Decision search


What's this ?
  • Organisation
  • Decision type

  • Reference number
  • Date range

     

  • Sort Results

Show advanced search

Your search has 59746 results

  • Surrey County Council (26 005 656)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 16-Jul-2026

    Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about how the Council dealt with an alleged data breach. The Information Commissioner's Office is best placed to consider such matters.

  • Canterbury City Council (26 006 284)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Parking and other penalties 16-Jul-2026

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the enforcement of multiple Penalty Charge Notices for alleged parking or traffic contraventions. It was reasonable to expect Mr X to use his appeal rights. We will also not investigate Mr X’s complaints that the Council failed to take account of its duties under the Equality Act. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

  • Nottingham City Council (26 006 343)

    Statement Upheld Parking and other penalties 16-Jul-2026

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to reinstate a payment plan. The Council has already remedied any injustice Mr X experienced. Any outstanding injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

  • London Borough of Hackney (26 006 676)

    Statement Upheld Parking and other penalties 16-Jul-2026

    Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about actions taken by an Enforcement Agency on behalf of the Council when it removed and sold her vehicle. Either there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation or we could not add to the previous investigation by the organisation.

  • London Borough of Bromley (26 006 733)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Parking and other penalties 16-Jul-2026

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice for an alleged parking or traffic contravention. It would have been reasonable to expect the] complainant to use the statutory representations and appeals procedure.

  • West Sussex County Council (26 006 810)

    Statement Upheld Other 16-Jul-2026

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions relating to special guardians and kinship care support. The Council has already investigated the complaint under the three-stage Children Act 1989 complaint procedure. We could not add to the investigation the Council has already carried out and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

  • Kent County Council (26 007 037)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Parking and other penalties 16-Jul-2026

    Summary: We will not investigate the Council’s handling of Miss X’s complaint about inadequate road signs leading to the issue of a penalty charge notice. This is because the injustice she claims stems from the penalty charge notice itself and if Miss X disputed this it would have been reasonable for her to appeal. The complaints handling issue itself did not cause Miss X significant enough to warrant further investigation.

  • City of Wolverhampton Council (26 007 144)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Highway repair and maintenance 16-Jul-2026

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway drainage because the courts are better placed to consider the issue and it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to go to court about the matter.

  • London Borough of Lambeth (26 007 253)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Parking and other penalties 16-Jul-2026

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the enforcement of a Penalty Charge Notice. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre to seek to regain their appeal rights, and then to appeal to a tribunal.

  • London Borough of Barnet (25 031 068)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Parking and other penalties 16-Jul-2026

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse Mr X’s request to extend double yellow lines. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings