Decision search
Your search has 54735 results
-
London Borough of Barnet (25 002 169)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Managing council tenancies 13-May-2025
Summary: We cannot investigate Miss B’s complaint about the Council damaging her property whilst undertaking work to adjoining properties. This is because we cannot investigate complaints about the management of social housing by a council acting as a social landlord.
-
Leicester City Council (25 002 386)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 13-May-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council making two payments into a short break account for her child rather than a direct payments account. There is not enough evidence of injustice to warrant investigation by us.
-
Kent County Council (25 002 389)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries School admissions 13-May-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s co-ordination of the school admission process. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement.
-
London Borough of Redbridge (25 002 435)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Parking and other penalties 13-May-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice he received for an alleged parking contravention. This is because it was reasonable for Mr C to put in an appeal to London Tribunals.
-
Buckinghamshire Council (25 002 765)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 12-May-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the application to justify an investigation. Also, we cannot require the Council to revoke the planning permission which is the outcome the complainant is seeking.
-
Coventry City Council (23 019 417)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 12-May-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the complainant’s reports of noise nuisance by a neighbour. We could not achieve a worthwhile or different outcome for the complainant.
-
Statement Upheld Charging 12-May-2025
Summary: Mrs Z complained the Council has wrongly withdrawn Mrs Y’s care package, without properly considering how her needs will be met until her land can be sold. We found the Council’s decision to immediately end Mrs Y’s care package and seek to recover all costs incurred since April 2023 is fault. This has caused an injustice as Mrs Y’s care needs are not currently being met and Mr Y and Mrs Z are suffering carer stress. The Council has agreed to apologise and make payments to Mr and Mrs Y and Mrs Z. It will also reinstate Mrs Y’s care package, review her situation and provide training to relevant staff.
-
London Borough of Haringey (24 002 895)
Statement Upheld Other 12-May-2025
Summary: A private landlord complains the Council took too long to end the tenancy of one of its tenants, who had lost the capacity to make that decision for herself, resulting in it losing out on housing benefit for many months. The Council took far too long to apply to the Court of Protection for permission to end the tenancy. While this did not result in a loss of housing benefit, it prevented the landlord from selling the property and put it to considerable trouble in chasing the Council for updates. The Council needs to apologise.
-
Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (24 003 794)
Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 12-May-2025
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to ensure his neighbour maintained the trees and bushes in their front garden. We find no fault in the Council’s handling of the high hedges matter itself. However, there was a significant delay in responding to Mr X’s complaint. The Council has apologised and offered a suitable payment to Mr X, which is a satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.
-
Woking Borough Council (24 004 402)
Statement Upheld Licensing 12-May-2025
Summary: Mr X complained the Council unfairly rejected his application to hold a circus on its land and poor complaint handling. We found the Council was at fault because it did not respond to his complaint or several enquiries by us. This caused Mr X avoidable distress, time and trouble. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr X and take action to improve its service. We did not find fault with the Council’s decision to refuse his application because it was entitled to decide not to host any large events on its land. We found no evidence of an inconsistent or discriminatory approach to circuses, as claimed by Mr X.