Decision search
Your search has 53111 results
-
Herefordshire Council (24 017 381)
Statement Upheld Planning applications 29-Jul-2025
Summary: X complained about the way the Council dealt with planning application and planning enforcement issues relating to their neighbour’s land. X believes that, because of the Council’s decisions, the land may now be used for commercial purposes without proper planning controls, and that this might affect their home, which is a listed building. We found fault and the Council agreed to our recommendations to deal with the injustice it caused and avoid recurrence of the same fault in future.
-
London Borough of Hounslow (24 018 677)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Parking and other penalties 29-Jul-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s actions following his vehicle blocking a driveway. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.
-
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (24 019 049)
Statement Not upheld Planning applications 29-Jul-2025
Summary: Mr X complained the Council breached its local plan policies when it considered and granted planning permission for his neighbour’s development. Mr X said as a result, the development has significantly reduced his property amenity and lessened its value. There was no fault by the Council in how it considered and made its decision to grant planning permission for Mr X’s neighbour’s development.
-
Folkestone & Hythe District Council (24 019 188)
Statement Upheld Planning applications 29-Jul-2025
Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council handled several planning applications submitted by his neighbour and the delay in its handling of his complaint. We find no fault in how the Council assessed or determined the planning applications, nor in its consideration of the objections raised by Mr X. However, we do find fault in the Council’s complaint handling which caused avoidable uncertainty and distress. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X.
-
Suffolk County Council (24 019 316)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 29-Jul-2025
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to complete an Education, Health, and Care needs assessment for her child within statutory timeframes. We found the Council at fault for significant delays, causing significant distress, frustration and uncertainty for the family. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay a symbolic payment to recognise the injustice caused.
-
Southend-on-Sea City Council (24 020 028)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 29-Jul-2025
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to complete an Education, Health and Care needs assessment for her child, Y, within the statutory time limits. She complained the Council’s offer of a symbolic financial payment was not enough to remedy the injustice caused to her. We found the Council at fault for not completing the assessment within the statutory timescales. This fault caused injustice to Miss X. The Council has agreed to make a higher payment to recognise Miss X’s distress and make changes to improve its service.
-
Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (22 013 855)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 29-Jul-2025
Summary: Mr and Mrs B complained the Council failed to ensure their son received the provision in his education, health and care plan, failed to put in place education when their son stopped attending school and delayed responding to their complaint. There is evidence Mr and Mrs B’s son did not receive all the one-to-one provision in his education, health and care plan, the Council failed to act appropriately when Mr and Mrs B’s son stopped attending school and the Council delayed responding to the complaint. That means Mr and Mrs B’s son missed out on education and special educational needs provision. An apology, payment to Mr and Mrs B and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.
-
Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (23 008 507)
Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 29-Jul-2025
Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council dealt with her request for adaptations and housing to meet the needs of her disabled child. The Council took too long to consider the recommendations and it did not deal with her complaints and review requests properly. It did not properly consider its discretion to admit her to its housing register. The Council’s shortcomings caused Miss X distress and uncertainty, but it is unlikely her family would have been rehoused sooner, or that the Council would have made the adaptations she requested. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X, make symbolic payments, backdate her housing priority, and share this decision with relevant staff.
-
London Borough of Redbridge (24 008 348)
Statement Upheld Homelessness 29-Jul-2025
Summary: The Council failed to properly assess the capacity of three family members to make a homelessness application when they told the Council they were suffering domestic abuse. The Council did not deal with the safeguarding referral appropriately or in good time, and did not offer the family social care needs assessments soon enough. It cannot show how it made the decision to offer a one-bedroom property and it took too long to deal with the complaint to it. The family missed out on interim accommodation, and they were caused distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise, make symbolic payments to the family, and review their housing needs. It will also review its training and procedures on mental capacity assessment, arranging interpreters, and monitoring case progress.
-
London Borough of Bexley (24 009 345)
Statement Upheld Homelessness 29-Jul-2025
Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of her homelessness application. She says the Council wrongly advised her to stay in the property even after the expiry of a valid eviction notice. She also says the Council failed to offer her temporary accommodation promptly which led to her getting into rent arrears after her landlord raised the rent and made the property unaffordable. We found the Council was at fault for not offering interim accommodation when Ms S became homeless. The Council agreed to apologise, pay her legal costs and pay her a remedy for the stress she experienced.