Decision search
Your search has 50317 results
-
Leicestershire County Council (23 012 792)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 22-Jul-2024
Summary: The Council failed to consider whether to review a child’s Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan, or reassess his EHC needs when he moved to its area. The Council failed to provide him with an education for some months. It also did not deal with Ms B’s requests and contact, or her complaints to it properly. This caused the family distress and frustration, and meant that the child missed out on education. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice it caused.
-
Leicester City Council (23 014 835)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 22-Jul-2024
Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council met her son, Z’s, special educational needs. There was fault in how the Council took too long to issue Z’s Education Health and Care plan in 2022, and delays in starting speech and language therapy in 2023. This caused Mrs X avoidable frustration and worry for which the Council agreed to apologise and pay her a financial remedy. It also agreed to review how it manages and monitors special educational needs assessments.
-
London Borough of Merton (23 015 408)
Statement Not upheld Charging 22-Jul-2024
Summary: There is no evidence the late Mrs X was charged incorrect contributions towards the cost of her care. The Council has already apologised for the timing of its letter requesting outstanding contributions after her death.
-
Manchester City Council (23 016 077)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 22-Jul-2024
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to find supported accommodation for her son and did not provide respite breaks for her family. The Council had previously found suitable placements for Y for respite breaks in Manchester but we found the Council did not take sufficient action to find a placement for Y during 2022. Although we found fault by the Council we did not find this caused Mrs X’s son to miss out on a placement or Mrs X to miss out on respite. This was because it seems likely Mrs X would not have accepted a placement in Manchester for Y.
-
London Borough of Lambeth (23 017 873)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Assessment and care plan 22-Jul-2024
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council provided adult social care. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
-
London Borough of Hounslow (23 019 699)
Statement Upheld Transport 22-Jul-2024
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his blue badge application. This is because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.
-
Statement Upheld Refuse and recycling 22-Jul-2024
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly assess her property and provide her with a wheelie bin in accordance with its eligibility criteria. The Council is at fault because it failed to fully assess Mrs X’s property for the storage and collection of a wheelie bin in line with its policy. The Council has agreed to carry out a new assessment of Mrs X’s property which remedies any injustice caused.
-
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 22-Jul-2024
Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about quality of care and charges for care. There is not a good reason for the delay in the complaint being brought to the Council and then the Ombudsman.
-
Manchester City Council (24 001 010)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Traffic management 22-Jul-2024
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to stop people parking in the disabled parking bay at the front of Ms X’s property which she applied to have installed. This is because there is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council.
-
Gedling Borough Council (24 001 507)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Council tax 22-Jul-2024
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax liability as it is reasonable to expect Miss X to have appealed against it to the Valuation Tribunal.