Decision search
Your search has 59746 results
-
Kent County Council (25 023 125)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 10-Aug-2026
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how care visits were carried out. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and we cannot achieve the desired outcome.
-
North Norfolk District Council (25 009 587)
Statement Upheld Allocations 09-Aug-2026
Summary: Mr X complained the Council mishandled his housing case. We find the Council at fault for a delay in processing Mr X’s medical evidence which resulted in the Council closing his case. This is fault which caused Mr X distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise to remedy the injustice caused.
-
Surrey County Council (25 011 426)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 09-Aug-2026
Summary: Ms C complains the Council did not carry out a review of her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan before his move to secondary school. It also further delayed issuing a Plan, did not attend a meeting about their appeal and was poor in its communications. We uphold the complaint because of poor communications by the Council, including not attending meetings. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice to Ms C and her family.
-
London Borough of Enfield (25 012 075)
Statement Upheld Allocations 09-Aug-2026
Summary: We found fault by the Council on Miss Y’s complaint about the bid for accommodation she said she did not make. It failed to consider exercising discretion to not count it towards the maximum two bids refusal before closing her application. There was a failure to keep a record of a telephone call and follow the complaints procedure. The Council agreed to apologise, reconsider her submissions, remind relevant officers about considering exercising discretion and the need to follow proper process with formal complaints.
-
West Sussex County Council (25 012 772)
Statement Not upheld Charging 09-Aug-2026
Summary: On behalf of Miss X, Mrs Y complained the Council failed to inform them of the full cost of Miss X’s care for approximately one year. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.
-
Hertfordshire County Council (25 013 006)
Statement Upheld Alternative provision 09-Aug-2026
Summary: We found there was delay in dealing with Miss X’s request for an Education Health and Care Plan for Y and issues with communication about the process. We also found the Council had failed to properly consider its Section 19 duty to provide an education. We recommended an apology and a payment to recognise the impact of the fault we identified.
-
London Borough of Lambeth (25 013 596)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 09-Aug-2026
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his son’s Education, Health and Care needs assessment. He said delays in the process caused him distress and avoidable financial pressures. The Council accepted it was at fault for the delay in the assessment and apologised. The Council agreed to pay Mr X £200 to recognise the avoidable uncertainty its actions caused his family and review its procedures.
-
Nottinghamshire County Council (25 013 997)
Statement Not upheld Child protection 09-Aug-2026
Summary: Miss X complained the Council ignored a safeguarding referral regarding the placement of her children. The Council acted promptly after receiving new information relating to concerns about the foster carers. It monitored the placement and found no concerns regarding the foster carers actions towards Miss X’s children. The complaint will not be pursued further as there is no evidence of fault causing a significant injustice.
-
London Borough of Newham (25 014 333)
Statement Upheld School transport 09-Aug-2026
Summary: The Council was at fault in that it did not properly consider Mr X’s application for free school transport for his eligible child, Y. The Council expected Mr X to accompany Y to school on Council-arranged transport, which is not consistent with the statutory guidance. The Council was also at fault in that it did not invite Mr X to attend the stage two appeal panel and gave him incorrect information about how to escalate his complaint. These faults caused Mr X avoidable frustration, confusion and uncertainty. To remedy his injustice, the Council will apologise to Mr X and pay him £400. The Council was also at fault for expecting other parents of eligible children to accompany them on Council-arranged transport. The Council will apologise to those parents and offer to reconsider their school transport applications. The Council also agreed to actions to improve its services and prevent these faults happening again.
-
South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (25 014 812)
Statement Upheld Parking and other penalties 09-Aug-2026
Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of her application for a dropped kerb outside her property. She says the Council did not consider her household’s medical needs when making its decision to reject her application. We find the Council at fault for poor record keeping and for failing to consider the medical needs of Ms X’s household. This has caused Ms X an injustice in the form of frustration and uncertainty. We recommend the Council apologises to Ms X and reconsiders her application.