Decision search


What's this ?
  • Organisation
  • Decision type

  • Reference number
  • Date range

     

  • Sort Results

Show advanced search

Your search has 51938 results

  • Kent County Council (23 020 623)

    Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 07-May-2025

    Summary: Mrs Z, on behalf of Mrs X, complained the Council delaying completing a care needs assessment, delayed completing a financial assessment and failed to effectively communicate. The Council accepts fault and has proposed a remedy which includes correctly applying a disregard and making a symbolic payment for the frustration and distress caused. This is a suitable remedy and so we will discontinue the investigation.

  • Lincolnshire County Council (24 004 639)

    Statement Not upheld School transport 07-May-2025

    Summary: Miss X complains the Council have failed to use a collaborative approach to agree safe school transport terms for her son Y, as detailed in Section F of his Education, Health and Care Plan. She says the Council failed to complete the school transport travel plan properly. We do not find fault with the Council.

  • Kent County Council (24 004 981)

    Statement Upheld Special educational needs 07-May-2025

    Summary: Ms X complained there were failings in the way the Council dealt with her son Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan and provided him with support. Based on current evidence we found fault by the Council as it failed to carry out annual reviews of Y’s Education Health and Care Plan and responded to Ms X’s complaints about the matter in a timely way causing uncertainty and distress. We have recommended a suitable remedy for the injustice caused so have completed our investigation.

  • Hampshire County Council (24 005 411)

    Statement Upheld Special educational needs 07-May-2025

    Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed issuing an education, health and care plan for her child, failed to provide sufficient alternative education, gave her misinformation about a placement, and communicated poorly with her. Miss X said this caused distress, meant she had to leave her job, and her child missed out on education. We find the Council at fault and this caused injustice. The Council will apologise and make a further payment to remedy the injustice.

  • Manchester City Council (24 019 940)

    Statement Upheld Parking and other penalties 07-May-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a dropped kerb which the Council approved in error. This is because the Council has provided a satisfactory response.

  • West Berkshire Council (24 020 105)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 07-May-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Ms X’s housing register application because there is not enough evidence of fault.

  • Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (24 020 258)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 07-May-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to correct inaccurate personal data. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

  • City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (24 020 352)

    Statement Upheld Refuse and recycling 07-May-2025

    Summary: We have decided not to investigate Mr X’s complaint about missed assisted bin collections. The Council has upheld the complaint and agreed to remedy the injustice caused by taking appropriate action.

  • Suffolk County Council (24 020 356)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 07-May-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council has ignored her safeguarding concerns about her child. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

  • Slough Borough Council (24 020 440)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 07-May-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a building control officer, or the Council’s handing of the complainant’s building control application. The actions of the officer in a private capacity do not amount to an administrative function of the Council, and there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council handled the related building control application.

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