Decision search
Your search has 50710 results
-
Kent County Council (24 003 150)
Statement Upheld Child protection 29-Oct-2024
Summary: Mr X complains about services provided by the Council’s children’s and adolescent services. The Council was at fault for failing to consider the complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to now consider Mr X’s concerns through the statutory procedure and will apologise to him for failing to do this originally.
-
Devon County Council (24 003 469)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 29-Oct-2024
Summary: Miss X complained the Council has not dealt properly with her adult social care. The Council is at fault because there was delay in completing a needs assessment review, finalising a care plan and personal budget, and implementing care. Miss X suffered uncertainty, distress, and missed care provision. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Miss X £850 for frustration, uncertainty and distress due to delays.
-
Manchester City Council (23 014 526)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 29-Oct-2024
Summary: Although the Council did as much as it could to find respite care to help Miss X look after her disabled son, it nonetheless failed to deliver the service – for which it was at fault. Miss X was without all the support she needed, which caused her an injustice. The Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment to her which recognises this. It has also taken steps to improve its service.
-
Devon County Council (24 007 573)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 29-Oct-2024
Summary: We upheld Mr X’s complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care process regarding his child, Y. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.
-
Birmingham City Council (24 007 982)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Council tax 29-Oct-2024
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about applications for council tax reduction and discretionary council tax support. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate.
-
Mr Simon Dickinson and Mrs Christine Dickinson (24 008 061)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 29-Oct-2024
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the care provider’s actions. This is because we are unable to carry out an effective investigation into the matters raised without the consent of the care home resident involved.
-
London Borough of Enfield (23 020 377)
Statement Upheld Homelessness 29-Oct-2024
Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s failure to provide suitable accommodation for her and her children when they were homeless. We found the Council at fault as they were placed in hotel accommodation for considerably longer than the law permits. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.
-
Birmingham City Council (23 020 552)
Statement Upheld Homelessness 29-Oct-2024
Summary: On the evidence we have seen, we find the Council failed to provide suitable accommodation when Mr C and his family were homeless. It housed them in bed and breakfast accommodation for over 32 weeks. The maximum time limit bed and breakfast accommodation can be used for homeless applicants with dependent children is six weeks. Mr C said the accommodation caused increased living expenses and distress. The Council has agreed to make a payment to remedy his family’s injustice.
-
Kent County Council (23 020 660)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 29-Oct-2024
Summary: The Council failed to put in place alternative educational provision for Mrs X’s son when he was unable to attend school because of anxiety. It also delayed in responding to Mrs X’s complaint. In recognition of the injustice caused by these failings, the Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs X.
-
Hertfordshire County Council (23 021 086)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 29-Oct-2024
Summary: We found fault with the Council in its failure to arrange alternative provision for the complainant’s son (Y), when reviewing his Education Health and Care Plan and when communicating with the complainant (Miss X). We also found fault in the way the Council dealt with Miss X’s complaint. The Council has accepted its fault and recognised the injustice it caused to Y and Miss X. The remedies offered by the Council were not enough. The Council agreed to apologise, to make symbolic payments and to send this decision to its Partnership and Assurance Board to review.