Decision search
Your search has 56552 results
-
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Highway repair and maintenance 30-Mar-2026
Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that his car was damaged by a road defect which the Council had failed to repair. This is because it is reasonable for Mr B to pursue his compensation claim at court.
-
London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (24 015 136)
Statement Upheld Charging 29-Mar-2026
Summary: Mr Y complained that the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames and NHS South West London Integrated Care Board did not pay the rent for his daughter’s specialist accommodation, despite it being part of her section 117 aftercare needs. We found fault with the Council. It managed the process of identifying and securing Miss X’s accommodation and should have included rent, and associated costs, in its costings and should have paid them from the outset. It should not have made the person liable for the rent and expected them to apply for benefits to fund it. This fault caused Mr Y avoidable stress and inconvenience. We have not found fault with the ICB as it did not make the decisions we found fault with.
-
NHS South West London ICB (24 015 136a)
Statement Not upheld Mental health services 29-Mar-2026
Summary: Mr Y complained that the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames and NHS South West London Integrated Care Board did not pay the rent for his daughter’s specialist accommodation, despite it being part of her section 117 aftercare needs. We found fault with the Council. It managed the process of identifying and securing Miss X’s accommodation and should have included rent, and associated costs, in its costings and should have paid them from the outset. It should not have made the person liable for the rent and expected them to apply for benefits to fund it. This fault caused Mr Y avoidable stress and inconvenience. We have not found fault with the ICB as it did not make the decisions we found fault with.
-
Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (24 022 813)
Statement Upheld Planning applications 29-Mar-2026
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not ensure the minimum separation distances in its planning guidance were met when it decided a planning application for a development near her home. She also complained about the Council’s handling of her complaint about the same matter. We do not find fault by the Council in its handling of the application. We did find fault in how it considered her complaint. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X.
-
Wakefield Metropolitan District Council (25 001 436)
Statement Upheld Residential care 29-Mar-2026
Summary: Mrs X complained about the standard of care the Council commissioned care home provided to her late mother. We found fault as the care home did not properly consider her mother’s nutritional and fluid intakes after recurrent infections. We also found fault with the care home’s records and inconsistent accounts about the day Mrs X’s mother passed away. This caused significant frustration, uncertainty and distress for Mrs X. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X, pay a symbolic payment to recognise the injustice and take action to ensure the care home reviews its practices with care records.
-
Manchester City Council (25 002 304)
Statement Upheld Council tax support 29-Mar-2026
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his council tax account and his request for council tax support. We found fault by the Council because it took too long to decide Mr X’s appeal and to address his correspondence and complaints. This caused him uncertainty, frustration and put him to avoidable time and trouble. The Council agreed to apologise and make Mr X a symbolic payment.
-
Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (25 004 479)
Statement Upheld Homelessness 29-Mar-2026
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s actions when she reported repeated leaks from neighbours in her temporary accommodation. We found the Council at fault for not monitoring progress about the issues. We also found fault as it did not consider relevant factors about Mrs X’s housing situation regarding suitability and priority on its housing register. This caused significant frustration and uncertainty for Mrs X. The Council has agreed to apologise, reconsider Mrs X’s housing priority, and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused. It also agreed to identify learning points from this case.
-
North Yorkshire Council (25 005 878)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 29-Mar-2026
Summary: The Council delayed completing Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan following an annual review which caused Ms X and Y avoidable distress and uncertainty and delayed Ms X’s right to appeal to the Tribunal by four months. The Council was also at fault for not considering its Section 19 and 42 duties between December 2024 and April 2025 which caused Ms X and Y further uncertainty. The Council was also at fault for a one-month delay in its response to Ms X’s complaint about the same matter. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X to remedy the injustice caused by these faults.
-
Manchester City Council (25 006 692)
Statement Upheld Noise 29-Mar-2026
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his complaint about noise from a neighbouring property. We have found fault, causing injustice, by the Council in the avoidable delays and communication failures in its investigation of Mr X’s noise complaint. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by: apologising to Mr X and making service improvements.
-
Lancashire County Council (25 007 101)
Statement Not upheld Domiciliary care 29-Mar-2026
Summary: Mrs D complained about the Council’s handling of her issues regarding her relative’s care and support provided by a domiciliary care provider, and related safeguarding concerns. We found no fault by the Council. This is because it was not responsible for the care arrangement but considered her concerns and provided some support and information. It ended its safeguarding considerations as the care arrangement was terminated and new care support was in place. As there were no further risks to Mrs X, this was a decision it was entitled to make.