Decision search


What's this ?
  • Organisation
  • Decision type

  • Reference number
  • Date range

     

  • Sort Results

Show advanced search

Your search has 53256 results

  • Mid Suffolk District Council (24 020 508)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 16-Jul-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council gave her incorrect advice about a grant of planning permission because the complaint is late without good reason to investigate it now. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the handling of her most recent planning application because it would have been reasonable for Mrs X to have used her right to appeal.

  • London Borough of Hounslow (25 001 420)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 16-Jul-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council taking too long to secure a passport for Mr X’s foster child. There is not enough evidence of fault or injustice to Mr X in the way the Council dealt with his complaint, or the way it responded to the recommendations made by a final stage panel, to warrant investigation by us.

  • Birmingham City Council (25 000 572)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Antisocial behaviour 15-Jul-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with reports of anti-social behaviour. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

  • Warwickshire County Council (25 000 586)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Special educational needs 15-Jul-2025

    Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to make appropriate educational provision for her son. This is because the complaint concerns matters which have been the subject of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability), or are not separable from those matters.

  • Norfolk County Council (25 000 633)

    Statement Upheld Friends and family carers 15-Jul-2025

    Summary: We uphold this complaint that the Council did not use the statutory procedure for complaints about children’s services to respond to Mrs X’s complaint. The Council has agreed to resolve the matter by providing a suitable remedy for the injustice caused to Mrs X.

  • Cheshire East Council (25 000 685)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 15-Jul-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged inconsistencies and ambiguities in the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for an extension next to the complainant’s home. There is insufficient evidence that fault has affected the planning application decision.

  • Somerset Council (25 000 698)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 15-Jul-2025

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

  • Nottinghamshire County Council (25 000 824)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 15-Jul-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to treat gifts made to him and other family from his mother Mrs Y’s trust as a deprivation of her assets to pay for her care. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process here to warrant us investigating.

  • Stoke-on-Trent City Council (25 001 201)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 15-Jul-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council handled allegations about her. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

  • Leicester City Council (25 001 277)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Council house sales and leaseholders 15-Jul-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling and eventual refusal of the complainant’s Right to Buy application. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to have used the statutory notice of delay procedure, and to take the Council to court.

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