Decision search
Your search has 54156 results
-
Central Bedfordshire Council (24 017 351)
Statement Not upheld Direct payments 23-Jun-2025
Summary: Mr X complained the Council has not made statutory redundancy payments to Ms B and Ms C. He says this caused stress and financial strain. The Ombudsman finds no fault with the Council’s decision making.
-
Central Bedfordshire Council (24 017 352)
Statement Not upheld Direct payments 23-Jun-2025
Summary: Mr X complained the Council has not made statutory redundancy payments to Ms B and Ms C. He says this caused stress and financial strain. The Ombudsman finds no fault with the Council’s decision making.
-
Southend-on-Sea City Council (24 017 502)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 23-Jun-2025
Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed completing her child (Y’s) Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment in line with statutory timescales. This in turn caused a delay in issuing the EHC Plan. The Council was at fault. It failed to issue Y’s EHC Plan within the statutory timescales, caused in part by a delay in obtaining Educational Psychologist advice. The Council has agreed to make a payment to recognise the loss of provision and the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused.
-
Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (24 018 514)
Statement Not upheld Alternative provision 23-Jun-2025
Summary: The Council was not at fault in how it decided it did not owe Ms X’s child, W, the duty to arrange alternative education provision when W stopped attending school. This means it was also not at fault in how it secured the special educational provision in W’s Education, Health and Care Plan. We cannot investigate the other matters Ms X complained about.
-
Chelmsford City Council (24 012 027)
Statement Upheld Homelessness 23-Jun-2025
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council left her family in temporary accommodation that was unsuitable, despite accepting this following a suitability review. We have concluded our investigation and found the Council at fault for allowing the family to remain in unsuitable housing for nearly five months. This caused significant disruption and distress, particularly given the family’s vulnerabilities. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.
-
Brentwood Borough Council (24 013 123)
Statement Upheld Enforcement 23-Jun-2025
Summary: Mr C complained about the Council’s handling of a planning approval and planning enforcement of a development next to his home. We found fault by the Council as there were some unnecessary delays in the enforcement process, but it reached decisions it was entitled to make. The Council should apologise and make a symbolic payment to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty he experienced as a result. We did not investigate Mr C’s concerns about the planning approval as this was late.
-
London Borough of Lambeth (24 014 177)
Statement Upheld Allocations 23-Jun-2025
Summary: We found fault on Mr Y’s complaint about the Council failing to act on his reports of the condition of his temporary accommodation. Records were not made, retained, and checked about previous problems with the same property. It failed to carry out a housing needs assessment before he moved in or act promptly on his reports. Nor did it keep its suitability under review, and it failed to follow its own complaints procedure. The Council agreed to send Mr Y an apology for the failings, pay £3,850 as he lived in unsuitable accommodation, a symbolic £100 payment for increased electricity costs, and £400 for avoidable distress. It agreed to review procedures and remind officers of the need to keep temporary accommodation’s suitability under review.
-
Buckinghamshire Council (24 014 200)
Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 23-Jun-2025
Summary: Mr Y complains about the Council’s decision to fund a residential nursing home placement for his mother, rather than a package of domiciliary care. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s assessment which calls the outcome into question. The Council is entitled to consider cost efficiency when deciding between suitable options to meet a person’s eligible care needs.
-
London Borough of Redbridge (24 014 685)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 23-Jun-2025
Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed in completing a review of her child’s Education, Health, and Care Plan. The Council accepted it was at fault for the delay and apologised. Following our investigation it also agreed to provide a financial remedy to recognise the avoidable distress caused to Ms X by the delay, and issue a reminder to staff about statutory review timescales.
-
Buckland Care Limited (24 014 761)
Statement Upheld Residential care 23-Jun-2025
Summary: Mrs Y complains the Care Provider did not put proper safeguarding measures in place to protect Mrs X. Mrs Y says this caused her Mrs X physical harm, and meant she died sooner than expected. The Ombudsman finds the Care Provider at fault, which caused Mrs X and Mrs Y injustice. The Care Provider has agreed to apologise to Mrs Y and make a service improvement.