Decision search
Your search has 55054 results
-
North Northamptonshire Council (25 003 170)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Highway repair and maintenance 25-Jun-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her claim for damages after her car was damaged when it hit a pothole. This is because this is a complaint about negligence which is a legal matter for the courts to consider and decide.
-
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 25-Jun-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to disclose the address where his child lives with their other parent. Such matters fall outside our jurisdiction. It would be reasonable to expect Mr X to return to court to enforce the terms of any child contact or residency arrangements. He could also ask the Information Commissioner’s Office to consider whether the Council has complied with General Data Protection Regulations.
-
East Sussex County Council (25 004 238)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries School admissions 25-Jun-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel for us to be able to question its decision.
-
Buckinghamshire Council (25 004 454)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 25-Jun-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning application. This is because the complainant had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.
-
Bristol City Council (25 001 041)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Special educational needs 25-Jun-2025
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s conduct during a tribunal appeal. Doing so would overlap with the role of the Tribunal.
-
Kent County Council (24 008 301)
Statement Upheld Safeguarding 24-Jun-2025
Summary: Ms C complains the Council took unfounded safeguarding action against her and reached a biased decision. Ms C also complains the Council failed to consider all her complaints. There is no fault in the Council’s decision to start safeguarding. However it is at fault for delay, and the failure to investigate some of Ms C’s complaints. To remedy the complaint the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms C and make service improvements.
-
Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (24 009 485)
Statement Not upheld Child protection 24-Jun-2025
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to safeguard her children; failed to provide appropriate respite and failed to provide an appropriate remedy for the complaints it upheld. I find no fault in respect of the safeguarding or respite and consider the remedy provided is in line with the amounts normally recommended by the Ombudsman.
-
Cambridgeshire County Council (24 009 633)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 24-Jun-2025
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to ensure her children D and P received the special educational needs provision in their Education, Health, and Care Plans. D and P did not receive all the provision in their Plans and the Council failed to properly investigate when Mrs X raised concerns about this. This meant D and P missed provision, and caused distress to D, P, and their parents. The Council agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy, and issue reminders to its staff.
-
Devon County Council (24 010 136)
Statement Upheld Child protection 24-Jun-2025
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council did not deal with a child protection issue properly, resulting in avoidable distress. The Council is at fault because it failed to deal with a child protection issue and took too long to investigate. Mrs X and her family suffered delay and avoidable distress. The Council should pay Mrs X £500 for time and trouble, pay Mrs X £2000 for avoidable distress and re-issue its final written response to the investigation.
-
Reading Borough Council (24 010 609)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 24-Jun-2025
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of the annual review of his child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. We found avoidable delay by the Council in completing the annual review which added to Mr X’s frustration. The Council had already apologised to Mr X and offered him a symbolic payment of £600. We found the offer made by the Council suitably addressed the injustice to Mr X caused by its avoidable delay.