Decision search
Your search has 55559 results
-
Surrey County Council (24 018 316)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Rights of way 05-Feb-2026
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council responded to a highway obstruction. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
-
Milton Keynes Council (24 022 016)
Statement Upheld Adoption 05-Feb-2026
Summary: There was fault in complaint handling by the Council for which it has apologised and offered an appropriate symbolic payment. The Council has agreed to complete an action plan of steps to address its delay in complaint handling. Other matters Ms X raised have been considered by the court (or could reasonably have been raised by Mrs X in court) and so we ended the investigation of them.
-
Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (24 022 412)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 05-Feb-2026
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to provide his daughter, Y, with a suitable education, support for her special educational needs and its complaint handling. We found the Council to be at fault because it refused to consider his complaint. This caused distress and uncertainty to Mr X. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise. We did not find fault with the Council’s approach to Y’s education at home for the limited period of time we were able to investigate.
-
Suffolk County Council (24 022 666)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 05-Feb-2026
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council has handled safeguarding concerns relating to his child since 2014. Some of Mr X’s concerns are too old for us to investigate. The law prevents us from investigating any of Mr X’s concerns the court has already considered. We also will not consider the Council’s refusal to consider Mr X’s complaints when we are not investigating the substantive issues.
-
London Borough of Newham (24 023 405)
Statement Upheld Council tax 05-Feb-2026
Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his Council Tax account. We have found the Council at fault in failing to reply to Mr X’s correspondence and delay in responding to his complaint. The Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mr X.
-
North Lincolnshire Council (25 000 609)
Statement Not upheld Charging 05-Feb-2026
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council refused to fund Mr Y’s care because he chose to move into a care home with his wife rather than staying on the planned rehabilitation pathway after fracturing his hip. This caused distress and impacted Mr Y financially. There was no fault in the Council’s decision not to fund Mr Y’s care when he chose not to stay on the rehabilitation pathway.
-
Surrey County Council (25 001 228)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 05-Feb-2026
Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council refused to fund her father’s placement under the ‘Discharge to Assess’ pathway. The Council was at fault for how it assessed her father’s eligibility for funding. It gave Mrs X contradictory information, and its poor communication and record-keeping created avoidable confusion. This caused Mrs X inconvenience and distress. The Council will now take action to address her injustice.
-
Leicester City Council (25 001 322)
Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 05-Feb-2026
Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council responded to Miss X’s reports of safeguarding concerns related to her late father. The Council was also not at fault for how it considered Miss X’s request for a Safeguarding Adult Review.
-
London Borough of Tower Hamlets (25 001 563)
Statement Upheld Homelessness 05-Feb-2026
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his housing matters. Mr X could bid for ground floor properties so the Council was not at fault. The Council was at fault for failing to inform Mr X of his right to a suitability review for his temporary accommodation. This did not cause him an injustice as he was already aware of the process. The Council was at fault for failing to record how it considered all relevant information when carrying out a review of his priority banding. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Mr X £200 and decide if it needs to carry out a new review of his priority banding to remedy the injustice caused.
-
Kingston Upon Hull City Council (25 002 204)
Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 05-Feb-2026
Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed progressing her Disabled Facilities Grant application and did not provide her with a report regarding its survey of her home. Miss X said the Council’s actions caused considerable avoidable distress and upset to herself and her disabled sons. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to provide Miss X with an apology and a financial remedy.