Decision search
Your search has 57133 results
-
London Borough of Croydon (25 007 996)
Statement Upheld Allocations 21-Apr-2026
Summary: The Council delayed reviewing its decision to remove Ms X from its housing register and delayed accepting its homelessness duties to her. This caused Ms X uncertainty, distress and meant Ms X and her family lived in unsuitable accommodation for six months. The Council’s failure to offer interim accommodation also resulted in Ms X and her family facing a forced eviction and being street homeless for one night. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X.
-
Gloucestershire County Council (25 008 700)
Statement Upheld School admissions 21-Apr-2026
Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not conduct his child’s school admissions appeal correctly. We found fault because the appeals panel failed to adequately evidence its considerations of whether the school concerned could admit more children. This caused Mr X avoidable distress. To remedy the injustice caused by this fault, the Council has agreed to apologise and arrange a fresh appeal.
-
Statement Upheld Charging 21-Apr-2026
Summary: The Council is at fault in the way it carried out Mr X’s financial assessment and calculated his disability related expenditure (DRE). The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X’s representative, Mrs Y, and complete a review of Mr X’s care plan and a new financial assessment.
-
St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (25 009 611)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 21-Apr-2026
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to take enforcement action against a breach of planning control. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the report of a breach of planning control and in the way it approved a retrospective planning application.
-
Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (25 009 905)
Statement Upheld Homelessness 21-Apr-2026
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s delay in complying with its agreement to further review his homelessness application. We found fault by the Council which caused Mr X avoidable distress. The Council had since completed its further review and apologised to Mr X for its delay. The Council also agreed to make a symbolic payment to Mr X to suitably and proportionately address the injustice caused by its fault.
-
Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (25 011 306)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Disabled facilities grants 21-Apr-2026
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to install a bath in Miss B’s bathroom. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
-
South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (25 011 821)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Alternative provision 21-Apr-2026
Summary: We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint about her children’s education because we cannot investigate complaints about the school, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, and Ms M had a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal to request a different school for her children.
-
London Borough of Tower Hamlets (25 012 062)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 21-Apr-2026
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his housing applications. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.
-
Westminster City Council (25 012 430)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Homelessness 21-Apr-2026
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s investigation of noise complaints and the issue of an abatement notice to Miss X which she says was unjustified. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing any significant injustice which would warrant an investigation.
-
Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (25 012 446)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Homelessness 21-Apr-2026
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint against the Council’s handling of his homelessness case. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault it’s decision-making to justify our involvement. It was reasonable for Mr Y to use the appeals procedure to challenge this decision