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

  • Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (24 009 166)

    Statement Not upheld Disabled children 01-May-2025

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide adequate support to her and Mr Y, meaning their needs were not met and causing distress. We do not find the Council at fault for how it considered Mrs X’s complaint as part of the statutory complaints procedure. We will therefore not consider the substantive matter.

  • London Borough of Lambeth (24 009 793)

    Statement Upheld School admissions 01-May-2025

    Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to refuse her request for delayed entry to reception for her summer born twins. We found the Council was at fault because it failed to properly consider whether a delayed entry was in their best interests. This caused Mrs X distress and frustration. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mrs X. It will also take action to improve its service.

  • Milton Keynes Council (24 010 350)

    Statement Upheld Special educational needs 01-May-2025

    Summary: Mrs X complained about the changes the Council made to move its short breaks booking scheme online as there were no activities available for young adults over 18 with an Education, Health and Care Plan, like her son. This meant she could not use her allocated vouchers and had to privately fund activities for her son. We found the Council at fault. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to apologise, reimburse Mrs X for activities privately paid for, and make a symbolic payment to recognise her injustice.

  • Birmingham City Council (24 010 957)

    Statement Upheld Special educational needs 01-May-2025

    Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to make alternative education provision for her child and delayed in issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan for her. The Council was at fault as it did not consider if it had a duty to provide alternative education provision when Y struggled to attend school from September 2023, delayed in issuing Y’s final Education, Health and Care Plan and delayed in securing the speech and language therapy provision in the Plan. These faults caused distress and uncertainty to Mrs X and disadvantaged Y. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising to Mrs X and making a symbolic payment of £1100 to acknowledge the distress caused to her and the disadvantage caused to Y.

  • London Borough of Haringey (24 011 330)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 01-May-2025

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly investigate or address her complaints about the Council’s actions following the decision to remove her son from her care. She also complained the Council has failed to provide an appropriate remedy. We found the Council’s delays, poor record keeping, failings in communication and use of an inappropriate contact centre are fault. This fault caused Mrs X and her son unnecessary distress. The Council has agreed to make payments to Mrs X and Y to remedy this injustice.

  • Brighton & Hove City Council (24 011 813)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Special educational needs 01-May-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the content of an Education Health and Care Plan and education provided as Ms X has appealed to the Tribunal. There is not sufficient injustice in a short delay to warrant an investigation.

  • Manchester City Council (24 002 841)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Residential care 30-Apr-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about care provided to her late father. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable through investigation. Further the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate it now.

  • London Borough of Lambeth (24 003 541)

    Statement Upheld Homelessness 30-Apr-2025

    Summary: We have found the Council at fault for how it handled Miss X’s homelessness case and her request to be referred to another council. This caused Miss X avoidable distress and uncertainty and left her and her child in unsuitable accommodation. The Council has agreed to remedy Miss X’s injustice with an apology, symbolic payment and a backdated position on a transfer waiting list.

  • London Borough of Hackney (24 006 509)

    Statement Upheld Homelessness 30-Apr-2025

    Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of her homeless application. She also complained the Council wrongly asked her to submit a new housing register application and it did not help her get her bidding details. We find the Council was at fault for the way it handled Ms X’s homeless application. It was also at fault for failing to help Ms X get her bidding details and for its communication with her on why she had to submit a new housing register application. These faults caused her frustration. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to apologise to Ms X and implement a service improvement.

  • London Borough of Enfield (24 006 620)

    Statement Upheld Homelessness 30-Apr-2025

    Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to deal with her complaint about the suitability of temporary accommodation including failing to advise her of her right to submit a suitability review request. She also complained the Council failed to protect her belongings and says this all caused distress. There was fault in the Council’s failure to advise Miss X of her review rights. It should now offer a suitability review and make a payment for the distress.

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