Decision search


What's this ?
  • Organisation
  • Decision type

  • Reference number
  • Date range

     

  • Sort Results

Show advanced search

Your search has 57541 results

  • Luton Borough Council (25 010 014)

    Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 25-May-2026

    Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not arrange suitable care for Mr Y after his hospital discharge and communicated poorly. She says this negatively impacted Mr Y’s recovery. We find no fault with the care arranged by the Council. We find fault with the Council’s communication which caused injustice. We are satisfied the Council’s actions have remedied the injustice to Mr Y and Ms X.

  • London Borough of Brent (25 010 488)

    Statement Upheld Disabled children 25-May-2026

    Summary: We find fault by the Council in the way it has managed Mr X’s disabled brother’s (Mr Y’s) care plan. This has caused avoidable distress to Mr X and a loss of opportunity for Mr Y. The Council has agreed the remedy for the injustice caused. We have therefore completed our investigation and are closing the complaint.

  • London Borough of Croydon (25 008 787)

    Statement Upheld Special educational needs 22-May-2026

    Summary: The Council was at fault in that it did not fulfil the terms of a mediation agreement it had signed. It was also at fault in that it delayed in carrying out an annual review of child Z’s Education, Health and Care Plan. It was at further fault in the handling of Mr and Mr Y’s complaint. The Council agreed to apologise for the injustice caused.

  • 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.

  • London Borough of Merton (25 010 856)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 21-May-2026

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to issue a CIL Liability Notice to Mr X’s company. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation. Also, Mr X had the right to appeal against the surcharge which is reasonable to have expect him to use.

  • Leicestershire County Council (25 011 344)

    Statement Upheld Special educational needs 21-May-2026

    Summary: There is no fault in how the Council dealt with a stage two complaint. The Council delayed issuing a final education, health and care plan following a tribunal, delayed putting funds onto a direct payments card, failed to answer Miss X’s question about how she could spend the backdated money and failed to provide her with a policy she asked for. That caused Miss X frustration. An apology, provision of a copy of the policy Miss X asked for and liaison with her about how she can spend the backdated funds is satisfactory remedy.

  • Rushmoor Borough Council (25 011 381)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 21-May-2026

    Summary: There was fault by the Council, because it made an unsafe judgement about the value of the complainant’s property, when deciding what band it should apply to her application to join its housing register. This caused an uncertainty, which is an injustice, but the Council has more recently revised its position, and we are satisfied this resolves the injustice. The Council was not at fault for how it considered the complainant’s bedroom entitlement. We have therefore propose to complete our investigation.

  • Leicester City Council (25 012 946)

    Statement Upheld Homelessness 21-May-2026

    Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his housing. The Council was at fault for its delay in responding to the probation service referral, failing to provide a written decision, delaying its decision to award the main housing duty and poor complaint handling. This caused Mr X frustration and uncertainty. The Council should apologise and make a payment to remedy the injustice caused. It should also make service improvements.

  • Amber Valley Borough Council (25 014 677)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 21-May-2026

    Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about her housing register and homelessness applications. There is not enough evidence of fault and injustice to justify an investigation. It is also reasonable to expect Miss X to seek a review of the Council’s decision to end the main housing duty.

  • Southend-on-Sea City Council (25 015 481)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Refuse and recycling 21-May-2026

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about its handling of his appeal regarding the suitability of his property for its new wheeled bins and a delay collecting the bins following his successful appeal. An investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings