Decision search
Your search has 50055 results
-
Surrey County Council (23 017 972)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 18-Aug-2024
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her child with the educational provision in his education, health and care plan. The Council acknowledged the fault and injustice caused. It has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.
-
London Borough of Redbridge (23 018 248)
Statement Upheld Allocations 18-Aug-2024
Summary: There was fault by the Council. The Council’s decision on a families housing priority was made without an assessment that a piece of medical equipment could fit in a room for its use. Carrying out an assessment and backdating any resulting increase in priority remedies the injustice to the family.
-
West Sussex County Council (23 020 255)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 18-Aug-2024
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide suitable educational provision in line with her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan since September 2023. Ms X also complained the Council failed to provide any education for child from September 2023 to December 2023. Ms X also complained the Council failed to meet complaint timescales or communicate the outcome of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan review with her. We did not find fault with the provision of Ms X’s child’s Education, Health and Care Plan or their general education. However, we found fault with the Council failing to meet the statutory timescales in completing Ms X’s child’s Education, Health and Care Plan review. We also found fault with delays by the Council in providing complaint responses and misinformation within the complaint responses. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her £250 for the frustration and inconvenience caused through the Council’s fault.
-
East Staffordshire Borough Council (23 020 443)
Statement Not upheld Planning applications 18-Aug-2024
Summary: Mr J complains about issues relating to a planning application by his neighbour. He says the Council should have done more to consider his objections and investigated further. It also missed important issues of ownership in its investigation. Our decision is there was no fault by the Council, so we cannot question the merits of the Council’s decision.
-
Luton Borough Council (23 020 528)
Statement Upheld Adoption 18-Aug-2024
Summary: The Council has already accepted that it was at fault for some of the ways in which it attempted to support Mr and Mrs B ahead of a proposed adoption placement. And its explanations for other actions it took – which it has supported with evidence – are not obviously unreasonable. Consequently, it would not be proportionate to do a further investigation of the issues Mr and Mrs B raise. But the Council has agreed to take steps to improve its service.
-
North Northamptonshire Council (23 020 627)
Statement Not upheld Council tax 18-Aug-2024
Summary: Miss X complained about the actions of enforcement agents acting on behalf of the Council to collect a council tax debt. The Council commissioned enforcement agents were not at fault.
-
Manchester City Council (24 000 639)
Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 18-Aug-2024
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about failure by an adult social care provider to contact its client’s next of kin when the client became unwell, and after the client died. The care provider has apologised for the distress caused and has contacted all relevant clients to ensure it has contact details for their next of kin. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve anything further.
-
Worcestershire County Council (23 017 328)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 18-Aug-2024
Summary: Ms X complains that the Council failed to consider its duty to make alternative education provision for Mrs Y’s daughter when she was unable to attend school on a full time basis. The Council is at fault as it delayed in considering its duty to make alternative education provision, delayed in offering the provision and delayed in issuing a final Education, Health and Care plan for Z. As a result, Z missed approximately 11 weeks of education and the faults caused distress to Mrs Y. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice by apologising to Mrs Y and Z and making symbolic payments to them to acknowledge the distress caused to Mrs Y and Z’s missed education.
-
Salford City Council (23 016 954)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 18-Aug-2024
Summary: Miss X complained the Council put her child in an inappropriate school, failed to provide alternative provision when they were out of school, and failed to support her child. Miss X said the missed education impacted her child and their wellbeing. Miss X said it had a financial impact and caused her unnecessary distress. We find the Council at fault and this caused injustice. The Council has agreed to make the payment it has already offered Miss X to remedy the injustice.
-
New Care Nottingham (Opco) Limited (23 016 681)
Statement Upheld Residential care 18-Aug-2024
Summary: Ms G complained about the care and support provided to her late father, Mr D by the Care Provider. We found fault with the Care Provider’s record keeping and the accuracy of information it recorded in Mr D’s care records. Some of the care Mr D received fell below the standard he should reasonably have expected. The Care Provider has agreed to our recommendation and will write to Ms G and offer to pay her £7,500 as a symbolic payment to acknowledge the overall injustice caused by the faults. The Care Provider previously apologised and acted to improve.