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

  • London Borough of Camden (24 020 055)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 29-Oct-2025

    Summary: The Council was at fault for not following its direct offer process properly in relation to Mr X’s housing register application and for its poor communication and complaint handling. There was no fault in the way the Council assessed Mr X’s request for a higher medical priority on his housing application and in its decision to refuse a further medical assessment. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mr X to acknowledge the frustration and raised expectations he was caused by its faults.

  • Leeds City Council (24 022 279)

    Statement Upheld Special educational needs 29-Oct-2025

    Summary: We found fault by the Council on Mrs Y’s complaint that it failed to follow statutory timescales following a request for it to carry out an Education, Health and Care needs assessment for her son. It also failed to provide her son with appropriate education when he was on a reduced timetable or had been suspended. The Council agreed to send a written apology for the failings, pay £1,400 for the injustice caused by not completing the assessment within statutory timescales, pay £7,200 for lost alternative provision, remind officers of the need to consider its duties for children not attending school, and ensure it has processes in place to monitor and review the progress of these children, especially where it decides to do an assessment.

  • Bracknell Forest Council (24 013 981)

    Statement Not upheld Alternative provision 29-Oct-2025

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not provide her daughter with appropriate alternative education when she became unable to attend school. We are satisfied the Council sufficiently considered its statutory duties and did not act with any fault. We do not uphold this complaint.

  • Sheffield City Council (24 016 110)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Antisocial behaviour 29-Oct-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his noise complaint. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

  • Manchester City Council (24 023 402)

    Statement Upheld Special educational needs 29-Oct-2025

    Summary: The Council was at fault for a delay in deciding Mrs X’s son’s special educational needs support, for failing to deliver all of the support, and for failing to properly look into Mrs X’s complaint that the support was not being delivered. This likely caused Mrs X and her son distress. The Council has agreed to apologise, to make symbolic payments to recognise their injustice, and to improve its service.

  • Fylde Borough Council (25 000 026)

    Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 29-Oct-2025

    Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint about the Council’s decisions on allegations of anti-social behaviour. This is because we could not add anything meaningful to the Council’s own investigation.

  • Thurrock Council (25 000 632)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 29-Oct-2025

    Summary: The Council was at fault because it delayed processing a review of its decision to refuse the complainant a place on the housing register. This did not make a difference to the outcome of its eventual decision, but the Council has agreed to formally apologise and offer the complainant a financial remedy to reflect her distress. There was no fault in the way the Council subsequently decided to refuse the review.

  • London Borough of Hillingdon (25 001 289)

    Statement Upheld Homelessness 29-Oct-2025

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to support him in securing private rented accommodation when he was homeless. The Council was at fault. It failed to keep his Personal Housing Plan (PHP) under review and failed to communicate effectively with him causing Mr X avoidable frustration. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and review his PHP.

  • Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (25 002 152)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Assessment and care plan 29-Oct-2025

    Summary: Ms B complained that the Council and Trust failed to involve her in discharge planning for Ms C. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint as it is unlikely we could add to the responses Ms B has already received.

  • Stockport NHS Foundation Trust (25 002 152a)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Hospital acute services 29-Oct-2025

    Summary: Ms B complained that the Council and Trust failed to involve her in discharge planning for Ms C. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint as it is unlikely we could add to the responses Ms B has already received.

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