Decision search
Your search has 50055 results
-
Runnymede Borough Council (23 018 881)
Statement Upheld Planning applications 29-Aug-2024
Summary: X complained about the Council’s failure to retain mature trees behind their home, which is a listed building. The mature trees were intended to provide screening from a new development and protect the setting of the listed building. We found fault because the Council has no record to show why it allowed existing trees to be replaced with smaller trees under a planting scheme. The Council agreed to the remedy we recommended.
-
London Borough of Ealing (23 020 294)
Statement Upheld Enforcement 29-Aug-2024
Summary: X complained about how the Council dealt with an extension on their neighbour’s land. X is concerned a flat roof could now be used as a roof terrace, which would reduce privacy in X’s garden. We found fault in the way the Council made its decision. This is because it did not use a condition controlling roof terraces on flat roofs it had imposed on an earlier approval for this site, and there was nothing written in the case officer report to explain why. However, we did not consider that the fault caused an injustice. This is because the roof is not used as a terrace and further permission would be needed to fit safety railings.
-
Statement Not upheld Trees 29-Aug-2024
Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his concerns about a Tree Preservation Order on trees near his home. He said this frustrated him and impacted his amenity. We have ended our investigation. This is because most of the complaint is outside our jurisdiction, and we cannot achieve a worthwhile outcome through an investigation.
-
North Yorkshire Council (23 020 163)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 29-Aug-2024
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of her child’s Education, Health and Care needs assessment. We found the Council at fault because there was a significant delay in securing the Educational Psychologist’s report needed for the assessment. In recognition of the distress caused by the delay, the Council agreed to make a symbolic payment of £500 to Mrs X.
-
Surrey County Council (23 020 263)
Statement Upheld Alternative provision 29-Aug-2024
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide suitable education for her child since September 2019. Ms X also complained the Council delayed in producing her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan from February 2022 until October 2023. We found fault with the Council failing to provide suitable education for Ms X’s child from January 2020 until October 2023. We also found fault with the Council delaying by 38 weeks outside the statutory timescales in producing Ms X’s child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council has already paid Ms X £4,500 for missed education, from September 2022 to October 2023 and £1,500 for the avoidable delays, distress and frustration caused. The Council agreed to pay Ms X an extra £11,650 for her child’s missed education from January 2020 to September 2022.
-
Warrington Council (22 016 144)
Statement Upheld Safeguarding 29-Aug-2024
Summary: Mr X complains the Council did not properly gather and consider information during a safeguarding enquiry, and the Council concealed and obstructed his attempts to provide further evidence. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for how it managed communication with Mr X. However, the Council has already recognised and remedied this in its complaint response, and therefore no further remedy is warranted.
-
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 29-Aug-2024
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s delay issuing her child, Y’s amended final Education, Health and Care Plan. We find the Council at fault. This impacted Y’s education and caused distress and uncertainty for Mrs X. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mrs X, and issue an amended final Education, Health and Care Plan.
-
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (24 003 360)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Rights of way 29-Aug-2024
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in resolving issues relating to a highway improvement scheme and a Compulsory Purchase Order. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to refer the matter to the Upper Tribunal.
-
Malvern Hills District Council (24 005 743)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 29-Aug-2024
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the conduct of a council officer and the Council’s handling of her complaint about the matter. This is because neither issue caused her significant injustice separate from the decisions on her planning applications and if Ms X disagreed with the decisions it would have been reasonable for her to appeal.
-
Statement Closed after initial enquiries School transport 29-Aug-2024
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to award free school transport for the complainant’s son. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.