Decision search
Your search has 53256 results
-
Oxfordshire County Council (24 005 262)
Statement Upheld Looked after children 06-Jun-2025
Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of Miss Y about the way the Council dealt with her care and that of her child. The Council was at fault for delaying in completing some of the recommendations from the Children Act complaints procedure. This caused Miss Y frustration and uncertainty. The Council should apologise, make a payment and send us an action plan detailing how it will complete the recommendations.
-
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 06-Jun-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to ensure that the complainant’s daughter was kept safe by her school, and that it produced a flawed report on safeguarding procedures at the school. This is because the complaint primarily concerns the actions of a school and, as such, the law prevents the Ombudsman from considering it.
-
Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (24 022 547)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries School transport 06-Jun-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainant’s application and appeal for school transport assistance for her son. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant our intervention.
-
Surrey County Council (24 022 665)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Special educational needs 06-Jun-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to remove provision from the complainant’s son’s Education Health and Care plan. This is because the complainant has the right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and it would be reasonable for her to do so.
-
Staffordshire County Council (24 004 407)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 05-Jun-2025
Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council dealt with his late mother, Mrs Y’s, financial assessment linked to her care needs. We have found fault because the Council took too long to complete the assessment. This would have caused Mr X distress. The Council has already apologised to Mr X and written off a significant amount of Mrs Y’s fees due to the delayed assessment. We are satisfied the Council’s actions have already remedied any injustice caused.
-
Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (24 005 181)
Statement Not upheld Child protection 05-Jun-2025
Summary: Mr X complained about the actions of the Council in relation to child protection involvement with his family. We ended our investigation because since Mr X complained to us, stage 2 of the children’s statutory complaints procedure had been completed. Mr X was satisfied with the stage 2 outcome and there was nothing worthwhile we could achieve by pursuing this matter further.
-
Southampton City Council (24 008 880)
Statement Upheld Charging 05-Jun-2025
Summary: Mr X complained about the standard of care his deceased father, Mr Y, received and about the Council’s financial assessments. Mr X said the standard of care was poor and the charges were unaffordable. We found the Council at fault for failing to show it explained the financial assessment process to Mr Y in a way he could understand following his capacity assessment, and for failing to properly record or communicate its decision on Mr Y’s disability related expenditure. The Council will apologise for the uncertainty and distress this caused, and review its decision.
-
Statement Not upheld Residential care 05-Jun-2025
Summary: Mr H complains on behalf of Mrs H, his mother, who lives in a care home. He complains the care home has been paid twice, by Mrs H and the Council. The care provider has refused to refund Mrs H’s payment and the Council has not taken enough action to assist them to resolving the issue. We do not uphold the complaint.
-
London Borough of Croydon (24 010 929)
Statement Upheld Friends and family carers 05-Jun-2025
Summary: Miss B complained that the Council had failed to properly consult her or provide sufficient support when a relative (E) lived with her for three months. It also delayed in responding to her complaint about the matter. We found the Council should have contacted Miss B when it was aware E was living there, to discuss the arrangements and offer support. The failure to do so caused Miss B distress and financial hardship. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay her an additional £250.
-
Surrey County Council (24 011 942)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 05-Jun-2025
Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with Mr Y’s care and support needs. The Council was at fault for delaying in completing a safeguarding enquiry, best interest process and needs review and for inconsistent communication. This caused Mr Y and his representatives distress and uncertainty. The Council should apologise and provide an action plan on how it will complete the best interest process.