Decision search
Your search has 56369 results
-
Surrey County Council (25 019 422)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 17-Dec-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s disclosure of Mr X’s personal data or its failure to include him in an important meeting. This is because complaints about personal data are best dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office and the remaining issues are inextricably linked to ongoing proceedings taking place in court.
-
Stoke-on-Trent City Council (25 020 122)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 17-Dec-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about inaccurate information in a child and family assessment and the Council’s handling of her complaint about the matter. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider the substantive matter and it is not a good use of our resources to investigate complaints handling on its own.
-
London Borough of Croydon (25 020 644)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 17-Dec-2025
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr B’s complaint about a boundary matter relating to the adjoining Council-owned property. This is because we cannot investigate complaints about the management of social housing by a council acting as a social landlord.
-
Sunderland City Council (25 010 271)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 17-Dec-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care charges. There is not enough evidence of fault or injustice. The Council has given a thorough response which it is unlikely we would add to.
-
Cheshire East Council (24 019 064)
Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 16-Dec-2025
Summary: Ms X complains the Council’s Adult Social Care services failed in its duty of care despite a safeguarding concern and adult needs assessment to help her in a dispute with her housing provider. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters. So, we have completed our investigation.
-
Statement Upheld Alternative provision 16-Dec-2025
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide suitable education for her child from January 2024 to January 2025. She says that her child has special educational needs and has lost out on education because of this issue. We found the Council at fault. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused.
-
Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (24 020 734)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 16-Dec-2025
Summary: There was fault by the Council. It did not act soon enough to resolve Mrs X’s risk of social isolation when she had to live in part of a care home without other residents. Her son, Mr Y has acted on her behalf and this caused him distress. The Council is now regularly reviewing Mrs X’s care needs, and has increased her opportunities to socialise. The Council should also apologise to Mr Y for its lack of more urgent action.
-
West Sussex County Council (24 021 057)
Statement Not upheld Child protection 16-Dec-2025
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to assign a safeguarding case to a Local Authority Designated Officer he considered was not impartial or objective. Mr X also complained about actions the Local Authority Designated Officer took as part of the safeguarding investigation. The Council was not at fault in appointing the same Local Authority Designated Officer Mr X previously complained about. And there was no fault in the way the Local Authority Designated Officer oversaw the allegations management process.
-
Hampshire County Council (24 021 857)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 16-Dec-2025
Summary: There was fault by the Council because it unnecessarily delayed making arrangements for alternative provision for a child not attending school. This caused frustration, for which the Council has agreed to offer a financial remedy.
-
Huntingdonshire District Council (24 022 840)
Statement Not upheld Trees 16-Dec-2025
Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council made and confirmed a new Tree Preservation Order. We cannot investigate Mr X’s other complaints about the Council’s handling of his applications for work to trees under the Tree Preservation Order and its decision. Mr X appealed a decision to the Planning Inspectorate which is the appropriate body to look at the Council’s decisions and the decision-making process.