Decision search
Your search has 55054 results
-
Teignbridge District Council (24 020 107)
Statement Not upheld Other 21-Sep-2025
Summary: Ms F complained the Council misinformed her about her father’s Community Infrastructure Levy relief application and failed to properly communicate and apply her requested reasonable adjustments. She said as a result she experienced unnecessary distress and had financial costs. We found no fault by the Council. It reached decisions in line with the relevant regulations and had regard to her reasonable adjustments when it became aware of her request.
-
Norfolk County Council (24 020 292)
Statement Upheld Charging 21-Sep-2025
Summary: Mr X complained the Council provided incorrect and misleading information about funding his mother’s residential care. We found the Council at fault because of poor communication and delay which caused avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mr X and take action to improve its service.
-
Worcestershire County Council (24 020 635)
Statement Upheld Charging 21-Sep-2025
Summary: Mrs B complained on behalf of her father, Mr C that the Council had failed to make reasonable adjustments to ensure Mr C could read and understand financial information about his care costs, despite knowing he had a visual impairment. We found fault in the Council’s actions which meant Mr C did not understand he had to pay his care costs allowing a large debt to build up over nearly two years. This caused Mr C uncertainty and distress and Mrs B distress on receiving the invoice. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B and Mr C, make symbolic payments to them both and improve its procedures for the future.
-
Surrey County Council (24 021 602)
Statement Not upheld Child protection 21-Sep-2025
Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of a safeguarding investigation following the death of her baby. She said it failed to include critical medical evidence in its safeguarding report. The Council was not at fault. It carried out the safeguarding enquiry in line with relevant law and policy.
-
City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (24 023 364)
Statement Upheld Residential care 21-Sep-2025
Summary: There was fault by the Council in the late Mrs Y’s care in one of its care homes. The care home did not consult with Mrs Y’s GP to see if her medicine could be administered to her covertly and her care plans did not include detailed information about how to deliver personal and oral care in her best interests. This caused Mrs Y avoidable distress which cannot now be remedied as she has died. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment to her daughter Ms X (and for other family members) to recognise her distress in witnessing her mother receiving poor care. The Council will take action to minimise the risk of recurrence.
-
Staffordshire County Council (25 000 157)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 21-Sep-2025
Summary: Mrs B complained the Council delayed in completing an annual review for her child, X. We have found the Council at fault for a delay in completing the annual review and issuing a final complaint response. This caused Mrs B distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused by the faults.
-
Hampshire County Council (24 002 186)
Statement Upheld Alternative provision 21-Sep-2025
Summary: The Council was at fault. It provided Mrs X’s child ,Y, with intermittent alternative provision and did not provide all the special educational provision to which they were entitled. Y’s father, Mr X was caused frustration supporting Y. The Council will apologise and pay £1,250 to Mrs X to acknowledge Y’s missed education and provision and make a symbolic payment of £300 to Mr X. The Council has already put in place actions to improve its service.
-
East Sussex County Council (24 011 027)
Statement Upheld Alternative provision 21-Sep-2025
Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council delayed in providing alternative education to her daughter and that, when it was provided, it was unsuitable. We find that there was fault by the Council on the first complaint and a lost opportunity on the second but with limited injustice. The Council has agreed to make symbolic payments for the loss of education and opportunity. The Council has already amended its alternative education policy for pupils medically unfit to attend school and has agreed to consider further service improvements.
-
Slough Borough Council (24 011 804)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 21-Sep-2025
Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not provide a school placement for her child Y who should have started Reception class in September 2023. There was fault causing injustice. Y’s amended Education, Health and Care Plan with her educational placement was delayed by about eighteen months. She did not receive any educational provision between September 2023 and the end of June 2024 which was not in line with legal requirements. Complaint handling was poor. The Council will apologise and make a payment of £500 to reflect avoidable distress, time and trouble and delay in appeal rights. It will also make a payment of £7000 to reflect Y’s lost educational provision.
-
Rugby Borough Council (25 002 100)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Homelessness 21-Sep-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a homelessness application. It was reasonable for Miss X to use the review/appeals procedure available under the homelessness legislation to challenge the Council’s decision that she was non-priority homeless.