Decision search
Your search has 51593 results
-
St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (24 005 358)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 02-Sep-2024
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s priority on the housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
-
Transport for London (24 005 588)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Traffic management 02-Sep-2024
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Authority’s decision that the complainant’s car does not meet the emission standard for the Ultra Low Emission Zone. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority.
-
Isle of Wight Council (24 005 635)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 02-Sep-2024
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of planning enforcement matters in relation to Mr X’s property. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.
-
London Borough of Lewisham (23 020 345)
Statement Upheld Other 02-Sep-2024
Summary: Miss X complained the Council wrongly decided her son did not meet the criteria for support from its Children with Complex Needs Team. She also complained the Council’s assessment contained inaccurate or misleading information. Miss X said the Council’s actions caused her avoidable distress. We found fault in how the Council handled Miss X’s complaint. However, we have not investigated Miss X’s complaint that the Council wrongly decided her son did not meet the criteria for support and that the Council’s assessment contained inaccurate information. This is because the Council has agreed to continue its investigation of these complaints via the statutory children’s complaints procedure.
-
Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (24 003 478)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Managing council tenancies 01-Sep-2024
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Ms X’s accommodation not meeting her needs for support. We cannot investigate the Council’s actions as a registered social housing provider, and the complaint is instead within the scope of the Housing Ombudsman. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council considered a safeguarding referral from Ms X’s advocate.
-
St. Gregorys Primary School (24 006 643)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries School admissions 01-Sep-2024
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about an unsuccessful school admission appeal. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault for us to question the panel’s decision.
-
Durham County Council (24 006 751)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Councillor conduct and standards 01-Sep-2024
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on a Member Code of Conduct complaint Mr X made against a councillor. This is because there is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.
-
Bristol City Council (24 006 951)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 01-Sep-2024
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council handled her housing situation because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Ms X had the right to ask for a review of the Council’s recent decision to change her priority band and it was reasonable for her do so.
-
City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (24 006 565)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Council tax 01-Sep-2024
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a delay by the Council in reassessing the complainant’s Council Tax Reduction. This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice and because the complainant could appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.
-
City of Doncaster Council (24 006 780)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Council tax 01-Sep-2024
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to apply the unoccupied property council tax premium to the complainant’s property. This is because the complainant could have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal.