Decision search
Your search has 52233 results
-
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Refuse and recycling 14-Nov-2024
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about garden waste collections because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice.
-
Peak District National Park Authority (24 013 898)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 14-Nov-2024
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Authority dealt with the complainant’s planning application and its decision to take enforcement action. This is because the complainant has appealed to the Planning Inspector. The complainant has not suffered significant injustice in relation to the remaining issues complained about.
-
Gloucester City Council (24 014 221)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 14-Nov-2024
Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s contractor dumping grass cuttings in a local green space. This is because Mr B has not suffered a serious or significant injustice.
-
Manchester City Council (24 014 230)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Refuse and recycling 14-Nov-2024
Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that he cannot afford to pay a Fixed Penalty Notice issued by the Council. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
-
Sheffield City Council (24 005 186)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Disabled facilities grants 14-Nov-2024
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to agree the disabled facilities grant Mr X requested. While it carried out two assessments that were not adequate, its third assessment was not fault as it properly considered his child’s needs. As the third assessment did not result in a better offer, the lack of thoroughness in the previous two did not cause any injustice to Mr X.
-
Birmingham City Council (24 009 388)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 13-Nov-2024
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council processed a planning application. This is because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.
-
City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (23 019 207)
Statement Upheld Direct payments 13-Nov-2024
Summary: Mr X complained the Council and ICB failed to work together to provide him with a budget for support. We found no fault by the ICB or Council in how they worked together to provide Mr X with a budget for support. We found fault by the Council in its reference to older legislation in its Direct Payments contracts, which caused frustration to Mr X. The Council has taken action to update the contracts, and has agreed to send Mr X an updated version.
-
NHS West Yorkshire ICB - Bradford District and Craven (23 019 207a)
Statement Not upheld Other 13-Nov-2024
Summary: Mr X complained the Council and ICB failed to work together to provide him with a budget for support. We found no fault by the ICB or Council in how they worked together to provide Mr X with a budget for support. We found fault by the Council in its reference to older legislation in its Direct Payments contracts, which caused frustration to Mr X. The Council has taken action to update the contracts, and has agreed to send Mr X an updated version.
-
Bristol City Council (23 019 713)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 13-Nov-2024
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a delay by the Council investigating a noise complaint and taking action to address this. This is because the Council is proactively investigating whether the noise amounts to a nuisance. Though the Council accepts there was an initial delay in responding to the complainant’s noise complaint, there is insufficient evidence he has suffered a significant injustice to warrant investigation.
-
Transport for London (23 020 801)
Statement Upheld Licensing 13-Nov-2024
Summary: Mr X complained Transport for London (TfL) failed to renew his private hire drivers’ licence and delayed responding to his complaint. This has caused him distress, time and trouble. TfL correctly applied its policy and is not at fault for failing to renew Mr X’s licence. It is at fault for delay in responding to his complaint.