Decision search
Your search has 52300 results
-
Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (25 000 470)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Friends and family carers 15-May-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about payment of fostering allowances. This is because the complaint is late, and there is no good reason for the delay in complaining to us.
-
Birmingham City Council (25 001 009)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 15-May-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not supporting him because there is not enough evidence of fault or significant injustice.
-
Bristol City Council (25 001 808)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 15-May-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a data breach as the Information Commissioner's Office is best placed to assess the Council's response and compensation can be sought in court.
-
City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (24 014 454)
Statement Upheld School transport 15-May-2025
Summary: Mr X complained the Council refused to provide home to school transport for his child who has special educational needs and that it failed to follow the appeal process correctly. On the evidence considered the Council was at fault. It failed to properly consider Y’s circumstances, to hold a stage one review and to properly record and explain its decision making. This leaves doubt over the decision reached. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X for the frustration and uncertainty caused, review Mr X’s appeal, review its processes and arrange training for relevant school transport staff and panel members.
-
Derby City Council (23 009 736)
Report Upheld School transport 14-May-2025
Summary: Ms X, Ms Y and Ms Z complained about the Council’s offer of transport support for their children via a personal travel budget (PTB), rather than providing a vehicle, and about the handling of their subsequent transport appeals. They complained the Council’s decision to offer a PTB was impractical and unaffordable for their individual circumstances. Their children all have Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plans and are older than 16.
-
Derby City Council (23 013 529)
Report Upheld School transport 14-May-2025
Summary: Ms X, Ms Y and Ms Z complained about the Council’s offer of transport support for their children via a personal travel budget (PTB), rather than providing a vehicle, and about the handling of their subsequent transport appeals. They complained the Council’s decision to offer a PTB was impractical and unaffordable for their individual circumstances. Their children all have Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plans and are older than 16.
-
Derby City Council (23 008 547)
Report Upheld School transport 14-May-2025
Summary: Ms X, Ms Y and Ms Z complained about the Council’s offer of transport support for their children via a personal travel budget (PTB), rather than providing a vehicle, and about the handling of their subsequent transport appeals. They complained the Council’s decision to offer a PTB was impractical and unaffordable for their individual circumstances. Their children all have Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plans and are older than 16.
-
Lancashire County Council (24 009 227)
Statement Upheld Rights of way 14-May-2025
Summary: Mr X complained of the Council’s handling of a Definitive Map Modification Order which was submitted in 2018 regarding a pathway. He said the Council has failed to submit the order to the Planning Inspectorate for it to consider and therefore a decision has still not been made whether to add the pathway as a Public Right of Way to the Definitive Map. As a result, Mr X says the pathway is at risk of being restricted to users because a developer has submitted a planning application and intends to divert the pathway. The Council was at fault as it has not submitted the order to the Planning Inspectorate to date. However, there is no injustice to Mr X or other users as the developer could apply to divert the pathway regardless of whether it is recorded on the definitive map.
-
London Borough of Redbridge (24 009 734)
Statement Upheld School transport 14-May-2025
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to consider her son’s circumstances when refusing his application for school transport assistance. There is conflicting evidence about whether the Council followed its policy, the Council failed to follow Government guidance and failed to explain its reasoning when writing to Mrs X to tell her its decision. An agreement to carry out a further appeal, apology, payment to Mrs X, changes to the Council’s transport policy and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.
-
Essex County Council (24 012 120)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 14-May-2025
Summary: Dr X complains that the Council failed to ensure her child, Y, received the provision in his Education, Health and Care Plan. We found the Council at fault as the school delayed in putting in place some of the provision in section F of Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This made it harder for Y to settle into his school and disadvantaged him. The delay also caused distress to Dr X. The Council will remedy this injustice as recommended.