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 55054 results

  • Harlow District Council (25 009 481)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 31-Oct-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his noise complaints since 2023. Part of the complaint is late. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement and we are unlikely to achieve a different outcome.

  • Milton Keynes Council (24 018 294)

    Statement Upheld Alternative provision 30-Oct-2025

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide alternative provision to her daughter when she could not attend school. We found the Council at fault for not properly considering its duties for alternative provision, causing frustration, distress and missed education. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment to recognise the injustice, and take action to prevent future recurrence of fault.

  • Southend-on-Sea City Council (24 018 625)

    Statement Upheld Private housing 30-Oct-2025

    Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it handled reports about the condition of Ms X’s property or for how it placed restrictions on her contact. The Council was at fault for how it handled some of her requests for re-housing. This meant Ms X had to wait longer than she should have to receive assistance. The Council agreed to apologise, make a payment to Ms X for the uncertainty she experienced as a result of the delays providing homeless assistance and carry out a service improvement.

  • Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (24 020 851)

    Statement Upheld School transport 30-Oct-2025

    Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council had failed to provide a reliable escort to take her disabled son to school, as required. The Council has investigated the complaints and accepted fault. We agree with the Council’s findings, but we considered that there should be a symbolic payment to recognise the avoidable distress and inconvenience caused to the family. The Council has agreed to this. We are therefore closing the complaint.

  • London Borough of Redbridge (24 020 904)

    Statement Upheld Homelessness 30-Oct-2025

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council housed him and his family in unsuitable accommodation and had poor standards of communication and complaint responses. He said this caused significant uncertainty, frustration and distress. We find the Council at fault for housing his family in unsuitable accommodation and some of its communication which caused injustice. We do not find fault with its complaint responses. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice.

  • East Lindsey District Council (24 021 457)

    Statement Upheld Licensing 30-Oct-2025

    Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s decision not to use its licensing enforcement powers, to address a problem with drainage and flooding on a park home site, and the Council is now satisfied the operator is complying with their licence. However, the Council was at fault because it did not maintain an adequate level of contact with the complainant, which caused him frustration. The Council has agreed to formally apologise and offer a small financial remedy to reflect this.

  • Westminster City Council (24 021 606)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 30-Oct-2025

    Summary: Miss X complained the Council placed her in bed-and-breakfast accommodation beyond the six week limit, delayed identifying alternative accommodation and failed to keep her up-to-date. The Council accepts it kept Miss X in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for longer than the six weeks allowed. The Council also failed to keep Miss X up-to-date. Because of the Council’s delay Miss X had to stay in unsuitable accommodation for longer than she should have. An apology and payment to Miss X is satisfactory remedy.

  • London Borough of Haringey (24 003 205)

    Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 30-Oct-2025

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council suspended his direct payment arrangement in place for his care and support. He said this left him without the care and support he needed, affecting his health, wellbeing and finances. We have found the Council at fault for its record keeping and for delays in acting on concerns it had about Mr X’s circumstances. We have also found the Council at fault for the way it ended Mr X’s direct payments and for delay in providing an alternative package of proposed care. We cannot say this caused Mr X an injustice in the form of missed care provision, but find this caused Mr X avoidable distress and uncertainty. There is a lack of clarity over the Council’s current view on Mr X’s care and support needs. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X. The Council has also agreed to act to review his current care and support needs and put forward a plan to meet them.

  • Medway Council (24 011 386)

    Statement Upheld Private housing 30-Oct-2025

    Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s lack of action and response to her reports when her landlord delayed fixing various disrepair issues at her property. We found the Council at fault for letting the case drift and the late point it found a Category 1 hazard. This caused Miss X significant uncertainty and distress. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay a symbolic payment, and take action to prevent future recurrence of fault.

  • Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (24 014 942)

    Statement Upheld Homelessness 30-Oct-2025

    Summary: Mr D complained the Council failed to accept a homelessness application, provide a decision or provide emergency accommodation. I have found the Council at fault because it failed to follow the correct process. The Council has agreed to make service improvements, and will pay redress to Mr D.

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