Decision search
Your search has 53111 results
-
Bedford Borough Council (24 018 458)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 07-Mar-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to remove the yellow lines on his road in 2015. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and I see no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider it now.
-
Transport for London (24 018 491)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Parking and other penalties 07-Mar-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about Transport for London’s pursuit of payment for a penalty charge notice. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by Transport for London.
-
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 07-Mar-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council sharing her personal information with a third party without her consent. This is because complaints about data matters such as this are best considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office.
-
Wakefield City Council (24 019 498)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 07-Mar-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.
-
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Parking and other penalties 07-Mar-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to complaints of obstructive parking as the complaint is made late and there are not good reasons to investigate now.
-
London Borough of Wandsworth (23 017 554)
Statement Upheld Disabled children 07-Mar-2025
Summary: Ms X complains about delays by the Council and the Trust in completing an autism assessment for her child and for not fast‑tracking their assessment. We found fault with the initial referral, but the Trust has already remedied this. We also found fault with the triage panel meeting that led to some delay. We did not find fault by the Council and the Trust with how they considered Ms X’s fast‑track request. However, fault with a panel meeting led to some uncertainty about whether this could have been considered sooner. We have recommended the Trust and the Council take actions to address the faults and apologise for the distress caused to Ms X.
-
St Georges University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (23 017 554a)
Statement Upheld Education, health and care plans 07-Mar-2025
Summary: Ms X complains about delays by the Council and the Trust in completing an autism assessment for her child and for not fast‑tracking their assessment. We found fault with the initial referral, but the Trust has already remedied this. We also found fault with the triage panel meeting that led to some delay. We did not find fault by the Council and the Trust with how they considered Ms X’s fast‑track request. However, fault with a panel meeting led to some uncertainty about whether this could have been considered sooner. We have recommended the Trust and the Council take actions to address the faults and apologise for the distress caused to Ms X.
-
St Georges University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (23 017 554b)
Statement Upheld Education, health and care plans 07-Mar-2025
Summary: Ms X complains about delays by the Council and the Trust in completing an autism assessment for her child and for not fast‑tracking their assessment. We found fault with the initial referral, but the Trust has already remedied this. We also found fault with the triage panel meeting that led to some delay. We did not find fault by the Council and the Trust with how they considered Ms X’s fast‑track request. However, fault with a panel meeting led to some uncertainty about whether this could have been considered sooner. We have recommended the Trust and the Council take actions to address the faults and apologise for the distress caused to Ms X.
-
Hertfordshire County Council (24 000 965)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 06-Mar-2025
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed provide suitable education for her child who has been absent from school since November 2021. Miss X also complained the Council delayed reviewing her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. We found fault with the Council for failing to make suitable education available for two terms and five weeks. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss X and pay her £2,980 for her child’s missed education. The Council already accepted its fault for delaying outside the statutory timescales in reviewing the EHC Plan for nine and a half months. We maintain the Council’s offer of £900 for the distress and inconvenience caused through its delays.
-
Surrey County Council (24 001 751)
Statement Upheld Other 06-Mar-2025
Summary: Mrs D complained the Council commissioned care provider (Crowthorne Care Surrey Ltd. t/a Esto Care) in her supported living placement, is failing to provide her with care and support. We found that support was provided in line with Mrs D’s care and support plan and there was no fault in the Council’s safeguarding process. However there had been medication errors and delay in complaint handling. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs D to remedy the distress caused.