Decision search


What's this ?
  • Organisation
  • Decision type

  • Reference number
  • Date range

     

  • Sort Results

Show advanced search

Your search has 51595 results

  • Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (24 008 242)

    Statement Upheld Looked after children 28-Apr-2025

    Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to fulfil its duties towards her as a Looked After Child. She said the Council failed to involve her in discussions about her care planning and whether it could continue to accommodate her. Ms X also said the Council’s decision that she was not entitled to a pathway plan, personal advisor, or ongoing support, was wrong. We have found the Investigating Officer’s stage two report failed to fully address identified injustice to Ms X. We have also found the Council at fault for inconsistencies in its adjudication response and for failing to show it properly considered whether it needed consent to support Ms X. The Council has agreed to pay a symbolic financial remedy to recognise Ms X’s lost opportunity to benefit from the support of personal advisors at a critical time. The Council has also agreed to review its decision on whether Ms X should have kept her status as an eligible and relevant child.

  • Staffordshire County Council (24 008 290)

    Statement Upheld Special educational needs 28-Apr-2025

    Summary: Mr D complained the Council caused delay in the Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan process, failed to provide his child (X) with an education, and how it handled his concerns. We found fault by the Council for causing unnecessary delays in the EHC plan process, to arrange educational provision for X, and provide Mr D a refund for agreed provision. The Council will apologise and make payment to Mr D to acknowledge the injustice this caused X and the family.

  • Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (24 008 722)

    Statement Not upheld Alternative provision 28-Apr-2025

    Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to arrange suitable education for her child and it is refusing to reimburse costs for the educational provision she arranged privately. The Council was not at fault for the length of time it took to arrange alternative provision and I am satisfied the Council considered all relevant information when deciding what and how much provision was suitable for her child. There is no fault and no injustice to Mrs X or to her child.

  • Central Bedfordshire Council (24 008 847)

    Statement Upheld Alternative provision 28-Apr-2025

    Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to refer her daughter to the complex needs team and failed to make section 19 provision. This has caused Ms X distress and her daughter to miss out on education. The Council is at fault for failing to make a decision on the section 19 duty and providing a written copy of this to Ms X. This has caused uncertainty. I have recommended a remedy.

  • London Borough of Newham (24 008 939)

    Statement Upheld Housing benefit and council tax benefit 28-Apr-2025

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council took too long to assess his housing benefit entitlement which resulted in large benefit overpayments. The Council was entitled to reassess Mr X’s entitlement based on new relevant evidence and Mr X had a right of appeal if he disagreed with the decision. But it failed to take action promised in response to Mr X’s complaint and that was fault and caused continued uncertainty. The Council should now discuss with Mr X how it will assess his future income.

  • Brighton & Hove City Council (24 009 151)

    Statement Upheld Homelessness 28-Apr-2025

    Summary: Miss B complained that the Council had failed to ensure disrepair in her temporary accommodation was rectified, find her suitable alternative accommodation or give her the correct priority on the housing register. We found fault in the Council’s actions which caused Miss B to live in unsuitable conditions for a year longer than she should have done. We have asked the Council to apologise to Miss B, pay her £1300, inspect her property now and improve its case recording for the future.

  • London Borough of Sutton (24 009 271)

    Statement Upheld Homelessness 28-Apr-2025

    Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her housing case when she told it she was at risk of becoming homeless due to rent increases. She said the Council failed to provide a decision letter and withdrew support despite her being in an unaffordable property. We find the Council at fault for failing to make a timely decision regarding the duties it owed Miss X which caused her injustice. The Council agreed to apologise, take corrective action and make a symbolic payment to acknowledge the injustice.

  • Sheffield City Council (24 010 548)

    Statement Upheld Charging 28-Apr-2025

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to provide clear information about charges for his late father’s care, did not properly investigate instances of overcharging and its response to his complaint was significantly delayed. We found there was fault in the information provided. We also found the investigation was not sufficient. We found the complaint response was late and insufficiently detailed. We recommended an apology, a further payment and actions to address the charging concerns Mr X raised.

  • Lancashire County Council (24 011 089)

    Statement Upheld Special educational needs 28-Apr-2025

    Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s actions in relation to her child, Y’s education. The Council was at fault. It failed to provide Y with education for five months after they were permanently excluded from school. It delayed completing an Education, Health and Care needs assessment and subsequently, delayed issuing a final amended Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council also poorly communicated with Mrs X. The Council has already apologised to Mrs X. The Council has agreed to make a further apology to Mrs X and a payment to recognise the education Y did not receive and for the distress and frustration the matter caused her.

  • Hart District Council (24 011 694)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 28-Apr-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning permissions granted more than 30 years ago. The complaint is made too late and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings