Decision search
Your search has 58275 results
-
London Borough of Newham (25 008 005)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 05-Jul-2026
Summary: Mr Z, on behalf of his niece, Ms X, complained that despite no change in her condition, the Council reduced her package of care from 69 to 51.5 hours per week. The Council followed the correct procedure to review Ms X’s care needs and then used its professional judgement to determine how to meet those needs. However, it delayed getting an occupational therapy assessment and implementing the recommendation to increase the hours to 53 per week. A suitable remedy for the distress and missed provision is agreed.
-
London Borough of Barnet (25 009 476)
Statement Upheld Homelessness 05-Jul-2026
Summary: Ms X complained about heating and hot water at her temporary accommodation. We found fault by the Council through delay and poor complaint handling which meant Ms X paid for communal heating she did not receive and caused her avoidable inconvenience. The Council has agreed to apologise, reimburse some of the heating and hot water costs and make a symbolic payment to Ms X. The Council will also ensure tenants receive adequate information about communal heating systems.
-
Southampton City Council (25 010 259)
Statement Not upheld Special educational needs 05-Jul-2026
Summary: The Council was not at fault for failing to provide Mrs X’s child Y with alternative educational provision between September 2024 and March 2025. I cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to secure her child, Y’s specialist provision in their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan between March and September 2025. This is because Mrs X appealed to the Tribunal which puts that period outside of our jurisdiction.
-
Warwickshire County Council (25 010 702)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 05-Jul-2026
Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to provide the full amount of care in Ms Y’s care plan, which it accepted in its complaint response. This has caused her financial injustice as she paid for private carers to top up her care package. The Council should make a payment to reflect the costs of the extra care Ms Y had paid for.
-
London Borough of Ealing (25 012 819)
Statement Upheld Charging 05-Jul-2026
Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed telling him about his care charges. We find the Council was at fault for its delay in completing Mr X’s financial assessment and for its delay in contacting him for his financial information. This meant Mr X lost the opportunity to make a fully informed decision about his care package before it started. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and implement a service improvement.
-
Derby City Council (24 007 961)
Statement Not upheld Child protection 05-Jul-2026
Summary: There was no fault in how the Council dealt with allegations about Mr X while he was employed as a teacher. Its LADO provided appropriate oversight of the case. Much of the injustice he believes he suffered arose from the actions of his then-employer, a school, which is outside our jurisdiction. He has now taken the school to the Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal, which is a more suitable avenue to pursue his complaint.
-
London Borough of Newham (25 001 225)
Statement Upheld Homelessness 05-Jul-2026
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application, his housing priority, and its review delays. The Council was at fault. It incorrectly handled Mr X’s homelessness, there were review delays by the Council, and its communication was poor. As a result, Mr X suffered distress and frustration, and he missed the opportunity to be relieved of his homelessness sooner. The Council has agreed to make symbolic payments, reimburse a court fee, and send us evidence of the actions it says it has taken to improve its service.
-
Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (25 002 922)
Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 05-Jul-2026
Summary: Ms Y complained that the Council failed to safeguard her relative Ms X, consider her needs as Ms X’s primary carer and reimburse her for care she arranged. There is no fault in how the Council assessed Ms X’s care and support needs or carried out a carers assessment for Ms Y. The Council also addressed Ms Y’s complaint about outstanding payments for Ms X’s care without fault.
-
Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (25 005 248)
Statement Not upheld Other 05-Jul-2026
Summary: The Council was not at fault in how it decided Miss X and her children were not eligible for support under its Restorative Justice (Grenfell Tower) Programme.
-
Essex County Council (25 020 036)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 05-Jul-2026
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council handled Mrs B’s personal data. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider a complaint.