Decision search
Your search has 56369 results
-
Birmingham City Council (24 023 098)
Statement Upheld Allocations 18-Sep-2025
Summary: Mr B complained that the Council failed to properly deal with his housing and homelessness complaints. We find that the Council failed to carry out a homelessness review, determine what duty it owed him, issue a written decision and appropriately address Mr B’s complaints. This caused him avoidable distress, uncertainty, and unnecessary time and trouble in trying to resolve his housing situation. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr B. It has also agreed to make service improvements.
-
Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (24 009 314)
Statement Upheld Allocations 18-Sep-2025
Summary: Miss X complained her current accommodation is unsuitable, due to her medical needs and following an assault outside the property. She said the Council failed to properly consider this when assessing her housing and homelessness applications. We found the Council was at fault for failing to investigate Miss X’s alleged assault at the appropriate time. However, we did not find fault in the Council’s decision making on Miss X’s housing and homelessness applications. The Council agreed to provide a symbolic payment for the avoidable distress Miss X suffered.
-
Surrey County Council (24 012 666)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 18-Sep-2025
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of her son’s Education, Health and Care annual review and alternative provision after he stopped attending school in summer 2024. We found the Council delayed proper assessment of its section 19 duties after June 2024 and delayed putting alternative provision in place for the child. The Council also failed to consult special schools and was late to issue a final amended EHC Plan following and annual review in June 2024. This caused Mrs X and her son frustration and delayed support the Council agreed to in December 2024. The Council agreed to remedy the injustice its actions caused them.
-
London Borough of Bromley (24 012 965)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 18-Sep-2025
Summary: Ms X complained that the Council failed to provide her son, Y, with suitable full-time education and failed to secure Section F provision of his EHCP during the 2023/24 academic year. The Council failed to implement the education package it proposed and did not secure the specialist dyslexia provision required in Y’s Plan. As a result, Y missed out on significant education and specialist support, and Ms X was caused avoidable distress and frustration. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.
-
Norfolk County Council (24 013 106)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 18-Sep-2025
Summary: Mrs X complained her sister, Mrs Y, is in an unsuitable care home for her needs. She said the Council would not discuss Mrs Y’s care and support needs with her despite there being no authorised person to represent Mrs Y’s health and welfare decision making. We found there was avoidable delay sharing information with Mrs X because the Council did not confirm deputyship for Mrs Y’s health and welfare when it carried out a review. This caused Mrs X some frustration. However, we did not find fault in the Council’s decision-making or that the care home was unsuitable.
-
Derby City Council (25 000 439)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Special educational needs 18-Sep-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to make appropriate educational provision for the complainant’s daughter. Investigation would not lead to a different outcome and is not therefore warranted.
-
Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (25 000 601)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Council tax 18-Sep-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s visit in 2020 to Mrs X to assist with benefits claims. This is because the complaint is late and there is no good reason for this.
-
Oxfordshire County Council (25 000 888)
Statement Not upheld Friends and family carers 18-Sep-2025
Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it decided Mr X’s special guardianship allowance. Its approach to deciding allowances appears in line with its statutory responsibilities.
-
Royal Borough of Greenwich (25 001 895)
Statement Upheld Allocations 18-Sep-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the suitability of a property as the Council has offered a satisfactory remedy through its internal complaints process.
-
Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council (25 003 257)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Council tax 18-Sep-2025
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council using an attachment of earnings order for a Council Tax debt as Mr X has issued Court proceedings against the Council.