Decision search
Your search has 50933 results
-
Milton Keynes Council (24 020 765)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Councillor conduct and standards 13-Mar-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a complaint about the conduct of a councillor. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.
-
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (24 020 829)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 13-Mar-2025
Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to deliver her daughter J’s Education, Health and Care Plan in line with statutory timescales. We find fault with the Council for delay, and have agreed a symbolic payment for the distress and frustration caused to Miss X.
-
Tandridge District Council (24 002 983)
Statement Not upheld Other 12-Mar-2025
Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council decided to close an enforcement case against a neighbouring property. She said the Council misinterpreted the Ombudsman’s recommendations and did not account for all relevant factors in its decision-making. We have not found the Council acted with fault in its decision-making. We cannot therefore question the decision the Council made. The Council has confirmed it would consider any new reports or evidence it receives.
-
Manchester City Council (24 004 809)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 12-Mar-2025
Summary: Ms X complained that the Council failed to provide alternative education to her son after he was unable to attend school for medical reasons, and that there were delays in completing an Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused a loss of education and avoidable distress. We find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to make symbolic payments for the lost education and avoidable distress, and to review its policy on providing pupils out of school alternative education.
-
Lincolnshire County Council (24 007 388)
Statement Not upheld Child protection 12-Mar-2025
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to consider his concerns that his child (Y) is a victim of Fabricated or Induced Illness (FII) by Proxy and prevented them from being assessed for it despite providing supporting evidence. He says his child is at risk of harm which has caused him distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council consulted medical professionals and considered Mr X’s concerns in line with the relevant policies without fault.
-
Gloucestershire County Council (24 007 998)
Statement Upheld Safeguarding 12-Mar-2025
Summary: Mr W, on behalf of the family, complained the Council failed to assess Mr X’s capacity or consult his parents before deciding to extend his respite stay. Mr W also complained about delays and lack of action in response to safeguarding concerns. We find the Council at fault for delay informing the family of the safeguarding outcome, which caused uncertainty. The Council has agreed to issue an apology.
-
Durham County Council (24 008 210)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 12-Mar-2025
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to ensure her child D, a young adult with disabilities, received suitable education and support for their special educational needs. There was fault by the Council which caused D to miss special educational needs support. It also caused distress to D and Mrs X. The Council agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy. It will also review why it delayed in completing an Education, Health, and Care needs assessment in D’s case and produce an action plan to prevent recurrence of the same fault.
-
City of Wolverhampton Council (24 009 496)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Licensing 12-Mar-2025
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to grant Mr X a private hire driver licence. Mr X appealed this decision to the court and this matter is therefore no longer within our legal remit.
-
London Borough of Ealing (24 010 131)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 12-Mar-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered two planning applications. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council made the decisions to approve the applications. Also, we cannot require the Council to revoke the planning permissions or discipline a planning officer.
-
London Borough of Enfield (24 010 794)
Statement Upheld Allocations 12-Mar-2025
Summary: Miss X complained how the Council handled her application to join the housing register. She also complained the Council’s housing allocations scheme is discriminatory. We find the Council was at fault for failing to address all of Miss X’s points in her review request. This caused her frustration. The Council has agreed to our recommendation to apologise to Miss X for the frustration caused.