Decision search
Your search has 55503 results
-
Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (24 023 195)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 22-Sep-2025
Summary: We have upheld this complaint about the Council’s failure to complete an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment for the complainant’s child within the statutory timescale. The Council has agreed to provide a proportionate remedy and this removes the need for us to investigate.
-
Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (24 008 000)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 22-Sep-2025
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed reviewing her child, Z’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and failed to ensure Z received the therapies in the EHC Plan. She also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. We will not investigate this complaint. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s refusal to provide the therapies in Z’s EHC Plan. We are unlikely to add to the Council’s own investigation in relation to the delayed review and complaint handling.
-
Guildford Borough Council (24 011 233)
Statement Upheld Allocations 22-Sep-2025
Summary: Mr B says the Council delayed dealing with his housing register application, wrongly suspended his application and removed him from the housing register, delayed putting him back on the housing register and failed to ask him to complete a medical priority form. There were delays in dealing with the housing register application, the Council failed to take into account all the information at various points and delayed providing Mr B with a medical form to complete. That caused Mr B distress and meant he was not registered on the housing register for part of the period. An apology, payment to Mr B and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.
-
Buckinghamshire Council (25 003 447)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 22-Sep-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his dealings with the Council in connection with the care of his grandchildren because there is nothing we could add to the independent investigation commissioned by the Council.
-
London Borough of Ealing (25 007 214)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Parking and other penalties 22-Sep-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s handling to justify our involvement. It would also be reasonable for Mr X to use his right of appeal.
-
Surrey County Council (25 012 204)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 22-Sep-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council has dealt with his complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.
-
Statement Upheld Other 22-Sep-2025
Summary: We have upheld Mr X’s complaint because the Council delayed considering his complaint at stage two of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X.
-
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (25 012 355)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Parking and other penalties 22-Sep-2025
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr B’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice he received for an alleged moving traffic contravention. This is because Mr B put in an appeal to London Tribunals.
-
London Borough of Lambeth (25 012 401)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Parking and other penalties 22-Sep-2025
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr B’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice he received for an alleged moving traffic contravention. This is because Mr B put in an appeal to London Tribunals.
-
London Borough of Southwark (25 013 005)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Parking and other penalties 22-Sep-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice for an alleged moving traffic contravention. This is because Mr B appealed to London Tribunals which found the contravention took place. And, the Council considered Mr B’s mitigating circumstances when it responded to his representations.