Decision search


What's this ?
  • Organisation
  • Decision type

  • Reference number
  • Date range

     

  • Sort Results

Show advanced search

Your search has 50054 results

  • Birmingham City Council (24 018 340)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 25-Feb-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

  • London Borough of Haringey (24 018 643)

    Statement Upheld Other 25-Feb-2025

    Summary: Mrs Z complained about the Council’s failure to communicate with Miss Y as a manager of the agency providing care to Mr X and to keep to its commitments. We found fault with the Council for its unsatisfactory communication with Miss Y and for its failing to keep to its commitments. The Council’s fault caused injustice to Miss Y. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss Y and to refund the money paid by the care agency towards Mr X’s expenses.

  • Coventry City Council (24 019 057)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Council tax 25-Feb-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax as legal action has been commenced against the Council by the complainant.

  • East Hertfordshire District Council (24 019 061)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Councillor conduct and standards 25-Feb-2025

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

  • Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council (24 019 211)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Refuse and recycling 25-Feb-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council’s waste collection service damaged her bin. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault, and Mrs X’s claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

  • Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (24 005 725)

    Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 25-Feb-2025

    Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s decision that Mr Y’s needs can be met in a shared supported living arrangement. The Council reviewed Mr Y’s care and support plan and provided funding and services to meet his needs while a long-term project is being built. And if the project falls through, the Council has told Mr Y’s family that it will commission a placement out of borough. This was in line with the duty to meet Mr Y’s eligible needs.

  • London Borough of Enfield (24 006 240)

    Statement Not upheld Council tax 25-Feb-2025

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly billed him for payment of council tax and passed his account to its enforcement agents although it knew he contested the bills. We found the Council was not at fault in its handling of Mr X’s council tax account.

  • East Sussex County Council (24 006 248)

    Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 25-Feb-2025

    Summary: Ms A complained the Council reduced the number of hours of care it pays for without explaining this to her. She says her needs had not changed so she does not understand the cut. The Council is not at fault, as it has made a decision it is entitled to make.

  • West Sussex County Council (24 006 289)

    Statement Not upheld School admissions 25-Feb-2025

    Summary: Miss Y complained about the way the Council dealt with her application, and appeal, for an infant school place for her child. She also complained children’s services should have advised her to amend the application to include the category of exceptional and compelling need. We have not found fault by the Council.

  • Southend-on-Sea City Council (24 006 348)

    Statement Upheld Parking and other penalties 25-Feb-2025

    Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his representations about five penalty charge notices (PCN’s) and the subsequent action the Council took to recover the debt. He complained the Council failed to take account of his personal circumstances and vulnerability when making its decisions. We found the Council and enforcement agents’ failure to properly explore Mr X’s claimed vulnerability before proceeding with enforcement was fault. This caused Mr X unnecessary distress. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, make a payment and take action to improve its service.

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