Decision search
Your search has 50691 results
-
London Borough of Bexley (24 017 511)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 06-Feb-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a Fixed Penalty Notice the Council issued him in 2021 for littering. This is because the complaint is late.
-
London Borough of Tower Hamlets (23 014 572)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Homelessness 06-Feb-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a lack of support when Mr X became homeless because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
-
Leeds City Council (23 020 896)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 06-Feb-2025
Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed obtaining an Educational Psychology report as part of her child’s Education, Health and Care needs assessment, which in turn delayed the assessment process. We found the Council was at fault for delays and poor communication. This caused the family distress, which the Council will apologise for and provide a suitable financial remedy.
-
Stoke-on-Trent City Council (24 002 461)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Council tax 06-Feb-2025
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about charges linked to charging orders for council tax arears. This is because the charging orders, and fees, form part of legal proceedings.
-
London Borough of Hackney (24 003 055)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Domiciliary care 06-Feb-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that her father’s care provider failed to provide him with the care they were commissioned to provide and about the Council’s poor communicate during its safeguarding enquiries. This is because the likely fault has not caused any injustice to Mr Z. In addition, there are no worthwhile outcomes achievable.
-
Essex County Council (24 003 512)
Statement Upheld Alternative provision 06-Feb-2025
Summary: Miss X complains the Council did not deal with her daughter’s education properly. The Council did not make full educational provision and did not communicate with Miss X effectively. Miss X suffered avoidable distress and her daughter lost educational provision. The Council should pay Miss X £5,750.
-
London Borough of Merton (24 003 526)
Statement Upheld Refuse and recycling 06-Feb-2025
Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly issued him with a fixed penalty notice when he left his domestic refuse out for collection at the wrong time. We have found fault by the Council in not considering the full range of powers when deciding to issue the notice. We consider the agreed action by the Council of a refund of the amount paid by Mr X and an apology provides a suitable remedy.
-
London Borough of Newham (24 003 799)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 06-Feb-2025
Summary: We found fault with the Council’s failure to ensure delivery of all special educational provision to the complainant’s (Ms X) daughter (Y). The Council’s fault caused injustice to Y and Ms X. The Council agreed to apologise, make payments to recognise Y’s educational loss and Ms X’s distress and carry out some service improvements.
-
West Sussex County Council (24 003 896)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 06-Feb-2025
Summary: Mr B complained about the way an NHS Trust and Council assessed him to decide whether he should be detained under the Mental Health Act. He also complained about his care and support while he was waiting to be transferred to an in-patient “mental health bed”. We found fault by both organisations. The Trust did not properly inform Mr B about his legal rights and status under the Mental Health Act. The Council did not ensure the medical recommendations remained valid when it reassessed Mr B under the Mental Health Act. These failings caused Mr B avoidable distress and upset. The organisations have agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy, and take actions to improve their services.
-
Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (24 003 896a)
Statement Upheld Mental health services 06-Feb-2025
Summary: Mr B complained about the way an NHS Trust and Council assessed him to decide whether he should be detained under the Mental Health Act. He also complained about his care and support while he was waiting to be transferred to an in-patient “mental health bed”. We found fault by both organisations. The Trust did not properly inform Mr B about his legal rights and status under the Mental Health Act. The Council did not ensure the medical recommendations remained valid when it reassessed Mr B under the Mental Health Act. These failings caused Mr B avoidable distress and upset. The organisations have agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy, and take actions to improve their services.