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 52372 results

  • Hampshire County Council (24 018 174)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 04-Mar-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to consider her complaint about its children and family assessment whilst there are ongoing court proceedings. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision.

  • City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (24 018 526)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Parking and other penalties 04-Mar-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to correspond with him about a penalty charge notice issued to a third party. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and its actions did not cause Mr X significant injustice.

  • Birmingham City Council (24 018 583)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Parking and other penalties 04-Mar-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to update its records about several penalty charge notices issued to the former tenant of his property. This is because the Council’s actions did not cause Mr X significant injustice.

  • London Borough of Camden (24 018 848)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 04-Mar-2025

    Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about the actions of the coroners’ office. We do not have the power to investigate the actions of the coroner or the coroners’ office staff who complete administrative tasks on the coroners’ behalf.

  • Milton Keynes Council (24 019 131)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 04-Mar-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council implemented new software for its planning systems. This is because there is insufficient injustice to warrant an investigation.

  • Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (24 019 334)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Transport 04-Mar-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the application process for a Blue Badge renewal. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

  • Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (24 020 867)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 04-Mar-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint that Council-owned trees are damaging her property. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs B to take the Council to court.

  • Sheffield City Council (23 017 818)

    Statement Upheld Alternative provision 04-Mar-2025

    Summary: The Council failed to properly consider its duty to provide alternative education for Ms X’s child, Z. This led to Z missing out on alternative provision and caused Ms X uncertainty and frustration. In recognition of the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X £1,200 and carry out service improvements.

  • London Borough of Hillingdon (23 020 676)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 04-Mar-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council deciding the use of an outbuilding does not amount to a breach of planning control. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

  • Westminster City Council (23 021 384)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 04-Mar-2025

    Summary: the Council delayed telling Miss X about the residency requirement to be included on the housing register, delayed considering whether to exercise the Council’s discretion to waive that requirement, failed to properly consider Miss X’s representations when deciding not to waive the requirement, carried out a review when Miss X had not asked for one and delayed considering her complaint. An apology, payment to Miss X, reconsideration of whether to exercise discretion to waive the residency requirement and a reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

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