Decision search
Your search has 50317 results
-
London Borough of Hillingdon (24 015 278)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 23-Dec-2024
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about being issued a Fixed Penalty Notice for littering. This is because Mr X can raise a defence against the issuing of the notice in court.
-
Derbyshire County Council (24 016 093)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 23-Dec-2024
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the contents of an assessment. This is because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council and because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
-
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Special educational needs 21-Dec-2024
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s allocation of school places for children with Education Health and Care plans. This is because the complainant used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) against the place allocated for her son, and this places the complaint outside our jurisdiction.
-
Central Bedfordshire Council (24 012 357)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 21-Dec-2024
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in its management of a child protection matter in relation to the complainant’s daughter. This is because we would not seek to add anything to the investigation the Council has already carried out.
-
Birmingham City Council (24 001 501)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 20-Dec-2024
Summary: Mrs Y complains the Council failed to ensure her child, W, received a suitable education once they stopped attending primary school. We find there was some delay by the Council in finalising and issuing W’s EHC plan after the SEND Tribunal’s order. However, this delay did not cause a significant injustice because the plan named the school which W was already on roll at. We do not find the Council’s duty to provide alternative provision was triggered because the school said it was supporting W with her reintegration and the attendance records suggested that W was receiving provision off-site.
-
Staffordshire County Council (23 020 253)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 20-Dec-2024
Summary: Mrs B complains that, after a Tribunal consent order, the Council did not upload the new Education, Health and Care Plan to its Hub. This meant her daughter’s school was following the old plan so she missed 15 months of the increased provision. We uphold the complaint due to Mrs B’s daughter’s missed provision. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.
-
Kent County Council (23 020 562)
Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 20-Dec-2024
Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the quality of domiciliary care. There is not a good reason for the delay in the complainant bringing the matter to the Ombudsman.
-
Cambridgeshire County Council (23 020 569)
Statement Upheld Safeguarding 20-Dec-2024
Summary: Mr Y complains about the Council’s involvement with various aspects of his mother’s care and support following her discharge from hospital in 2023. Some of the complaints raised by Mr Y are on behalf of his mother, Mrs W. Mr Y does not have authority to represent a complaint on Mrs W’s behalf and we have not investigated them. Some of the other complaints relate to the actions of a health body and Mr Y can pursue those separately. Of the remaining complaints, there was some delay by the Council in discussing the residential care charges with Mr Y, but it has provided a remedy for this, and we do not recommend any further action.
-
Hampshire County Council (24 000 284)
Statement Not upheld Special educational needs 20-Dec-2024
Summary: Mrs D complained the Council failed to make suitable alternative provision for her child when they were not able to attend school, and inappropriately took steps to take formal action against them. We did not find the Council at fault.
-
North Yorkshire Council (24 003 409)
Statement Upheld Planning applications 20-Dec-2024
Summary: Mr X said there was extensive delay, which affected his development costs, in how the Council processed his planning application. We found there was fault in the Council’s pre application advice that caused Mr X frustration. The Council had already suitably put matters right by apologising to Mr X and offering to process, without payment of a fee, a new planning application for his proposed development.