Decision search


What's this ?
  • Organisation
  • Decision type

  • Reference number
  • Date range

     

  • Sort Results

Show advanced search

Your search has 53967 results

  • Charnwood Borough Council (24 015 903)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 21-Feb-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application for a site close to the complainant’s home. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

  • Luton Borough Council (24 015 979)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Homelessness 21-Feb-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the suitability of temporary accommodation provided by the Council. It was reasonable for him to appeal to the county court if he was unhappy with the outcome of the suitability review.

  • London Borough of Croydon (24 016 203)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 21-Feb-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to investigate her safeguarding complaints in full. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. Mrs X has made her complaint late outside of our usual 12 month time limit for accepting complaints. I see no good reason for us to investigate now.

  • Warwickshire County Council (24 016 259)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Alternative provision 21-Feb-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to make alternative educational provision for the complainant’s son. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

  • Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council (24 016 322)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Licensing 21-Feb-2025

    Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s investigation of a private kennels licensing conditions. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner.

  • Birmingham City Council (24 016 366)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Antisocial behaviour 21-Feb-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s management of tenancy conditions in a building which it owns. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

  • Oxfordshire County Council (24 016 467)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Special educational needs 21-Feb-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decisions to deny the complainant’s requests for specialist educational placements for her daughter. This is because the complainant had the right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) against these decisions, and it was reasonable for her to use that right.

  • London Borough of Wandsworth (24 016 497)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 21-Feb-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) liability and charges made by the Council. This is because it is reasonable for the complainant to use their rights of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate and Valuation Office Agency.

  • Central Bedfordshire Council (24 020 163)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Highway repair and maintenance 21-Feb-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint that his motorcycle was significantly damaged by a road defect which the Council had failed to repair. This is because it is reasonable for Mr C to pursue his compensation claim by taking the Council to court.

  • London Borough of Croydon (23 020 786)

    Report Upheld Assessment and care plan 21-Feb-2025

    Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s decision to withdraw funding for nighttime care. She said the Council’s decision to remove the care meant she did not have suitable support and could not afford the care and tax obligations as an employer of a personal assistant. Miss X said this impacted her independence, health and finances. There was fault in the way the Council did not meet Miss X’s needs and did not manage the direct payment suitably. Miss X’s needs were not met.

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings