Decision search
Your search has 55884 results
-
London Borough of Islington (24 021 231)
Statement Upheld Homelessness 31-Oct-2025
Summary: Ms C complained the Council had wrongly refused her access to its housing register, communicated poorly, and failed to provide her suitable accommodation which met her needs since Autumn 2023. We found fault by the Council for communicating poorly and its delayed complaints handling. It has also failed to arrange suitable accommodation for Ms C since January 2025. There was no fault in the Council’s decision to refuse her on its housing register. The Council should apologise and make payment to Ms C to acknowledge the injustice its faults caused, and continues to cause her. We also made service improvement recommendations to address the faults identified.
-
Essex County Council (24 022 393)
Statement Upheld Parking and other penalties 31-Oct-2025
Summary: Mr X complained the Council had not given fair or full consideration to his application to have a dropped kerb outside his property which led to the application being rejected. We found the Council should provide further justification for its decision, remind staff to clearly communicate decision reasons and apologise to Mr X for the distress caused.
-
London Borough of Lewisham (24 022 480)
Statement Upheld Homelessness 31-Oct-2025
Summary: We have not investigated a complaint about delay by the Council in addressing repair issues in a temporary accommodation property, because it is late. There was fault in the way the Council then carried out the repairs, but the Council is currently negotiating a settlement about new matters with the complainant’s solicitor, which means there is no value to further investigation by us. The Council was at fault because it signposted the complainant to the wrong Ombudsman scheme to pursue her complaint further. Although this did not cause her an injustice, the Council has agreed to ensure its staff understand which scheme to refer complainants to in future.
-
London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (24 001 003)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 31-Oct-2025
Summary: The Council significantly delayed issuing Mrs X’s child’s Education, Health and Care Plan and failed to consider whether it owed her child an alternative provision duty when they were missing school. It also failed to respond proactively enough to Mrs X’s reports that the school was no longer arranging all the provision in her child’s Plan. To recognise the uncertainty, frustration and distress caused by the Council’s actions, the Council has agreed to apologise, pay Mrs X £950 and take action to improve its services.
-
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 31-Oct-2025
Summary: We find service failure for the Council’s delay finding Miss X’s child a new specialist placement. This caused Miss X distress. We are satisfied with the Council’s apology and offer of a payment to remedy this distress. We do not find fault with the child’s special educational provision while the Council found a new placement.
-
Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (24 011 366)
Statement Upheld Residential care 31-Oct-2025
Summary: Ms F complained on behalf of her late mother about the care provided in the Council commissioned care home, Franklin House Care Home. We found some fault which caused distress to Ms F. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy this injustice.
-
London Borough of Bromley (25 008 159)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Council tax 31-Oct-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax matters. This is because part of the complaint is late, we cannot investigate court proceedings and it is reasonable to expect Mr X or his representatives to appeal regarding liability and exemptions.
-
Transport for London (25 000 287)
Statement Upheld Other 31-Oct-2025
Summary: Mr X complained about Transport for London’s (TfL) failure to recognise his car as Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) compliant and resulting charges. He said this caused significant frustration and financial loss. We found TfL to be at fault. To remedy the injustice to Mr X, TfL has agreed to apologise, ensure all charges are refunded and pay him £300. It will also take action to ensure a similar situation does not reoccur.
-
Norfolk County Council (25 002 814)
Statement Upheld Charging 31-Oct-2025
Summary: There was fault by the Council in the decision there had been an intentional deprivation of capital to avoid paying for care. First, the Council did not give Mr X an opportunity to explain the reason for the gift before making the decision. Second, the original decision did not give any reasons with reference to the relevant parts of Care and Support Statutory Guidance. Third, the Council failed to keep a written record of the panel’s consideration of Mr X’s stage two appeal against the decision. Finally, the Council did not consider Mr X’s claim that the gift was in line with an established pattern of spending or invite him to supply evidence of this. The Council will apologise to Mr X and review its decision.
-
Ashford Borough Council (25 007 137)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Councillor conduct and standards 31-Oct-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to investigate a complaint about the conduct of a councillor. We have not seen enough evidence of fault. Nor will we investigate a complaint about data protection matters. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office about these concerns.