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 52507 results

  • Northumberland County Council (24 010 015)

    Statement Not upheld Disabled facilities grants 11-Jun-2025

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly assess his needs in relation to adapting his home under a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). The Council was not at fault.

  • North East Lincolnshire Council (24 010 073)

    Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 11-Jun-2025

    Summary: Mr X complained Care Plus Group Ltd, acting on behalf of the Council, unsafely discharged his late father Mr Y from residential respite care to his home without proper assessments and care planning. There was fault in the assessment and care planning process, which caused distress to Mr Y and Mr X. The Council agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy to Mr X. It will also work with Care Plus Group Ltd to produce an action plan of changes to policies, processes, and staff training, to address the faults identified.

  • Birmingham City Council (24 010 085)

    Statement Upheld Special educational needs 11-Jun-2025

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his son, Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and annual reviews between 2023 and 2024. The Council was at fault. It failed to process an early annual review and then delayed issuing an amended Plan following a subsequent review. It also failed to provide sufficient oversight and delayed providing additional funding to the school after Mr X raised concerns about Y’s provision. There was also evidence of poor communication throughout. The Council agreed to make payments to Mr X to acknowledge the injustice caused to him and to recognise the impact it had on Y’s education.

  • West Northamptonshire Council (24 011 390)

    Statement Upheld Special educational needs 11-Jun-2025

    Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has not dealt properly with her daughter Y’s Special Educational Needs (SEN) and has suffered distress and loss of educational opportunity. The Council is at fault because it delayed issuing Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and it did not ensure all Y’s SEN provision was made. Mrs X suffered avoidable distress and Y missed SEN provision. The Council should apologise to Mrs X and Y and pay Mrs X £3,000.

  • London Borough of Croydon (24 011 655)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 11-Jun-2025

    Summary: Ms C complains about the Council’s decision to reduce her sister’s direct payment. I have found no procedural fault in the way the Council has reached its decision. It is however at fault for failing to address all Ms C’s complaints. To remedy the complaint the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms C and make service improvements.

  • Stroud District Council (24 012 234)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 11-Jun-2025

    Summary: Mr X and others complained the Council failed to properly investigate breaches of planning rules near their homes. There was fault, including delays and poor communication, with how the Council carried out its planning enforcement investigation from early 2023. This caused avoidable frustration, inconvenient and distress to Mr X and other nearby residents. The Council agreed to apologise to those affected, update them on the recent action it has taken and make a plan for future updates. It also agreed to issue reminders to its staff and develop a plan to address its backlog of investigations.

  • London Borough of Waltham Forest (24 012 819)

    Statement Upheld Homelessness 11-Jun-2025

    Summary: The Council was at fault when it failed to clearly inform Miss X about the conditions around payments from its homelessness prevention fund and delayed making a decision on her application for a reimbursement of costs she paid. The Council offered Miss X a symbolic payment to recognise the distress, frustration and uncertainty the matter caused her however, it failed to make this payment. The Council will apologise to Miss X, decide whether it will reimburse Miss X and pay her the symbolic payment it had offered to her. The Council revised its policy to make it clearer.

  • Norfolk County Council (24 014 134)

    Statement Upheld Special educational needs 11-Jun-2025

    Summary: Miss B complained the Council failed to comply with a tribunal order to name a specialist placement in section I of her child, X’s, Education, Health and Care Plan. Miss B says her mental health has been impacted, causing mental and physical exhaustion. Miss B also says her son is experiencing burnout which has heightened due to his needs not being met. We have found the Council at fault for failing to consider its section 42 duty. This has caused X to miss out on education and support. The Council has agreed to apologise, consider providing catch-up provision, make a symbolic payment and review its process for securing alternative provision.

  • West Northamptonshire Council (24 020 277)

    Statement Upheld Charging 11-Jun-2025

    Summary: We have upheld Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about a delay in the Council reimbursing care charges to their adult son, Mr Z. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

  • Durham County Council (24 021 091)

    Statement Upheld Charging 11-Jun-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council did not make her aware she would be charged a contribution towards the cost of the home and that she should not have to pay because she does not want to live in the care home. This is because there are no worthwhile outcomes achievable. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault.

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