Decision search
Your search has 56369 results
-
Hampshire County Council (25 022 896)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 05-Mar-2026
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council handled requests for information. The Information Commissioner is better placed to consider and decide complaints about data protection.
-
London Borough of Harrow (25 025 884)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 05-Mar-2026
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with his information request. The Information Commissioner’s Office is best placed to consider this issue.
-
London Borough of Southwark (25 026 614)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Parking and other penalties 05-Mar-2026
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal to London Tribunals.
-
Witham Fourth District Drainage Board (25 004 209)
Statement Not upheld Drainage 05-Mar-2026
Summary: Ms X complained the Authority wrongly required her to get consent for works on her land, imposed unreasonable conditions on that consent, failed to explain its decisions, wrongly charged her an application fee, failed to apply the byelaws properly and failed to respond to her complaint properly. I have found no evidence of fault.
-
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 04-Mar-2026
Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in completing her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan because Mrs X took legal action against the Council. We have investigated Mrs X’s complaint about the alternative education provided while her child had no school place. We find some fault in that the Council failed to consider properly the suitability of the alternative provision. The Council has agreed the recommended ways to remedy the injustice. Accordingly, we are closing the complaint.
-
Leicestershire County Council (25 001 811)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 04-Mar-2026
Summary: There was a delay by the Council in reviewing H’s assessment after Mrs X complained, which caused her frustration and anxiety. In addition, the Council has not considered properly H’s additional expenses incurred because of his disabilities, with the result that he is unable to finance some items. The Council agrees to review his personal expenses allowance.
-
London Borough of Hounslow (25 002 602)
Statement Upheld Allocations 04-Mar-2026
Summary: The complaint is about the lack of communication from the Council about a decision on a housing register application. And that, because the Council’s Housing Allocations Policy gives preference to working households, it makes it discriminatory: against women who are pregnant or on maternity leave. Our decision is the Council was at fault in its communications. It has proposed a remedy, which is suitable. We do not uphold the complaint about discrimination. The Council has shown it considered the issue. Its view is it has measures to alleviate any indirect discrimination. Only the courts can decide if any discrimination is a proportionate means of the Council achieving the aim of its Policy.
-
East Sussex County Council (25 002 784)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 04-Mar-2026
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure with annual reviews for his grandchild’s Education, Health and Care Plan and not updating it with specialist provision they needed. We found the Council at fault. This has caused significant injustice to Mr X’s grandchild as they missed out on specialist provision they were entitled to. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused.
-
Stoke-on-Trent City Council (25 003 990)
Statement Not upheld Council tax 04-Mar-2026
Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council dealt with collecting Mr X’s council tax. The Council was entitled to take enforcement action and use bailiffs when Mr X did not pay council tax.
-
Surrey County Council (25 004 941)
Statement Not upheld Charging 04-Mar-2026
Summary: There is no fault in the Council’s financial assessment for Ms Y’s care charge. The Council considered evidence from Mrs X including a lodger’s agreement and explained it was not satisfied Ms Y was liable for rent or that she paid housing costs. It has included revised disability related expenditure allowances in line with guidance. So we do not uphold the complaint.