Decision search
Your search has 52042 results
-
Birmingham City Council (25 001 182)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Refuse and recycling 29-Apr-2025
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to collect waste bins due to industrial action. We have no jurisdiction to investigate matters which affect all or most people in the Council’s area.
-
Manchester City Council (25 001 381)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 29-Apr-2025
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr B’s complaint about a planning enforcement notice. This is because Mr B appealed to the Planning Inspector. The courts are in the best position to decide whether Mr B has complied with the requirements of the notice.
-
Cambridgeshire County Council (24 021 663)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 29-Apr-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more.
-
West Sussex County Council (24 003 266)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 28-Apr-2025
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of her daughter’s Education, Health and Care Plan in late 2022 and the lack of alternative provision since January 2023. We have found the Council was at fault for the delay in finalising Plans following reviews in October 2022 and March 2023. This caused Mrs X and S avoidable distress, uncertainty and loss of provision from section F of the Plan. The Council has already accepted some of the faults and apologised together with our further recommendations.
-
Audley Willicombe Limited (24 004 148)
Statement Upheld Charging 28-Apr-2025
Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her parents, Mr and Mrs Y, that the Care Provider overcharged for care services, and provided a poor standard of care just before the care package ended. We have found fault with the actions of the Care Provider as it did not tell Mrs X about changes to the cost of her parents care package, meaning they were charged more. We also found fault with the actions of the Care Provider after carers were told not to assist Mr X. The Care Provider agreed to apologise, pay back the difference in care charges Mr and Mrs Y paid and carry out a service improvement.
-
East Sussex County Council (24 008 152)
Statement Upheld Other 28-Apr-2025
Summary: Mrs B complained about the process leading to, and content of, a section 17 family assessment in respect of her son, C. We have found fault because the Council did not arrange a proper assessment visit with Mrs B or allow her the opportunity to comment on negative conclusions reached about her as part of the assessment. We welcome the Council’s offer to meet with Mrs B now and consider if any further changes to the assessment are possible. The Council has also agreed to apologise to Mrs B, pay her £300 and improve its procedures for the future.
-
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (24 008 242)
Statement Upheld Looked after children 28-Apr-2025
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to fulfil its duties towards her as a Looked After Child. She said the Council failed to involve her in discussions about her care planning and whether it could continue to accommodate her. Ms X also said the Council’s decision that she was not entitled to a pathway plan, personal advisor, or ongoing support, was wrong. We have found the Investigating Officer’s stage two report failed to fully address identified injustice to Ms X. We have also found the Council at fault for inconsistencies in its adjudication response and for failing to show it properly considered whether it needed consent to support Ms X. The Council has agreed to pay a symbolic financial remedy to recognise Ms X’s lost opportunity to benefit from the support of personal advisors at a critical time. The Council has also agreed to review its decision on whether Ms X should have kept her status as an eligible and relevant child.
-
Staffordshire County Council (24 008 290)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 28-Apr-2025
Summary: Mr D complained the Council caused delay in the Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan process, failed to provide his child (X) with an education, and how it handled his concerns. We found fault by the Council for causing unnecessary delays in the EHC plan process, to arrange educational provision for X, and provide Mr D a refund for agreed provision. The Council will apologise and make payment to Mr D to acknowledge the injustice this caused X and the family.
-
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (24 008 722)
Statement Not upheld Alternative provision 28-Apr-2025
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to arrange suitable education for her child and it is refusing to reimburse costs for the educational provision she arranged privately. The Council was not at fault for the length of time it took to arrange alternative provision and I am satisfied the Council considered all relevant information when deciding what and how much provision was suitable for her child. There is no fault and no injustice to Mrs X or to her child.
-
Central Bedfordshire Council (24 008 847)
Statement Upheld Alternative provision 28-Apr-2025
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to refer her daughter to the complex needs team and failed to make section 19 provision. This has caused Ms X distress and her daughter to miss out on education. The Council is at fault for failing to make a decision on the section 19 duty and providing a written copy of this to Ms X. This has caused uncertainty. I have recommended a remedy.