Decision search
Your search has 51595 results
-
Suffolk County Council (25 000 356)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 23-Apr-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to a consultation request from the local planning authority. This is because the complaint has been made on behalf of a parish council and not a member of the public.
-
London Borough of Hackney (25 000 361)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 23-Apr-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the actions of the Council’s children’s services. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault with the Council’s decision not to consider Mr X’s complaint until after court proceedings have concluded.
-
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Parking and other penalties 23-Apr-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice she received. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs B to put in an appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.
-
London Borough of Harrow (24 017 275)
Statement Upheld Homelessness 23-Apr-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her daughter’s homeless case. This is because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.
-
London Borough of Southwark (24 008 798)
Statement Not upheld Special educational needs 22-Apr-2025
Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Miss X’s complaint that the Council did not secure the provision in her daughter’s Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council acknowledged its failure and offered a substantial remedy. Further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.
-
Statement Upheld Enforcement 22-Apr-2025
Summary: Ms B complained about the Council’s failure to take effective enforcement action to prevent a breach of planning control on neighbouring land. We found the Council was at fault because it took too long to provide her with feedback and respond to her complaint, causing her frustration. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms B and remind staff of the need to comply with relevant timescales. We did not find fault with the Council’s enforcement decisions.
-
London Borough of Hillingdon (24 009 792)
Statement Upheld Homelessness 22-Apr-2025
Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council handled her homelessness after she received an eviction notice in 2024. The Council was at fault. It failed to take steps to alleviate her risk of homelessness and delayed moving her to interim accommodation. This meant Miss X remained in a property at risk of eviction and homelessness for longer than necessary. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to Miss X to recognise the distress and uncertainty this caused.
-
Rugby Borough Council (24 010 394)
Statement Upheld Allocations 22-Apr-2025
Summary: Miss D says the Council has not been fair in the way it calculated her family’s income in its housing allocations assessment. Miss D’s partner is self-employed with a variable income. But in its calculation of their income, the Council made no allowances for holidays, sickness of other seasonal variations. We uphold the complaint. The Council has agreed to our recommendations of a remedy for the uncertainty this led to.
-
London Borough of Southwark (24 011 308)
Statement Upheld Charging 22-Apr-2025
Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed sending her an invoice for an estate she was administering as executor. Ms X has settled the estate and does not have the money to pay the invoice. This has caused her distress. The Council is at fault for failing to notify Ms X of the invoice in an appropriate manner and timescale. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and confirm in writing it will not pursue the debt.
-
West Northamptonshire Council (24 012 145)
Statement Upheld Charging 22-Apr-2025
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed assess his disability related expenditure properly when calculating his contribution towards his care costs. On the evidence available we have found fault in how the Council considered some of Mr X’s disability related expenditure. We recommend the Council apologise to Mr X and review its decision on some of his disability related expenditure. It should also backdate disability related expenditure for the support Mr X needs to attend social and religious events, from the date of his financial assessment until the end of January 2025.