Decision search
Your search has 50691 results
-
London Borough of Islington (24 006 852)
Statement Upheld Homelessness 17-Feb-2025
Summary: The Council has already accepted fault for its delays and poor communication with Mr X about his application for social housing. Its offer to Mr X of £500 is a suitable remedy for the distress and frustration this caused. The Council was not at fault in how it decided Mr X’s priority on its housing register. The Council’s failure to identify a safeguarding risk and make a referral was fault. The Council has agreed to act to improve its services.
-
London Borough of Camden (24 007 486)
Statement Upheld Trees 17-Feb-2025
Summary: Mr B complained about the Council’s failure to respond to his complaints about an enforcement matter which caused him confusion. We found fault with the way the Council responded to his complaints. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay him £100.
-
St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (24 007 999)
Statement Not upheld Special educational needs 17-Feb-2025
Summary: Mr B complained about the Council’s refusal to respond to complaints he made on behalf of X and Ms Y. We found no fault by the Council. It acted in line with its corporate complaints policy and the children’s statutory complaints guidance, and exercised its discretion Mr B was not an appropriate person to make the complaints and represent X. Without fault in the process, these were decisions it was entitled to make.
-
London Borough of Croydon (24 008 288)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 17-Feb-2025
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a dispute between a private landlord and the Council. The matter has been considered by a court of law. It would be reasonable for Mr X to take his complaint back to court to enforce the terms of a settlement order if he is not happy with the Council’s actions.
-
Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (24 008 435)
Statement Upheld Refuse and recycling 17-Feb-2025
Summary: Ms X complained the Council repeatedly failed to collect her waste. We found the Council at fault in relation to the missed collections which caused Ms X avoidable frustration, distress, and inconvenience. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment for the injustice caused, and take action to prevent future recurrence of the issue.
-
Devon County Council (24 008 482)
Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 17-Feb-2025
Summary: Mr X complained the Council is failing to meet his night-time care and support needs. There is no fault in the way the Council assessed Mr X’s care needs or proposed meeting these.
-
Coventry City Council (24 008 642)
Statement Upheld Other 17-Feb-2025
Summary: Mrs Y was unhappy with the Council’s response to her complaint. The Council agreed to respond to Mrs Y’s complaint at stage two of the statutory children’s complaints process. This is a satisfactory outcome.
-
Kingston Upon Hull City Council (24 009 676)
Statement Upheld Child protection 17-Feb-2025
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to act on her complaint, under the statutory children’s complaints procedure, into its handling of child protection proceedings involving her children. The Council is at fault for its consideration of parts of Miss X’s complaint and has failed to properly remedy the impact of its failings on Miss X. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Miss X and develop a specific action plan for its approach to victims of domestic abuse.
-
London Borough of Lewisham (24 009 746)
Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 17-Feb-2025
Summary: We completed our investigation. The Council was at fault for failing to provide X with personal care at home, following their discharge from hospital. X suffered avoidable distress for one month. The Council will apologise to X, make a symbolic payment to them and review its procedures.
-
Cambridgeshire County Council (24 010 059)
Statement Upheld Charging 17-Feb-2025
Summary: We upheld Ms X’s complaint about disability expenses for heating because the Council did not properly consider this by asking Ms X for additional evidence of expenditure. The Council will apologise and review the financial assessment. We did not uphold Ms X’s complaint that the Council refused to cover the full cost of live-in care. This is because the Council is entitled under case law and paragraph 10.27 of Care and Support Statutory Guidance to have regard to its finances.