Decision search


What's this ?
  • Organisation
  • Decision type

  • Reference number
  • Date range

     

  • Sort Results

Show advanced search

Your search has 59605 results

  • Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (26 007 043)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Leisure and culture 25-Aug-2026

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council retaining his deposit for accommodation. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and subsequently, we cannot achieve the outcome he wants.

  • North East Lincolnshire Council (26 007 896)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Refuse and recycling 25-Aug-2026

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaints about damage caused to his bin and the Council mistakenly marking his repair as complete when it was not because the Council apologised and repaired the bin. An investigation is unlikely to achieve anything else. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about delay in completing the repair or issues regarding the Council’s complaints handling because the claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

  • Berry Hill Primary School (26 008 145)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries School admissions 25-Aug-2026

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the School’s actions to justify our involvement.

  • Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (26 008 218)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Refuse and recycling 25-Aug-2026

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council damaged his bin and delayed investigating the matter. The claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

  • Lincoln City Council (26 008 786)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Refuse and recycling 25-Aug-2026

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that a Council contractor removed his free caddy bin liners from his food waste bin or the Council’s complaints handling. The claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

  • North East Lincolnshire Council (26 010 794)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Refuse and recycling 25-Aug-2026

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a single missed garden waste collection or his request for a £1.89 pro-rata refund. The claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

  • Nottingham City Council (25 005 326)

    Statement Not upheld Council tax 25-Aug-2026

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council used an address it knew he was not living in respect of council tax recovery action. The Council did not receive notification of Mr X’s new address and so used his last known address, which regulations allow it to do. There is no evidence of fault in respect of the Council using this address, but it did wrongly send correspondence to another address Mr X had not lived at for over 12 years.

  • Spelthorne Borough Council (25 009 122)

    Statement Upheld Homelessness 25-Aug-2026

    Summary: Ms B complained about the way the Council dealt with her housing situation when she approached it as a victim of domestic abuse. We found fault with the Council’s approach which caused Ms B and her family uncertainty. The Council has agreed to offer her the opportunity to make a homeless application now, apologise to her, make a symbolic payment and provide refresher training to staff.

  • East Riding of Yorkshire Council (25 011 128)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries School transport 25-Aug-2026

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about school transport. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our investigation.

  • Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (25 011 232)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 25-Aug-2026

    Summary: The Council was at fault for the delay in assessing Mr X’s application for medical priority on the housing register and for an extra bedroom need. However, this did not cause a significant injustice as the Council decided Mr X did not qualify for medical priority or an extra bedroom and there was no evidence of fault in how it reached this decision.

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