Decision search
Your search has 53229 results
-
Transport for London (25 003 904)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Licensing 28-Jul-2025
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a private hire license application because Mr Y has already started court action about the matter.
-
Salford City Council (25 004 059)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 28-Jul-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s use of a contact centre. The matter complained of is closely linked to decisions about contact and residence of a child that were subject to court action.
-
City of Doncaster Council (25 004 579)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Antisocial behaviour 28-Jul-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to take enforcement action to remove an insect nest. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.
-
Norwich City Council (25 004 815)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 28-Jul-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not taking enforcement action following his reports of noise from the commercial premises below his flat. The Council did not identify a statutory nuisance and there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s investigation and decision-making processes to warrant us investigating.
-
Essex County Council (25 004 821)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Highway repair and maintenance 28-Jul-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway repair and maintenance because the courts are better placed to consider the complaint.
-
London Borough of Wandsworth (25 008 450)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 27-Jul-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council not allowing the public to comment on online news articles. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
-
Bedford Borough Council (24 013 793)
Statement Upheld Charging 27-Jul-2025
Summary: Mr X complained the Council has failed to properly complete his financial assessments or correctly consider his disability related expenses, which has resulted in unaffordable care charges and a substantial debt. We found the Council at fault for not identifying and assisting Mr X in managing his escalating debt, and for the delays in the complaint process. These faults have caused Mr X distress and frustration. The Council will apologise, make a payment and take action to improve communication between the finance team and adult social care team, and produce guidance for staff about managing debt for vulnerable adults.
-
Northumberland County Council (24 012 647)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 27-Jul-2025
Summary: Miss B says the Council delayed issuing an education, health and care plan, failed to carry out an occupational therapy assessment, delayed responding to her request for mediation and delayed responding to her complaint. The Council delayed issuing a final EHC Plan, failed to ensure a referral for an occupational therapy assessment was made and delayed responding to her complaint. That meant Miss B’s son missed out on special educational needs provision and Miss B experienced distress and uncertainty. An apology and payment to Miss B, along with a reminder to officers, is satisfactory remedy.
-
South Gloucestershire Council (24 013 396)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 27-Jul-2025
Summary: Mr Y complained the Council failed to provide Ms X with appropriate support to manage her finances. The Council commissioned care provider, which supported Ms X to manage her finances, failed to ensure the situation was appropriately resolved and the Council allowed the situation to drift. This was fault. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X to acknowledge the distress and frustration this caused. It has also agreed to meet with her to arrange a suitable repayment plan.
-
London Borough of Tower Hamlets (24 014 125)
Statement Upheld Transport 27-Jul-2025
Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to properly consider the problems that arose in his assessment when he appealed its decision to refuse him a blue badge. We find fault with the Council’s response to his appeal and have agreed another assessment considering Mr X’s reasonable adjustments.