Local Government Ombudsman Logo

www.lgo.org.uk has experienced a problem

The website has encountered an error. The issue has been logged so that we can investigate the cause.

You can visit the home page and try browsing again. Please accept our apologies for any inconvenience caused.

You may still be able to use our online complaint service if you want to register a complaint or log into your account.

SearchResult - Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman

Decision search


What's this ?
  • Organisation
  • Decision type

  • Reference number
  • Date range

     

  • Sort Results

Show advanced search

Your search has 52409 results

  • Suffolk County Council (24 022 666)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 15-May-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with his child. The law prevents us from investigating anything that is or has been the subject of court proceedings.

  • Manchester City Council (24 022 775)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 15-May-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a safeguarding referral about his family. The law prevents us from investigating anything that is or has been the subject of court proceedings. We are also unlikely to find evidence of fault in the Council’s action following Mr X’s arrest.

  • Lancashire County Council (24 022 828)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 15-May-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s response to her concerns about the care and welfare of her grandchildren. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to accept her complaint because she does not have parental responsibility for the children.

  • Birmingham City Council (24 022 901)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Highway repair and maintenance 15-May-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to approach the courts about the matter, who are better placed to consider the complaint.

  • Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (25 000 470)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Friends and family carers 15-May-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about payment of fostering allowances. This is because the complaint is late, and there is no good reason for the delay in complaining to us.

  • Birmingham City Council (25 001 009)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 15-May-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not supporting him because there is not enough evidence of fault or significant injustice.

  • Bristol City Council (25 001 808)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 15-May-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a data breach as the Information Commissioner's Office is best placed to assess the Council's response and compensation can be sought in court.

  • City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (24 014 454)

    Statement Upheld School transport 15-May-2025

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council refused to provide home to school transport for his child who has special educational needs and that it failed to follow the appeal process correctly. On the evidence considered the Council was at fault. It failed to properly consider Y’s circumstances, to hold a stage one review and to properly record and explain its decision making. This leaves doubt over the decision reached. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X for the frustration and uncertainty caused, review Mr X’s appeal, review its processes and arrange training for relevant school transport staff and panel members.

  • Derby City Council (23 009 736)

    Report Upheld School transport 14-May-2025

    Summary: Ms X, Ms Y and Ms Z complained about the Council’s offer of transport support for their children via a personal travel budget (PTB), rather than providing a vehicle, and about the handling of their subsequent transport appeals. They complained the Council’s decision to offer a PTB was impractical and unaffordable for their individual circumstances. Their children all have Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plans and are older than 16.

  • Derby City Council (23 013 529)

    Report Upheld School transport 14-May-2025

    Summary: Ms X, Ms Y and Ms Z complained about the Council’s offer of transport support for their children via a personal travel budget (PTB), rather than providing a vehicle, and about the handling of their subsequent transport appeals. They complained the Council’s decision to offer a PTB was impractical and unaffordable for their individual circumstances. Their children all have Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plans and are older than 16.

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