Decision search


What's this ?
  • Organisation
  • Decision type

  • Reference number
  • Date range

     

  • Sort Results

Show advanced search

Your search has 57541 results

  • London Borough of Waltham Forest (25 005 168)

    Statement Upheld Disabled children 27-May-2026

    Summary: The Council delayed responding to Ms X’s complaint and failed to complete the remedies recommended in its stage three statutory complaints response. The Council accepted it is at fault and agreed to remedy the injustice.

  • London Borough of Brent (25 006 002)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 27-May-2026

    Summary: The Council was at fault for how it handled Ms X’s homelessness application. The Council did not secure temporary accommodation until the day she was evicted then offered her temporary accommodation which was unsuitable for her household. This caused distress and meant Ms X and her family had to live in unsuitable accommodation. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise and make payments to Ms X for the time spent in unsuitable accommodation and for the distress caused by her eviction.

  • Birmingham City Council (25 006 805)

    Statement Upheld Homelessness 27-May-2026

    Summary: The Council was at fault for the time taken to carry out a suitability review and for providing incorrect information about how to challenge this decision. The Council was also at fault for leaving Mr X’s family in accommodation for two months after it decided the accommodation was unsuitable. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr X and ensure its review letters contained the correct information.

  • London Borough of Hounslow (25 007 112)

    Statement Upheld Charging 27-May-2026

    Summary: The Council was at fault for overcharging Mr Z for his care and support and for failing to properly consider how much it had overcharged him by. This caused his representative, Ms X, confusion. However, the Council ultimately reimbursed Mr Z more than it had overcharged him by, so the fault did not cause him financial harm. The Council will apologise to Ms X and take action to prevent similar fault in future.

  • Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (25 010 609)

    Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 26-May-2026

    Summary: Mr B complained NHS Cheshire and Merseyside Integrated Care Board (the ICB) refused to either assess his father’s eligibility for NHS Continuing Healthcare in hospital or provide him with interim NHS funding for the nursing home placement he was discharged to. And he complained about Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council’s (the Council’s) decision to charge his father, Mr G, for his initial care and support at the nursing home. We find fault with the ICB’s approach. It relied on aspects of national guidance but ignored other parts. Without this fault it would have funded Mr G’s care from the point of discharge. We also found fault in the ICB’s and the Council’s handling of Mr B’s complaints. The ICB and the Council have agreed to actions to address the injustice.

  • NHS Cheshire and Merseyside ICB (25 010 609a)

    Statement Upheld Assessment and funding 26-May-2026

    Summary: Mr B complained NHS Cheshire and Merseyside Integrated Care Board (the ICB) refused to either assess his father’s eligibility for NHS Continuing Healthcare in hospital or provide him with interim NHS funding for the nursing home placement he was discharged to. And he complained about Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council’s (the Council’s) decision to charge his father, Mr G, for his initial care and support at the nursing home. We find fault with the ICB’s approach. It relied on aspects of national guidance but ignored other parts. Without this fault it would have funded Mr G’s care from the point of discharge. We also found fault in the ICB’s and the Council’s handling of Mr B’s complaints. The ICB and the Council have agreed to actions to address the injustice.

  • Wirral University Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (25 010 609b)

    Statement Not upheld Assessment and funding 26-May-2026

    Summary: Mr B complained NHS Cheshire and Merseyside Integrated Care Board (the ICB) refused to either assess his father’s eligibility for NHS Continuing Healthcare in hospital or provide him with interim NHS funding for the nursing home placement he was discharged to. And he complained about Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council’s (the Council’s) decision to charge his father, Mr G, for his initial care and support at the nursing home. We find fault with the ICB’s approach. It relied on aspects of national guidance but ignored other parts. Without this fault it would have funded Mr G’s care from the point of discharge. We also found fault in the ICB’s and the Council’s handling of Mr B’s complaints. The ICB and the Council have agreed to actions to address the injustice.

  • Broxbourne Borough Council (25 010 849)

    Statement Upheld Homelessness 26-May-2026

    Summary: Miss X complained about the way the Council dealt with her housing and homelessness applications. We found there was fault in how the Council reached and communicated its decisions. We recommended an apology and a payment to recognise the frustration and distress caused.

  • Rochford District Council (25 011 361)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 26-May-2026

    Summary: We found no fault on Miss Y’s complaint about the Council failing to assess her medical needs and information. There was fault in failing to tell her it had suspended medical assessments with the introduction of its new housing allocation scheme. There was also fault in the way it dealt with her formal complaint. The apologies the Council gave remedied the injustice these failures caused.

  • London Borough of Croydon (25 012 159)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 26-May-2026

    Summary: Mrs D complains the Council delayed processing and failed to correctly assess her housing register application. I have found the Council at fault. There were significant delays and the review decision fails to explain how evidence was considered. This meant Mrs D was caused avoidable distress and left uncertain about whether her circumstances had been properly assessed. The Council has already agreed to carry out a new assessment and it will pay Mrs D redress for the delay.

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