Decision search
Your search has 56371 results
-
London Borough of Tower Hamlets (25 003 968)
Statement Upheld Homelessness 20-Mar-2026
Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council handled her reports of disrepair in her temporary accommodation. We have found the Council at fault for its poor communication and complaint handling, failure to escalate the enforcement action against the property management agency, and delay in accepting Miss X’s review request. This fault caused Miss X distress, uncertainty and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and complete the suitability review.
-
North Yorkshire Council (25 004 719)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 20-Mar-2026
Summary: The Council was at fault for the delay in completing Mr Y’s needs assessment and Ms X’s carers assessment. It was also at fault for poor communication. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X for the frustration and uncertainty this caused and offer to complete new assessments. There was no evidence of faut in the support it offered Ms X with Mr Y’s benefits.
-
Epping Forest District Council (25 006 004)
Statement Not upheld Other 20-Mar-2026
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to ensure a neighbour removed Japanese knotweed from the field behind her home and delayed dealing with this matter. Miss X said this caused her distress and uncertainty. The Council was not at fault.
-
Isle of Wight Council (25 007 315)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 20-Mar-2026
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not provide her child, Y, with all the provision set out in his Education, Health and Care Plan which included Speech and Language Therapy. Mrs X also complained about the Council’s delays with completing the annual review process of Y’s Plan. There were faults by the Council which caused injustice to Y and Mrs X. The Council has agreed to apologise and make payments to remedy the injustice caused. It will also finalise and publish its Personal Education Budgets Policy.
-
London Borough of Havering (25 008 566)
Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 20-Mar-2026
Summary: There was no fault by the Council, in this complaint about anti-social behaviour. This is because the complainant had not made a substantive report about anti-social behaviour before submitting a formal complaint.
-
Hampshire County Council (25 009 153)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 20-Mar-2026
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council restricted his access to his children at school. This is because he is taking his complaint to court.
-
Buckinghamshire Council (25 009 207)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 20-Mar-2026
Summary: The Council was at fault because of a delay in completing the education, health and care needs assessment process for the complainant’s son. This was an example of service failure, rather than maladministration, because it was caused by a shortage of available educational psychologists. The Council has agreed to offer the complainant a financial remedy to reflect her distress at the delay.
-
North Yorkshire Council (25 009 936)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 20-Mar-2026
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
-
Swindon Borough Council (25 009 954)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 20-Mar-2026
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to communicate with Mr X about his application to divert a Public Right of Way. The complaint is late and we have seen no good reason to investigate now. Also, we will not investigate his complaint about a failure in the Council’s complaint handling is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.
-
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (25 010 174)
Statement Not upheld Charging 20-Mar-2026
Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her relative, Mr Y. She complained the Council told her Mr Y would be entitled to a 12-week disregard when he became a care home resident. It later decided he was not entitled to the disregard because the care home was in a different area. Mrs X said this frustrated her and impacted Mr Y financially. We have discontinued our investigation because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.