Decision search
Your search has 50691 results
-
Worthing Borough Council (24 010 605)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 24-Nov-2024
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application.
-
Surrey County Council (23 018 505)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Special educational needs 23-Nov-2024
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education, Health and Care Plan process for the complainant’s child. This is because it was reasonable for Mrs X to use her right of appeal.
-
London Borough of Lewisham (24 001 775)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 23-Nov-2024
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
-
Devon County Council (23 011 565)
Statement Upheld Looked after children 22-Nov-2024
Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council dealt with the care of her children. The Council was at fault for not considering Mrs X’s complaint through the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council will apologise to Mrs X for the frustration and uncertainty this caused and consider her complaint further.
-
Suffolk County Council (23 019 368)
Statement Upheld Charging 22-Nov-2024
Summary: Mr D complained on behalf of his mother that the Council had overcharged for her care and support and failed to issue invoices. He also complains about delay responding to his complaint. We found fault causing an overcharge, distress and time and trouble. The Council has agreed to take the actions set out at the end of this statement to remedy the injustice caused.
-
Suffolk County Council (23 019 811)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 22-Nov-2024
Summary: The Council took too long to issue a final Education Health and Care Plan. It also failed to properly consider whether it should make alternative educational provision when Miss B’s child could not attend school. This caused Miss B distress and meant that her child missed out on education. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the impact on Miss B and her child.
-
Derby City Council (23 019 832)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Adoption 22-Nov-2024
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to add to its records that a court document about Miss X had incorrectly stated she had twice declined mother and baby placements. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed than us to deal with matters of alleged data inaccuracy as it has powers to require rectification and impose penalties that we lack.
-
Hertfordshire County Council (23 020 273)
Statement Upheld Child protection 22-Nov-2024
Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s involvement in the child safeguarding procedure following an incident in September 2021. Miss X said the Council’s actions caused her and her children avoidable distress. The Council was at fault for the delay in considering Miss X’s complaint, and the lack of information around medical examinations for her children. We consider the remedies the Council offered to Miss X suitably address the injustice it had caused her.
-
Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (23 020 797)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 22-Nov-2024
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care financial assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council completed the financial assessment. There is fault in delay completing an appeal of the financial assessment decision, and sending invoices for payment while the complaint was continuing. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a total payment of £250 to acknowledge the complainant’s distress, time and trouble. We are satisfied with the actions the Council has agreed to take and it is unlikely an investigation would achieve anything further.
-
London Borough of Ealing (23 020 987)
Statement Not upheld Charging 22-Nov-2024
Summary: Mr C complained about the Council’s refusal to fund his wife’s direct payment for the full week when she died. As a result, he said he had costs to pay her self-employed carer. We found no fault by the Council. This is because Mr C was not required to pay the self-employed carer under the arrangement when the care support ceased. The Council would therefore not be expected to have a contingency for this in place, and it was entitled to reach its view.