Decision search
Your search has 49843 results
-
East Suffolk Council (24 017 809)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 15-Jan-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint about the Council’s refusal of her planning applications. This is because it was reasonable for Miss B to put in an appeal to the Planning Inspector.
-
London Borough of Brent (24 016 451)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Leisure and culture 15-Jan-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council installed a shed on her allotment. This is because the complaint is late.
-
Lincolnshire County Council (24 016 517)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 15-Jan-2025
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about court proceedings in 2012 regarding the complainant’s child. This is because the matters have been considered in court and it is a late complaint.
-
Greater London Authority (23 015 958)
Statement Not upheld Private housing 15-Jan-2025
Summary: We have ended our investigation into Mr X’s complaint about the handling of his Warmer Homes application for grant works to improve his property as there is nothing more we could achieve by further investigation.
-
Staffordshire County Council (23 018 591)
Statement Not upheld Child protection 15-Jan-2025
Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s safeguarding actions in relation to her niece. She also complained about the Council’s decision not to investigate her complaint about alleged failings in the safeguarding action it took. We found the Council was not at fault for how it handled the safeguarding report it received and Miss X’s complaint.
-
Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (23 020 343)
Statement Upheld Alternative provision 15-Jan-2025
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide her child, Y, with a suitable full-time education when they could not attend school, delayed issuing Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan in line with statutory timescales and handled her complaint poorly. The Council was at fault when it delayed issuing Y’s EHC Plan, failed to properly consider the education Y received between mid-February 2023 and mid-June 2024 and delayed responding to Miss X’s complaint. The Council will apologise for the uncertainty this caused Miss X, make a symbolic payment to acknowledge the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused and provide service improvements.
-
Surrey County Council (24 000 853)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 15-Jan-2025
Summary: The Council significantly delayed issuing an amended Education, Health and Care Plan for Ms X’s child, Z, following their annual review. It also significantly delayed in consulting alternative schools for Z and its communication with Ms X was poor. In recognition of the injustice caused by the faults in this case, the Council has agreed to apologise and pay Ms X £1,000. It has also agreed to take action to improve its services.
-
Nottinghamshire County Council (24 000 894)
Statement Upheld Alternative provision 15-Jan-2025
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly consider its duty to provide alternative education provision for his child, Z, and failed to put in place school transport. The Council was not at fault in how it considered and later arranged alternative provision. However the Council did provide incorrect information to Mr Z through its complaint response which implied it had not properly considered its education duties to Z. The Council has agreed to apologise for the uncertainty this caused to Mr X and issue reminders to its complaints officers to prevent recurrence of the fault in future.
-
Durham County Council (24 001 522)
Statement Upheld Other 15-Jan-2025
Summary: Mr X complained he was incorrectly discharged from Section 117 aftercare. We found the Trust, the Council and the ICB did not follow the relevant guidance when discharging Mr X from Section 117 aftercare. This caused uncertainty to Mr X over whether he should have received additional mental health support in the period that followed, and whether this may have prevented his health from deteriorating. The Trust, Council and ICB agreed to provide a remedy to Mr X by reassessing his Section 117 needs, and making service improvements.
-
Tees, Esk & Wear Valley NHS Foundation Trust (24 001 522a)
Statement Upheld Mental health services 15-Jan-2025
Summary: Mr X complained he was incorrectly discharged from Section 117 aftercare. We found the Trust, the Council and the ICB did not follow the relevant guidance when discharging Mr X from Section 117 aftercare. This caused uncertainty to Mr X over whether he should have received additional mental health support in the period that followed, and whether this may have prevented his health from deteriorating. The Trust, Council and ICB agreed to provide a remedy to Mr X by reassessing his Section 117 needs, and making service improvements.