Decision search
Your search has 54734 results
-
London Borough of Havering (23 020 738)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 31-Mar-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council referring Mr B and his partner, Mrs C, to its safeguarding team when they approached it about Mrs C applying to the housing register, causing them both significant distress and upset. We could not achieve more than the Council’s own investigation or a different result.
-
London Borough of Sutton (24 001 763)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 31-Mar-2025
Summary: There is some evidence the Council failed properly to consider Mrs X’s needs before she was discharged from hospital and did not give sufficient weight to the concerns expressed by her family. As a result the family made private arrangements for Mrs X to stay in a care home where she was later assessed as needing nursing care from the date of her admission. The Council has agreed to reconsider the date from which the financial assessment was calculated and offer a consolatory sum to Ms Y and Ms Z.
-
City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (24 004 408)
Statement Upheld Other 31-Mar-2025
Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed considering a complaint at stage two of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint by issuing its stage two response without further delay. It will also apologise and offer to make a payment to the complainant to remedy the time and trouble they have been to.
-
West Northamptonshire Council (24 005 344)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 31-Mar-2025
Summary: We upheld Ms X’s complaint about delay in issuing Y’s Education Health and Care Plan and delay in arranging alternative educational provision. This caused avoidable frustration, uncertainty, distress and a loss of provision. The Council will issue an apology, and make payments for missed provision, distress/uncertainty and reimburse the cost of an Educational Psychologist's report.
-
Worcestershire County Council (24 009 027)
Statement Upheld Safeguarding 31-Mar-2025
Summary: Mr X and Ms Y complained how the Council handled the safeguarding concerns about their grandmother. We find the Council was at fault for its delay in realising it was not the authority responsible for handling Mr X’s and Ms Y’s concerns. This caused them frustration and upset. The Council has apologised and put in place service improvements to prevent a recurrence of the fault. This is an appropriate remedy to reflect the injustice caused by fault. We do not recommend anything further.
-
Birmingham City Council (24 009 277)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Looked after children 31-Mar-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about her experience as a looked-after child between 2005 and 2010. This is because significant time has passed since and we could not complete a robust investigation of this historic matter.
-
Birmingham City Council (24 009 670)
Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 31-Mar-2025
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide appropriate support to her son, Mr Y, as a child and as adult and did not support him to move out of the family home. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.
-
London Borough of Haringey (24 009 764)
Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 31-Mar-2025
Summary: Miss F complained the Council did not take effective action to resolve anti-social behaviour she was experiencing from a neighbouring property. The Council was at fault, because it misunderstood its legal jurisdiction on several relevant points, which caused uncertainty. The Council should apologise and offer to pay Miss F a financial remedy to reflect this, and implement improvements to its service.
-
Middlesbrough Borough Council (24 010 174)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 31-Mar-2025
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council removing Mr X’s grandchild from his care and restricting his contact. A legal bar prevents us doing so because the residence and contact arrangements for the child have been subject to court action and only a court could vary them.
-
Kent County Council (24 010 288)
Statement Not upheld Charging 31-Mar-2025
Summary: Mr X complained about changes to the Council’s charging policy for non-residential care services. We ended out investigation because there is ongoing court action about the charging policy and there is no significant personal injustice to Mr X.