a reasonable timescale. The Council was not at fault.
-
Statement Upheld Charging 21-May-2026
Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council handled her husband Mr X’s care costs. We find the Council at fault for not appropriately checking figures and information when calculating how much Mr X should have contributed to his care costs, and for inadequate complaint handling. This caused Mrs X distress in the form of uncertainty, frustration and time and trouble. The Council agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and complete a new calculation to remedy the injustice.
-
Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (25 009 843)
Statement Upheld Allocations 21-May-2026
Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed her housing application and failed to communicate, leaving her and her child, Y, in unsuitable accommodation. There was fault in the Council’s actions which caused Miss X distress, uncertainty, inconvenience, and time and trouble. The Council agreed recommended actions to remedy the injustice.
-
London Borough of Lewisham (25 010 323)
Statement Upheld Homelessness 21-May-2026
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to take suitable action after it became aware she was a high-risk victim of domestic abuse. She also complained it failed to improve the security in her temporary accommodation, and it failed to award her the correct priority on its housing register. We find the Council was at fault as it failed to take sufficient action to improve the security in Mrs X’s temporary accommodation. This caused Mrs X distress and worry about the safety for her and her family. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X for this injustice.
-
Birmingham City Council (25 010 690)
Statement Not upheld Enforcement 21-May-2026
Summary: The Council is not at fault for the way it handled Mrs X’s reports of breaches of planning permission at a nearby house. This is because the Council did what it should have done.