Decision search
Your search has 53111 results
-
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Council tax 03-Aug-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an application for discretionary council tax relief (support). This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice and because the complainant has appealed to the Valuation Tribunal.
-
Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (25 004 283)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 03-Aug-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with child safeguarding matters. This is because it is made late and I see no good reason to exercise discretion and consider it now.
-
North Yorkshire Council (25 002 578)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 02-Aug-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council’s social worker was at fault in making a safeguarding referral. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.
-
Milton Keynes Council (25 002 568)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Special educational needs 01-Aug-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council named an inappropriate school in the complainant’s son’s Education Health and Care plan, and failed to update its admissions system. The complaint concerns a matter about which the complainant could have appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and it would have been reasonable for her to do so.
-
Athena Healthcare (LSA One) Limited (24 010 027)
Statement Upheld Residential care 31-Jul-2025
Summary: Mrs A complained about the standard of care and treatment in the care home where her mother Mrs X was resident. There is no evidence of fault in the standards of care and treatment but there was a delay in providing a prompt response to Mrs A’s complaint, for which the care provider has apologised
-
London Borough of Newham (24 013 506)
Statement Upheld Homelessness 31-Jul-2025
Summary: Ms D complains the Council failed to resolve disrepair at her temporary accommodation and queries decisions made by the Council about her housing priority. I have found evidence of fault because the Council delayed progressing repairs. The Council has agreed to pay Ms D redress for the delay.
-
Statement Not upheld Other 31-Jul-2025
Summary: Mr X complained that the Council did not ensure that the day Nursery, which his son attended, provided itemised invoices for additional services over and above the free education entitlement. We do not find fault with the Council’s actions. Therefore, we are closing the complaint.
-
Statement Upheld Alternative provision 31-Jul-2025
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s actions when his son (Y) was de-registered from his school. He also complained about the Council’s failure to arrange alternative provision for Y when his parents withdrew from Elective Home Education and its failure to comply with the statutory timescales for Education Health and Care Plans. We found fault with the Council. This fault caused injustice to Mr X. The Council has agreed to apologise to Y and Mr X and to make symbolic payments to recognise the impact of its failings on Mr X.
-
Leeds City Council (24 000 225)
Statement Upheld Looked after children 31-Jul-2025
Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to provide appropriate education to her two adopted children. The Council has already investigated the complaints and upheld them. We endorse the Council’s findings of fault which has caused avoidable distress and a loss of education for the children. The Council has accepted our recommendation for an improved personal remedy for the loss of education and avoidable distress. The Council has also agreed to review its alternative education policy. We are therefore closing the complaints.
-
Statement Upheld Charging 31-Jul-2025
Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his father, Mr Y. He said Mr Y’s care provider did not provide the agreed care and support detailed in Mr Y’s care plan. This affected Mr Y’s health and wellbeing, and he did not feel he received the care he paid for. We found there was fault by the Council as care visits were often less than the allocated 30 minutes. This caused distress which the Council agreed to provide a symbolic financial remedy for. However, we did not find Mr Y’s care needs were not met.