Decision search


What's this ?
  • Organisation
  • Decision type

  • Reference number
  • Date range

     

  • Sort Results

Show advanced search

Your search has 54157 results

  • London Borough of Southwark (24 023 460)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 29-Sep-2025

    Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to properly consider her housing application and the evidence she provided. We do not find fault with how the Council considered Miss X’s application. We find the Council at fault for delays in considering Miss X’s review request, causing uncertainty, but the Council has already acted to address this.

  • London Borough of Hackney (25 000 214)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 29-Sep-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint how the Council dealt with a noise complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

  • London Borough of Croydon (25 001 014)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Private housing 29-Sep-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a dispute over a payment agreement between the Council and a private landlord. It is reasonable for Ms X to seek a remedy in the courts over a private agreement.

  • High Peak Borough Council (25 001 108)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Refuse and recycling 29-Sep-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision she needs to pay for a replacement bin after hers was damaged. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

  • Leicestershire County Council (25 001 144)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 29-Sep-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a decision to detain Miss X under the Mental health Act. There was a tribunal available and this would have been the appropriate way to challenge this decision. We will not investigate the Council’s role in how it arranged the Mental Health Assessment or with how it looked after Miss X’s dog because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

  • Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust (25 001 144a)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Mental health services 29-Sep-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a decision to detain Miss X under the Mental health Act. There was a tribunal available and this would have been the appropriate way to challenge this decision. We will not investigate the Council’s role in how it arranged the Mental Health Assessment or with how it looked after Miss X’s dog because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

  • Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (25 001 199)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Private housing 29-Sep-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with his reports of property disrepair. That is because the early part of his complaint is late and there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement in more recent matters.

  • Stoke-on-Trent City Council (25 001 284)

    Statement Upheld School transport 29-Sep-2025

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to refuse school transport for his three children. He says the Council has failed to consider the health diagnosis of each child. We found the Council at fault, which caused Mr X injustice. The Council has agreed to reconsider the appeal, make payment to recognise the injustice and apologise to Mr X.

  • Derbyshire County Council (25 002 309)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 29-Sep-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a child protection assessment. This is because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council or achieve a different outcome.

  • Cheshire East Council (25 002 391)

    Statement Upheld Special educational needs 29-Sep-2025

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed finalising her son’s Education, Health and Care plan. Based on current evidence, we have found the Council was at fault. It caused a delay of seven months. This likely meant her son missed out on some support that he needed. Mrs X herself also likely experienced inconvenience and distress and her right to appeal was frustrated. The Council will now take action to address their injustice.

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