Decision search


What's this ?
  • Organisation
  • Decision type

  • Reference number
  • Date range

     

  • Sort Results

Show advanced search

Your search has 51595 results

  • Suffolk County Council (24 021 614)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 21-Apr-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s response to safeguarding referrals raised about her and about its decision to take her son’s case to the Court of Protection. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider her complaint whilst the case is subject to ongoing court proceedings.

  • Norfolk County Council (24 019 625)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries School transport 18-Apr-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the suspension of the complainant’s son’s school transport. Investigation would not add anything significant to the response the Council has already made, or lead to a different outcome.

  • London Borough of Ealing (24 020 217)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries School transport 18-Apr-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainant’s application and appeal for school transport for her son. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

  • London Borough of Haringey (24 008 677)

    Statement Not upheld Parking and other penalties 16-Apr-2025

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council refused to return his motorbike to him even after he had paid the fees for parking contraventions. We did not find fault in the Council’s actions.

  • Suffolk County Council (24 008 929)

    Statement Upheld Other 16-Apr-2025

    Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council failed to provide any support for her wellbeing when it carried out a parent carer needs assessment. The Council was at fault as it failed to consider Mrs X’s circumstances and fettered its discretion when refusing to provide financial support to meet Mrs X’s eligible outcomes. This fault caused distress and uncertainty to Mrs X. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice to Mrs X by apologising and considering again what support it can offer Mrs X to meet her eligible outcomes as a result of caring for two of her children.

  • Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (24 010 247)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Antisocial behaviour 16-Apr-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to noise nuisance. This is because parts of Ms X’s complaint are late. And of the parts that are not late, it is unlikely we would find fault, and further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome for Ms X.

  • Kent County Council (24 012 580)

    Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 16-Apr-2025

    Summary: We upheld Mr Y’s complaint about a failure to provide appropriate communication support, about the charge for his care and about a poor complaint response. The Council will apologise, waive charges, complete a fresh assessment for disability expenses and make Mr Y a payment of £500 to reflect avoidable distress and confusion.

  • London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (24 012 644)

    Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 16-Apr-2025

    Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council assessed Mr X’s care needs, therefore the Ombudsman cannot question the merits of its decision.

  • Somerset Council (24 012 896)

    Statement Upheld Special educational needs 16-Apr-2025

    Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not provide education after her son no longer had a place at the school named on his Education, Health and Care Plan. She also complains than an annual review was delayed. Her child, Y, missed two terms of education. An apology and payment to the family remedies the injustice caused.

  • London Borough of Harrow (24 014 415)

    Statement Upheld Homelessness 16-Apr-2025

    Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to provide Mr X with interim accommodation when he was homeless. Mr X slept rough, which is an injustice. The Council also made inadequate inquiries and took too long to issue formal homelessness decisions. This delayed Mr X’s access to his review and appeal rights. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a new decision, and make a payment to Mr X. It will also act to improve its services.

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