Decision search
Your search has 51593 results
-
Wakefield City Council (24 006 390)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Highway repair and maintenance 19-Aug-2024
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his claim for damages after his car hit a pothole. This is because this is a complaint about negligence which is a legal matter for the courts to consider and decide.
-
Warwickshire County Council (24 006 669)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Highway repair and maintenance 19-Aug-2024
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about pothole damage claims as these are matters for the courts and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks.
-
Bristol City Council (24 007 271)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 19-Aug-2024
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning application. This is because the complainant had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.
-
Southend-on-Sea City Council (23 004 839)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 19-Aug-2024
Summary: Mrs X complains there was delay in issuing her son’s revised Education Health and Care Plan. We found there was significant delay and insufficient oversight of the process. There was also a failure to ensure her son received an education for a period of time and the Council failed to properly respond to the complaint. The Council explained it had started improvement work to restore its service level for children with Special Education Needs. We recommended payments to Mrs X to recognise the loss of education to Y and the distress caused.
-
Havant Borough Council (23 008 693)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 19-Aug-2024
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning enforcement delays as there is no evidence of fault by the Council.
-
London Borough of Islington (24 004 577)
Statement Upheld Other 18-Aug-2024
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about support the Council provided installing a new cooker. There is
-
Surrey County Council (23 017 972)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 18-Aug-2024
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her child with the educational provision in his education, health and care plan. The Council acknowledged the fault and injustice caused. It has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.
-
London Borough of Redbridge (23 018 248)
Statement Upheld Allocations 18-Aug-2024
Summary: There was fault by the Council. The Council’s decision on a families housing priority was made without an assessment that a piece of medical equipment could fit in a room for its use. Carrying out an assessment and backdating any resulting increase in priority remedies the injustice to the family.
-
West Sussex County Council (23 020 255)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 18-Aug-2024
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide suitable educational provision in line with her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan since September 2023. Ms X also complained the Council failed to provide any education for child from September 2023 to December 2023. Ms X also complained the Council failed to meet complaint timescales or communicate the outcome of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan review with her. We did not find fault with the provision of Ms X’s child’s Education, Health and Care Plan or their general education. However, we found fault with the Council failing to meet the statutory timescales in completing Ms X’s child’s Education, Health and Care Plan review. We also found fault with delays by the Council in providing complaint responses and misinformation within the complaint responses. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her £250 for the frustration and inconvenience caused through the Council’s fault.
-
East Staffordshire Borough Council (23 020 443)
Statement Not upheld Planning applications 18-Aug-2024
Summary: Mr J complains about issues relating to a planning application by his neighbour. He says the Council should have done more to consider his objections and investigated further. It also missed important issues of ownership in its investigation. Our decision is there was no fault by the Council, so we cannot question the merits of the Council’s decision.