Decision search


What's this ?
  • Organisation
  • Decision type

  • Reference number
  • Date range

     

  • Sort Results

Show advanced search

Your search has 55884 results

  • London Borough of Merton (25 016 934)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Highway repair and maintenance 06-Nov-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that he suffered severe injuries after tripping on a defective pavement. This is because it is reasonable for Mr B to pursue his compensation claim by taking the Council to court.

  • Cheshire East Council (25 017 304)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Homelessness 06-Nov-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his homelessness application. Mr X had the right to seek a review within 21 days and then appeal to the county court against the Council’s decision.

  • Peterborough City Council (25 012 286)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 06-Nov-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s interaction with Mr X at a registry office. This because it is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response, and we cannot achieve what Mr X is looking for.

  • Birmingham City Council (25 013 046)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 06-Nov-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about property damage as the complaint is made late and there are not good reasons to investigate now.

  • City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (24 017 348)

    Statement Upheld Special educational needs 06-Nov-2025

    Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan, which she said led to a loss of education and social isolation for her child. We found avoidable delay by the Council in completing the 2024 Annual Review of the Plan. The Council also failed to properly monitor the Plan. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and make a symbolic payment in recognition of the avoidable distress and uncertainty caused by its delay and failure properly to monitor the Plan.

  • Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (24 017 375)

    Statement Not upheld Disabled facilities grants 06-Nov-2025

    Summary: Mrs Y complained about the Council’s decisions on her request for payment of additional costs of adaptations to her property funded by a Disability Facilities Grant. We have not found fault by the Council in the way it made its decisions.

  • Darlington Borough Council (24 018 136)

    Statement Upheld Alternative provision 06-Nov-2025

    Summary: We have found the Council at fault for failing to consider its Section 19 duties when Mrs X reported that her son, Y was unable to attend school due to ill health. The delay in securing suitable alternative provision caused Y to miss out on suitable education for 5 months. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy this injustice.

  • Westmorland and Furness Council (24 019 797)

    Statement Upheld Other 06-Nov-2025

    Summary: Ms X complained how the Council’s Local Authority Designated Officer handled a safeguarding referral made about her. She also complained about the Council’s handling of her complaint. We find the Council at fault for not correctly following the Local Authority Designated Officer process and not communicating in an open and transparent way with Ms X during the investigation process. This caused Ms X uncertainty and distress. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X, make service improvements, and give Ms X an opportunity to respond to the allegations.

  • Mole Valley District Council (24 020 677)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Council tax 06-Nov-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about council tax charges. This is because part of the complaint is late, and for more recent matters there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

  • West Lancashire Borough Council (24 020 724)

    Statement Upheld Noise 06-Nov-2025

    Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council handled Miss X’s reports of noise, security risk and antisocial behaviour. The Council was at fault for its poor communication. It apologised to Miss X for its poor communication which was an appropriate remedy for the frustration she was caused.

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