Decision search
Your search has 52042 results
-
London Borough of Newham (24 008 939)
Statement Upheld Housing benefit and council tax benefit 28-Apr-2025
Summary: Mr X complained the Council took too long to assess his housing benefit entitlement which resulted in large benefit overpayments. The Council was entitled to reassess Mr X’s entitlement based on new relevant evidence and Mr X had a right of appeal if he disagreed with the decision. But it failed to take action promised in response to Mr X’s complaint and that was fault and caused continued uncertainty. The Council should now discuss with Mr X how it will assess his future income.
-
Brighton & Hove City Council (24 009 151)
Statement Upheld Homelessness 28-Apr-2025
Summary: Miss B complained that the Council had failed to ensure disrepair in her temporary accommodation was rectified, find her suitable alternative accommodation or give her the correct priority on the housing register. We found fault in the Council’s actions which caused Miss B to live in unsuitable conditions for a year longer than she should have done. We have asked the Council to apologise to Miss B, pay her £1300, inspect her property now and improve its case recording for the future.
-
London Borough of Sutton (24 009 271)
Statement Upheld Homelessness 28-Apr-2025
Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her housing case when she told it she was at risk of becoming homeless due to rent increases. She said the Council failed to provide a decision letter and withdrew support despite her being in an unaffordable property. We find the Council at fault for failing to make a timely decision regarding the duties it owed Miss X which caused her injustice. The Council agreed to apologise, take corrective action and make a symbolic payment to acknowledge the injustice.
-
Sheffield City Council (24 010 548)
Statement Upheld Charging 28-Apr-2025
Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to provide clear information about charges for his late father’s care, did not properly investigate instances of overcharging and its response to his complaint was significantly delayed. We found there was fault in the information provided. We also found the investigation was not sufficient. We found the complaint response was late and insufficiently detailed. We recommended an apology, a further payment and actions to address the charging concerns Mr X raised.
-
Lancashire County Council (24 011 089)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 28-Apr-2025
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s actions in relation to her child, Y’s education. The Council was at fault. It failed to provide Y with education for five months after they were permanently excluded from school. It delayed completing an Education, Health and Care needs assessment and subsequently, delayed issuing a final amended Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council also poorly communicated with Mrs X. The Council has already apologised to Mrs X. The Council has agreed to make a further apology to Mrs X and a payment to recognise the education Y did not receive and for the distress and frustration the matter caused her.
-
Hart District Council (24 011 694)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 28-Apr-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning permissions granted more than 30 years ago. The complaint is made too late and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.
-
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (24 012 518)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Private housing 28-Apr-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with disrepair issues at her private rented property. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons the late complaint rule should not apply.
-
Revitalise Respite Holidays (24 012 697)
Statement Upheld Residential care 28-Apr-2025
Summary: Ms X complained about the care Revitalise Respite Holidays (the Care Provider) provided to her daughter, Ms Y. Ms X is unhappy about how care workers treated Ms Y’s tightly coiled hair when it was in braids. The Care Provider was at fault for poor record keeping, a flawed investigation into Ms X’s concerns and for not telling her when Ms Y no longer had her braids. This caused Ms X uncertainty, frustration and distress and meant Ms Y’s hair was damaged. To remedy the injustice to Ms X and Ms Y, the Care Provider will apologise to Ms X and pay her £250.
-
Hampshire County Council (24 013 344)
Statement Upheld Charging 28-Apr-2025
Summary: Mr X complained the Council pursued him and his brother, Mr Y, for several years for a debt which the Council had previously agreed to write off. The Council was at fault. It had pursued Mr X for a debt it had previously agreed to cancel. The Council has already apologised. It has agreed to also pay Mr X £100 to acknowledge the distress and frustration this caused.
-
London Borough of Enfield (24 013 660)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 28-Apr-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to investigate him for possible waste offences. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.