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 52297 results

  • Erewash Borough Council (24 023 094)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Council tax 14-Apr-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax premiums because there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal. There is no evidence of fault by the Council in its publicity of the premium.

  • Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (24 023 109)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Council tax 14-Apr-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax liability because there was a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.

  • Birmingham City Council (25 000 672)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Highway repair and maintenance 14-Apr-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that his car was damaged by a pothole. This is because it is reasonable for Mr B to take the Council to court.

  • London Borough of Croydon (24 018 309)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 14-Apr-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the provision of housing for affordable housing on a development marketed as private open market housing only. This is because the complaint is made too late.

  • Westminster City Council (24 020 876)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 14-Apr-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council unlawfully processed and shared his personal data. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider this complaint. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s complaint process because it does not meet the tests in our assessment code.

  • Coventry City Council (24 006 911)

    Statement Not upheld Domiciliary care 13-Apr-2025

    Summary: Mr X complained about the care provided to his wife by a care provider arranged by the Council. Mr X also complained the Council did not appropriately consider his concerns. He says the Council’s actions caused avoidable distress and worry and resulted in him having to complete his wife’s care. We found no fault by the Council.

  • London Borough of Bromley (24 007 654)

    Statement Upheld Special educational needs 13-Apr-2025

    Summary: Ms B complained the Council failed to put in place provision in her daughter’s education, health and care plan. I am satisfied some of the claimed missing provision was in place but the Council failed to put in place the speech and language therapy. The Council also failed to make its own enquiries with the school when Ms B complained. That means Ms B’s daughter missed out on speech and language therapy and Ms B experienced distress. An apology, payment to Ms B and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

  • London Borough of Croydon (24 009 654)

    Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 13-Apr-2025

    Summary: Miss X complains the Council has failed to assess her needs as her son’s carer properly, leaving her without support. The Council was at fault over the way it did her 2024 carer’s assessment. It needs to apologise, make a symbolic payment to her, and reassess her needs as her son’s carer. The Council also needs to take action to improve its working practices.

  • Leeds City Council (24 009 672)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 13-Apr-2025

    Summary: Ms X complains the Council advised her to have contact with her ex-partner despite a history of domestic abuse. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is about the Council’s actions during court proceedings which the law prevents us investigating, and related matters that are not separable from the court proceedings.

  • Tunbridge Wells Borough Council (24 010 067)

    Statement Not upheld Parking and other penalties 13-Apr-2025

    Summary: Mr X complained about poor signage, which led to the Council issuing him with several Penalty Charge Notices. He also complained the Council’s enforcement agent’s behaviour was unreasonable and did not consider his vulnerability. We have not investigated Mr X’s complaint about poor signage and the Penalty Charge Notices as it was reasonable for him to have applied to the Traffic Enforcement Centre to reinstate his right of appeal. We find no fault with how the enforcement agent dealt with Mr X.

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