Decision search
Your search has 55558 results
-
Royal Borough of Greenwich (25 012 726)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 03-Feb-2026
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to act in response to his reports of noise nuisance. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.
-
Durham County Council (25 012 799)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Assessment and care plan 03-Feb-2026
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s views of the sufficiency of the care provision it assessed for Mr X and included in his care plan. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant investigation.
-
Suffolk County Council (25 012 990)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 03-Feb-2026
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s complaints procedure. Any injustice Mrs Y has experienced is not significant enough to justify our involvement, and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.
-
London Borough of Hackney (25 013 070)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Antisocial behaviour 03-Feb-2026
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to install CCTV at Mr X’s request. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.
-
North Somerset Council (25 013 094)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Licensing 03-Feb-2026
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to enter into a licencing agreement with a local Business Improvement District (BID) for the management of two noticeboards. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. We cannot investigate the actions of the BID.
-
Statement Upheld Charging 02-Feb-2026
Summary: Miss X complained the Council put care in place for her grandmother despite making it clear they did not want it or to pay for it. We did not find the Council at fault for how it initially considered her grandmother’s wish for continued care. We found fault it did not complete a financial assessment before starting the care, causing distress. It was also at fault for delay with Miss X’s complaint causing frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and her grandmother to remedy the injustice. The Council has also agreed to update us on the progress and completion of an online cost estimator on its website to support care planning.
-
Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (24 020 246)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 02-Feb-2026
Summary: Miss X complained about delays by the Council in reviewing her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan and its failure to provide a suitable education for them when they could not attend a school. We found the Council was at fault for not completing the review on time and for its complaint handling, which caused injustice to Miss X and her child. However, we found there was no fault in how the Council considered its duty to secure alternative education provision for Miss X’s child. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and her child to remedy their injustice and make changes to its service to prevent the same fault happening to others.
-
Peterborough City Council (24 020 798)
Statement Upheld Other 02-Feb-2026
Summary: We do not consider Peterborough City Council acted with fault when it arranged Mr D’s Section 117 aftercare from Availl Huntingdon. While the Council acted with fault when it communicated the end of that care package, it has remedied the injustice to Mr D and his father, Mr C. Also, Availl did not act with fault in the way it supported Mr D.
-
NHS Cambridgeshire & Peterborough ICB (24 020 798a)
Statement Not upheld Mental health services 02-Feb-2026
Summary: We do not consider Peterborough City Council acted with fault when it arranged Mr D’s Section 117 aftercare from Availl Huntingdon. While the Council acted with fault when it communicated the end of that care package, it has remedied the injustice to Mr D and his father, Mr C. Also, Availl did not act with fault in the way it supported Mr D.
-
Availl Huntingdon (24 020 798b)
Statement Not upheld Mental health services 02-Feb-2026
Summary: We do not consider Peterborough City Council acted with fault when it arranged Mr D’s Section 117 aftercare from Availl Huntingdon. While the Council acted with fault when it communicated the end of that care package, it has remedied the injustice to Mr D and his father, Mr C. Also, Availl did not act with fault in the way it supported Mr D.