Decision search
Your search has 54045 results
-
Westminster City Council (24 021 606)
Statement Upheld Allocations 30-Oct-2025
Summary: Miss X complained the Council placed her in bed-and-breakfast accommodation beyond the six week limit, delayed identifying alternative accommodation and failed to keep her up-to-date. The Council accepts it kept Miss X in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for longer than the six weeks allowed. The Council also failed to keep Miss X up-to-date. Because of the Council’s delay Miss X had to stay in unsuitable accommodation for longer than she should have. An apology and payment to Miss X is satisfactory remedy.
-
Essex County Council (24 022 763)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 30-Oct-2025
Summary: We found fault with the Council delaying for 14 weeks outside the statutory timescales in producing Mr X’s child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. We also found fault with the Council failing to meet its complaint timescales by one week and failing to provide accessible education for Mr X’s child for five weeks. This caused frustration and inconvenience to Mr X and lost education for his child. We also found fault with the Council failing to get its own Educational Psychologist report and instead relying on Mr X’s. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X, pay him £200 for his distress and inconvenience and £750 in recognition of his child’s missed education. The Council also agreed to reimburse Mr X for the expense he incurred in getting a private Educational Psychologist report, costing £1,200.
-
London Borough of Newham (24 023 077)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 30-Oct-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered Mr X’s housing priority. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
-
Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (24 023 256)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 30-Oct-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council bullied and harassed him. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
-
Leicester City Council (25 001 177)
Statement Not upheld Council tax 30-Oct-2025
Summary: Mr X complained the Council refunded £505.84 after it revised his council tax bill, instead of the £577.84 overpayment he was due. He said this left him £72 short. We found no fault in the Council’s actions.
-
Statement Not upheld Enforcement 30-Oct-2025
Summary: We have discontinued our investigation. The Council has acknowledged the impact of the unauthorised use of the site, offered a financial remedy and apology to Ms X, and confirmed its plans to relocate the operation within a reasonable timescale. We consider this represents a suitable remedy for the injustice caused, and further investigation is unlikely to lead to a significantly different outcome.
-
Kent County Council (25 004 991)
Statement Upheld Charging 30-Oct-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s errors in billing for the late Ms Y’s care provision. An investigation would not lead to a different outcome than that offered by the Council.
-
Slough Borough Council (25 005 176)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 30-Oct-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with her child. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.
-
Essex County Council (25 005 329)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 30-Oct-2025
Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed carrying out an Education Health and Care needs assessment for a child. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by offering to make a suitable payment to the complainant to remedy the injustice this caused.
-
London Borough of Haringey (24 003 205)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 30-Oct-2025
Summary: Mr X complained the Council suspended his direct payment arrangement in place for his care and support. He said this left him without the care and support he needed, affecting his health, wellbeing and finances. We have found the Council at fault for its record keeping and for delays in acting on concerns it had about Mr X’s circumstances. We have also found the Council at fault for the way it ended Mr X’s direct payments and for delay in providing an alternative package of proposed care. We cannot say this caused Mr X an injustice in the form of missed care provision, but find this caused Mr X avoidable distress and uncertainty. There is a lack of clarity over the Council’s current view on Mr X’s care and support needs. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X. The Council has also agreed to act to review his current care and support needs and put forward a plan to meet them.