Decision search


What's this ?
  • Organisation
  • Decision type

  • Reference number
  • Date range

     

  • Sort Results

Show advanced search

Your search has 50055 results

  • Rossendale Borough Council (24 004 100)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Antisocial behaviour 07-Aug-2024

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of anti-social behaviour (ASB) by Mr X’s neighbours. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

  • East Staffordshire Borough Council (24 004 125)

    Statement Upheld Other 07-Aug-2024

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly put him on its Violent and Threatening Behaviour Register. The Council has already apologised which is suitable to remedy any injustice caused.

  • Derby City Council (23 019 470)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Public transport 07-Aug-2024

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X being prevented from using a disabled toilet. Mr X wants the Council to provide him with compensation and accept it has breached equality legislation. We cannot achieve this outcome.

  • Norfolk County Council (23 013 106)

    Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 07-Aug-2024

    Summary: The Council’s decision to change Mrs X’s care agency despite the recommendation of a senior mental health nurse about consistency of care had a detrimental effect on her stability. The Council should review the way in which it responds to changing needs and consider how it exercises discretion over care choices to avoid the risk of giving the impression it has a blanket policy. It agrees to offer a proportionate amount to Mrs X and Ms A in recognition of the considerable anxiety they suffered during this time.

  • London Borough of Enfield (23 013 507)

    Statement Not upheld Enforcement 07-Aug-2024

    Summary: X complained about the Council’s decision not to take planning enforcement action against a neighbour’s development. We ended our investigation as it was unlikely to result in a finding of fault, a remedy for X or any other meaningful outcome.

  • Birmingham City Council (23 014 836)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Building control 07-Aug-2024

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council’s building control and planning departments failed to communicate with each other about whether the complainant had the necessary approvals for building works. There is no evidence of fault by the Council.

  • London Borough of Tower Hamlets (23 015 396)

    Statement Upheld Homelessness 07-Aug-2024

    Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to recognise Ms X was homeless when she approached from a refuge. It took too long to accept the main housing duty. Ms X spent 13 weeks too long in unsuitable Bed and Breakfast. The Council communicated poorly and took five months to respond to Ms X’s complaint. These faults caused Ms X significant injustice which the Council has agreed to remedy by apologising, making payments to Ms X, and acting to improve its services.

  • East Riding of Yorkshire Council (23 015 698)

    Statement Upheld Special educational needs 07-Aug-2024

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her son, Y suitable, full-time education, failed to provide all the provision set out in Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan, completed infrequent annual reviews and stopped Y’s alternative provision in September 2023. The Council was at fault for delay with Y’s annual review in 2023, delayed identifying an educational placement for Y to start in September 2023 and poor handover between staff. The faults caused Mrs X and Y frustration, uncertainty and caused Mrs X avoidable time and trouble. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment and provide evidence it has put in place its suggested service improvements.

  • Dorset Council (23 015 740)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 07-Aug-2024

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not follow its scheme of delegation when determining a planning application. We have found fault with the Council for failing to consult the relevant ward member. This caused Mr X frustration, but we do not consider that the outcome of the application would have been any different but for the fault.

  • London Borough of Haringey (23 018 316)

    Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 07-Aug-2024

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council delayed dealing with a disabled facility grant. The Council delayed dealing with his application. Mr X suffered delay and avoidable distress. The Council should pay Mr X £500.

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings