Decision search
Your search has 52233 results
-
Stoke-on-Trent City Council (24 008 275)
Statement Upheld Residential care 31-Mar-2025
Summary: Ms X complained about the standard of care her mother Mrs Y received when the Council organised respite care at The Old Vicarage Nursing Home. We find the Council at fault regarding the way the care provider managed a cyst on Mrs Y, and subsequently investigated Ms X’s concerns. This caused injustice in the form of distress and frustration. We recommend the Council apologises and makes a symbolic payment.
-
Worcestershire County Council (24 009 027)
Statement Upheld Safeguarding 31-Mar-2025
Summary: Mr X and Ms Y complained how the Council handled the safeguarding concerns about their grandmother. We find the Council was at fault for its delay in realising it was not the authority responsible for handling Mr X’s and Ms Y’s concerns. This caused them frustration and upset. The Council has apologised and put in place service improvements to prevent a recurrence of the fault. This is an appropriate remedy to reflect the injustice caused by fault. We do not recommend anything further.
-
Birmingham City Council (24 009 277)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Looked after children 31-Mar-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about her experience as a looked-after child between 2005 and 2010. This is because significant time has passed since and we could not complete a robust investigation of this historic matter.
-
Birmingham City Council (24 009 670)
Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 31-Mar-2025
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide appropriate support to her son, Mr Y, as a child and as adult and did not support him to move out of the family home. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.
-
London Borough of Haringey (24 009 764)
Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 31-Mar-2025
Summary: Miss F complained the Council did not take effective action to resolve anti-social behaviour she was experiencing from a neighbouring property. The Council was at fault, because it misunderstood its legal jurisdiction on several relevant points, which caused uncertainty. The Council should apologise and offer to pay Miss F a financial remedy to reflect this, and implement improvements to its service.
-
Middlesbrough Borough Council (24 010 174)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 31-Mar-2025
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council removing Mr X’s grandchild from his care and restricting his contact. A legal bar prevents us doing so because the residence and contact arrangements for the child have been subject to court action and only a court could vary them.
-
Kent County Council (24 010 288)
Statement Not upheld Charging 31-Mar-2025
Summary: Mr X complained about changes to the Council’s charging policy for non-residential care services. We ended out investigation because there is ongoing court action about the charging policy and there is no significant personal injustice to Mr X.
-
Buckinghamshire Council (24 011 526)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 31-Mar-2025
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed completing her child’s (Y) Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment in line with statutory timescales. This in turn caused a delay in issuing the EHC Plan. She also complained the Council has delayed carrying out an Occupational Therapy (OT) assessment as part of the EHC needs assessment. The Council was at fault because it failed to issue Y with an EHC Plan within the statutory timescales, caused in part by a delay in obtaining Educational Psychologist advice. There was also a 10 month delay in carrying out the OT assessment. The Council has agreed apologise and make a payment to recognise the distress, frustration and some loss of provision.
-
Cheshire West & Chester Council (24 011 679)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 31-Mar-2025
Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed reviewing her care and support plan, took too long to put in place a direct payment and delayed responding to her complaint. We upheld the complaint. The review of Ms X’s care and support plan was already overdue when she requested it and the Council did not act promptly to complete the review or put in place the direct payment. The Council also took too long to respond to the complaint and failed to recognise it was at fault. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment and take action to minimise the chance of recurrence.
-
East Lindsey District Council (24 012 340)
Statement Not upheld Other 31-Mar-2025
Summary: Mr X complained that he was unable to challenge a Fixed Penalty Notice because of fault on the part of an Enforcement Agency contracted by the Council. We found no fault by the Enforcement Agency or the Council. Another agency is better placed to deal with Mr X’s complaints about data retention and deletion.