Decision search
Your search has 50691 results
-
London Borough of Redbridge (23 011 733)
Statement Upheld Enforcement 14-Nov-2024
Summary: Mr F complained about the Council’s handling of his planning and building control concerns regarding building works completed by his neighbour. We found some limited fault by the Council for delay in actioning his planning control and fire safety concerns. However, its apology was enough to remedy the injustice this caused him. There was no fault in the process the Council followed to reach its views, it therefore reached decisions it was entitled to make.
-
London Borough of Hounslow (23 015 993)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 14-Nov-2024
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Q’s complaint about the way the Council handled a retrospective planning application, enforcement and appeal. Miss Q has used her right to appeal the planning decision and matters about application and appeal fees are over 12 months old.
-
Leeds City Council (24 001 930)
Statement Upheld Charging 14-Nov-2024
Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not properly consider whether to disregard his son’s property when calculating the cost of care. Mr X says his son will not be able to afford to pay for any care costs unless his property is disregarded. We have found the Council at fault for how it made its decision. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise, re-make the decision on whether to include Mr X’s son’s property when calculating care costs, and carry out a service improvement.
-
London Borough of Haringey (24 002 425)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 14-Nov-2024
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council communicated with service users following a cyber-attack. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
-
Liverpool City Council (24 006 618)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Direct payments 14-Nov-2024
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council charging him a contribution for his care and support. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.
-
Derby City Council (24 006 716)
Statement Upheld Other 14-Nov-2024
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly consider a complaint she raised about the way the Council completed an assessment of her family and arranged support for her child, Y, through the children’s statutory complaint procedure. The Council failed to complete the children’s statutory complaint procedure which caused frustration and distress. The Council will complete the statutory complaint procedure without further delay.
-
Derbyshire County Council (24 004 217)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 14-Nov-2024
Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Miss X’s complaint about the way the Council dealt with Y’s education. The Council has already investigated her complaint, accepted mistakes, and offered suitable remedies. As a result, there is nothing we can add.
-
New Forest District Council (24 004 781)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Licensing 14-Nov-2024
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of an application to vary the site licence of a caravan park in its area. This is because there is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council.
-
London Borough of Bexley (24 004 916)
Statement Not upheld Disabled children 14-Nov-2024
Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Miss X’s complaint about how the Council refused services to her disabled son. An independent investigation has already found no fault in what the Council did. It is unlikely that further investigation of the same issue would lead to a different outcome for Miss X.
-
St Thomas More Catholic School, Willenhall (24 005 106)
Statement Upheld School admissions 14-Nov-2024
Summary: Mrs X complained the independent appeal panel failed to properly consider her appeal against the School’s decision to refuse her daughter a place in Year 7. We found the failure to record the panel’s consideration and the reasons for its decision at stage 1 of the appeal is fault. As is the failure to explain or provide a summary of the issues the panel considered and the reasons for the panel’s decision in the decision letter. These faults have caused Mrs X an injustice.