Decision search


What's this ?
  • Organisation
  • Decision type

  • Reference number
  • Date range

     

  • Sort Results

Show advanced search

Your search has 56371 results

  • Cornwall Council (25 004 445)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 13-Mar-2026

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with breaches of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

  • Essex County Council (25 006 242)

    Statement Upheld Alternative provision 13-Mar-2026

    Summary: There was fault by the Council. There was significant delay sending a final Education, Health and Care Plan after an annual review. A child, Y, received no educational provision after she was removed from the school roll. An apology, symbolic payment and review of procedures remedies the injustice to the family.

  • North Yorkshire Council (25 006 644)

    Statement Upheld Council tax 13-Mar-2026

    Summary: We did not find fault with the Council for passing the debt to an enforcement agent. We also did not find fault with the enforcement agent acting on the Council’s behalf during the debt collection visit. We did find fault with the Council providing misleading information to Mr X in March 2025, but this did not cause a significant personal injustice to Mr X.

  • London Borough of Bromley (25 007 231)

    Statement Upheld Homelessness 13-Mar-2026

    Summary: Mr X complained how the Council handled his homeless applications. He also complained the Council repeatedly closed his applications to join the housing register. We find the Council was at fault for its delays in dealing with Mr X’s homeless application. This caused Mr X frustration and upset. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mr X and backdate his effective date on the housing register.

  • Cheshire West & Chester Council (25 007 354)

    Statement Upheld Alternative provision 13-Mar-2026

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not provide her child, Y with appropriate alternative education when they became unable to attend school. The Council was at fault for a delay in responding to Mrs X’s initial request for alternative provision. However, it has already offered a suitable remedy for any injustice this caused. I have made a service improvement to prevent recurrence of the fault. There was no fault in the Council’s decision not to provide Y with alternative provision.

  • London Borough of Lewisham (25 009 235)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 13-Mar-2026

    Summary: Miss X complained the Council misapplied its allocation policy and refused her housing application. We find the Council at fault for failing to correctly assess Miss X’s banding. This caused Miss X distress and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Miss X to remedy the injustice caused.

  • Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (25 012 535)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 13-Mar-2026

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a dispute with the Council over care costs. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

  • Warwick District Council (25 012 759)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Antisocial behaviour 13-Mar-2026

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to take enforcement action to remove posters. This is because we could not add to the previous investigation carried out by the Council.

  • Coventry City Council (25 014 692)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Transport 13-Mar-2026

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s consideration of his blue badge application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

  • Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (25 014 843)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Homelessness 13-Mar-2026

    Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the suitability of accommodation the Council offered her. Miss X had a right of appeal to the County Court and it would have been reasonable for her to use that right.

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