Decision search
Your search has 54156 results
-
London Borough of Lewisham (25 004 217)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 10-Sep-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to deal with a report of brambles encroaching on Ms X’s property from the grounds of a school. We cannot investigate complaints about the internal management of schools.
-
Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (25 003 279)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Special educational needs 10-Sep-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This is because Mrs X has used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and it was reasonable for her to do so.
-
London Borough of Redbridge (25 003 493)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 10-Sep-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about nuisance neighbours. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council’s adult social care team who placed the neighbours at the property and is satisfied their needs are met there. We cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants to have the property closed and the neighbours moved. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve any worthwhile outcome.
-
Kent County Council (25 003 559)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 10-Sep-2025
Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with her concerns of bullying at her child’s school. This is because the law prevents us from investigating what happens in schools and about how councils investigate these matters.
-
South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (25 003 626)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries School transport 10-Sep-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to discontinue taxi travel to school for Mrs X’s child. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision to warrant investigation.
-
Sheffield City Council (24 018 160)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 10-Sep-2025
Summary: Mrs Y complained the Council failed to secure part of the special educational provision set out in her child, Z’s Education Health and Care Plan. We have found fault causing injustice by the Council because of its service failure in failing to deliver support for Z to attend the physical activity provision in their Plan. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice, by apologising to apologise to Mrs Y and Z and making payments to reflect the impact of the missed provision on Z and the upset caused.
-
Kent County Council (23 015 374)
Statement Upheld Alternative provision 10-Sep-2025
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to consider and respond to her request for a personal budget for tuition outlined in her child, Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council was at fault. It accepted it failed to respond to her personal budget request or offer her a right of review. The Council was also at fault for significant complaint handling delays. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X to acknowledge the injustice this caused.
-
Kent County Council (24 008 268)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 10-Sep-2025
Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s continued failure to ensure her child Y, received therapy provision in line with their Education, Health and Care Plan. She also complained about personal budget decisions and a failure to provide Y with Free School Meals (FSM). The Council was at fault as Y missed out on therapy provision for four terms between May 2024 and July 2025. There was also fault around its FSM and personal budget decision making and it has delayed carrying out the 2025 annual review. The Council agreed to apologise, make payments and review its decision making to remedy the injustice caused to Miss X and commission the therapy provision without further delay.
-
Statement Upheld Direct payments 10-Sep-2025
Summary: Mrs Y complained the Council delayed in providing the care and support her terminally ill husband needed. She also says the Council failed to ensure he had uninterrupted access to bathroom facilities following a mistake with the installation of a Council funded stairlift. We find there was delay by the Council in assessing Mr Y. We also find that errors with the stairlift installation caused avoidable distress. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment of £500 for the distress caused.
-
London Borough of Redbridge (24 019 040)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Council tax 10-Sep-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to charge Mr X a summons fee and its failure to respond to Mr X’s letters. This is because an investigation is unlikely to lead to a finding of significant injustice.