Decision search
Your search has 54734 results
-
Lancashire County Council (24 008 773)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 24-Mar-2025
Summary: The evidence currently suggests fault by the Council on Mrs Y’s complaint about it failing to initially accept her private Educational Psychologist report in support of her request for an Education, Health and Care plan for her daughter. It failed to issue the final plan within statutory timescales or deal with her complaint properly. As a result, her daughter lost provision for one and a half terms. The fault also caused frustration, lost opportunity, and uncertainty. The Council agreed to pay for lost educational provision and distress. It would remind relevant officers about the role of a panel, the need to give clear explanations about doubts of private reports, and the need to follow its own complaints procedure.
-
Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (24 008 800)
Statement Upheld Refuse and recycling 24-Mar-2025
Summary: Mr X complained the Council has repeatedly failed to collect his household waste and recycling as scheduled over a significant period. We found the Council’s failure to properly address the issue of restricted access to the back street and to ensure household waste and recycling could continue to be collected as scheduled is fault. As is the failure to communicate with residents regarding any proposed or implemented changes to the waste collection service. As a result Mr X now takes all his waste and recycling to the Household Waste and Recycling Centre. The Council has agreed to apologise for this fault and make a payment to Mr X, and to review the waste collection arrangements for Mr X’s street.
-
London Borough of Newham (24 008 922)
Statement Upheld Parking and other penalties 24-Mar-2025
Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his representations when he disputed a penalty charge notice for a vehicle he did not own at the time. This caused significant distress, frustration and inconvenience in trying to resolve the matter, impacting on his wellbeing. The Council accepted it made an error by not properly considering his evidence. The Council has agreed to further remedy the injustice with another apology and symbolic payment to Mr X.
-
Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (24 009 703)
Statement Upheld Homelessness 24-Mar-2025
Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council handled his homelessness and housing register applications. We have found the Council at fault for delaying in deciding Mr X’s housing register application, delays processing his homelessness application and for not providing temporary accommodation. This caused Mr X avoidable distress and meant he spent time in unsuitable accommodation. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr X, offer him temporary accommodation and issue him with a decision on his housing register application.
-
Liverpool City Council (24 010 564)
Statement Upheld Homelessness 24-Mar-2025
Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed to provide sufficient support when he became homeless due to domestic abuse. The Council was at fault as it did not consider its duty to provide interim accommodation when Mr X first presented as homeless, did not consider if the interim accommodation offered to him was suitable, failed to investigate if Mr X’s eviction was justified when ending its duty to provide temporary accommodation, failed to protect his personal property, delayed in responding to his emails and delayed in dealing with his request to increase his housing priority. The faults caused Mr X to be street homeless for one month and caused distress and uncertainty to him. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising to Mr X and making a total symbolic payment of £1350.
-
Gedling Borough Council (24 010 572)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 24-Mar-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council processed, considered and approved a planning application for a new property behind Ms X’s home. We have already considered this complaint and issued a final decision statement on these matters. Ms X also complains about a lack of enforcement action against the lack of a retaining wall behind her property and the removal of trees on the site. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council responded to her reports of breaches of planning control. And the trees were not protected and therefore could be removed.
-
Leicester City Council (24 005 252)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 24-Mar-2025
Summary: Ms C complained the Council failed to ensure her son (X) received all the provision set out in his Education, Health, and Care plan. We found X had access to or received most of the provision he should have, but some limited provision was not delivered or was delayed. This was a service failure which caused Ms C and X some injustice. The Council should apologise and make payment to Ms C to acknowledge this.
-
Surrey County Council (24 005 595)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 24-Mar-2025
Summary: the Council failed to amend Mr F’s daughter G’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan to name her school following an order from the SEND Tribunal over a year ago. The Council has not completed the re-assessment of G’s needs it agreed to undertake, and G has not received any occupational therapy (OT) in her Plan since the conclusion of Mr F’s appeal. The Council has agreed a remedy for the injustice this caused.
-
North Yorkshire Council (24 005 596)
Statement Not upheld Enforcement 24-Mar-2025
Summary: Mr X complained that the Council has failed to take adequate action in respect of a large kennel erected in his neighbour’s garden without planning permission. He says he has suffered distress because of the daily noise and frustration at the lack of action. We found no fault on the Council’s part.
-
Oxfordshire County Council (24 006 454)
Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 24-Mar-2025
Summary: Mrs X complains about the care her late mother (Mrs Y) received at the care home, OSJCT Langford View, arranged for her by the Council. The care home’s records do not support what it said to Mrs X when responding to her complaint. It also failed to record her daughter’s visit to Mrs Y. While this did not impact significantly on Mrs Y’s care, the Council needs to apologise for the distress caused and work with the care home to improve its record keeping.