Decision search
Your search has 53740 results
-
Devon County Council (25 006 311)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Special educational needs 17-Sep-2025
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the college named in his daughter’s Education, Health and Care Plan. Mr X has used his right of appeal to a tribunal and so the complaint is outside our jurisdiction.
-
Guildford Borough Council (25 006 579)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 17-Sep-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council considered a planning application. This is because we do not start an investigation where there is not enough evidence of fault or when an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.
-
Manchester City Council (25 006 610)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Parking and other penalties 17-Sep-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice and the Council’s use of enforcement agents. This is because Mr X had a right of appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, and it is reasonable to expect him to have used this. The Council has also considered his request for reasonable adjustments and gave him the opportunity to pay the penalty charge notice directly to them.
-
Transport for London (25 006 930)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Parking and other penalties 17-Sep-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the London Tribunals.
-
Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council (25 007 065)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Council tax support 17-Sep-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his claim for a council tax reduction. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.
-
Brighton & Hove City Council (25 007 185)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 17-Sep-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council removing his plant from his garden wall. This is because the Council has already taken suitable action to remedy the matter and there is nothing further we would add or recommend were we to also investigate.
-
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Parking and other penalties 17-Sep-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to cancel a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because Mrs X had a right of appeal which it would have been reasonable for her to use and the injustice she claims is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
-
Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (25 007 292)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Refuse and recycling 17-Sep-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council publishing the incorrect start date for its green waste collection service. This is because the matter has not caused Mrs X any significant personal injustice which is so serious that it warrants an investigation.
-
Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (23 015 231)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 17-Sep-2025
Summary: Ms X complained about diabetes management and care provided to the late Mr Y, when he went into respite care, during his admissions to hospital, and then a nursing home. We found fault by the Trust in its record keeping and monitoring of Mr Y. The Trust acknowledged this in its response to Ms X’s complaint and put service improvements in place. The Trust agreed to provide a further remedy to Ms X to recognise the distress and uncertainty caused. We also found fault by Priory Adult Care in its management of Mr Y’s diabetes. Priory Adult Care agreed to provide a remedy to Ms X. We did not find fault by the Council, Trust and ICB in changes to Mr Y’s care plan for his respite placement, or in the Care Home’s management of Mr Y’s diabetes.
-
Calderdale & Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust (23 015 231a)
Statement Upheld Hospital acute services 17-Sep-2025
Summary: Ms X complained about diabetes management and care provided to the late Mr Y, when he went into respite care, during his admissions to hospital, and then a nursing home. We found fault by the Trust in its record keeping and monitoring of Mr Y. The Trust acknowledged this in its response to Ms X’s complaint and put service improvements in place. The Trust agreed to provide a further remedy to Ms X to recognise the distress and uncertainty caused. We also found fault by Priory Adult Care in its management of Mr Y’s diabetes. Priory Adult Care agreed to provide a remedy to Ms X. We did not find fault by the Council, Trust and ICB in changes to Mr Y’s care plan for his respite placement, or in the Care Home’s management of Mr Y’s diabetes.