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 52233 results

  • Sheffield City Council (24 007 094)

    Statement Upheld Other 05-Mar-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint the Council incorrectly advised her child’s school how to record their absence. The Council has fully upheld the complaint, apologised and made service improvements. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

  • Central Bedfordshire Council (24 007 286)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 05-Mar-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. This is because the complainant has appealed to the Planning Inspector.

  • Cambridgeshire County Council (24 007 461)

    Statement Upheld Special educational needs 05-Mar-2025

    Summary: Ms X complained the Council has not provided an Educational Psychologist report for her child, which has caused delay receiving the Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council delayed issuing both. This is fault causing injustice. The Council agreed a financial remedy of £1,200.

  • London Borough of Islington (24 007 599)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 05-Mar-2025

    Summary: We found no fault on Mr Y’s complaint about the Council failing to tell him of a neighbour’s planning application. Nor was there fault on his complaint about it failing to consider the impact of the proposal on his amenities. There was fault in it failing to identify discrepancies in the applicant’s submissions. This did not cause an injustice as the application was properly considered in terms of impact.

  • Essex County Council (24 007 741)

    Statement Upheld Special educational needs 05-Mar-2025

    Summary: Mrs X complained about non-delivery of all special educational provision included in her son’s (Y) Education, Health and Care Plan. She also said the Council had sent her a misleading letter and had failed to communicate with her. We found fault, which caused injustice to Y and Mrs X. The Council agreed to apologise, make symbolic payments to recognise Y’s loss of provision and Mrs X’s distress and liaise with Mrs X to ensure Y has proper equipment and all the support included in his plan.

  • Arun District Council (24 008 598)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 05-Mar-2025

    Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about how the Council dealt with a non-material amendment application for a residential development near their home. They said the application should have been referred to planning committee for determination and there should have been public consultation. The Council was not at fault.

  • London Borough of Sutton (24 009 298)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Assessment and care plan 05-Mar-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Ms X complaint about the Council’s action when discharging Ms Y from hospital and her charges for staying at a residential care home. Ms X is complaining too late and there are no good reasons for us to look at the matters now.

  • Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (24 009 447)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 05-Mar-2025

    Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application and its allocation of accommodation in 2007. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mrs X could not have complained to us sooner. We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the rejection of a direct management transfer because it is outside our jurisdiction.

  • Sheffield City Council (24 011 167)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Licensing 05-Mar-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of matters relating to a house owned by Mr X’s father. This is because past events fall outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time and there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

  • Birmingham City Council (24 013 385)

    Statement Upheld School transport 05-Mar-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to award his child a bus pass to travel to school. He says this is not a suitable method of transport as his son cannot travel alone on the bus due to his special educational needs.

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