Decision search
Your search has 52298 results
-
Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (24 021 503)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 20-May-2025
Summary: We cannot investigate X’s complaint about the Council’s actions related to their child’s school attendance. The Council has started court action about the matter. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or matters that can be raised as part of court proceedings.
-
Braintree District Council (24 021 841)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 20-May-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement matter. This is because it is unlikely we could achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mrs X. The Council accepts it made an error in closing the initial report in 2023 but has decided the breach complained about does not warrant enforcement action and I have not seen any evidence of fault in the way it reached its decision.
-
Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (24 021 903)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Councillor conduct and standards 20-May-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about standards committees because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
-
London Borough of Hounslow (24 022 005)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 20-May-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a child safeguarding referral made by a body delivering services on behalf of the Council. The referral related to disputed versions of what Miss X was alleged to have said in a meeting with the body that made the referral. An investigation by us would be unlikely to reach any clear view.
-
Westmorland and Furness Council (24 022 035)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 20-May-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council not removing a vehicle parked near her property and delay in it dealing with her complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. There is insufficient significant injustice to Mrs X to justify us investigating. We do not investigate council complaint handling where we are not investigating the matters giving rise to the complaint.
-
Leicester City Council (24 022 106)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Council tax 20-May-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax premiums because there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.
-
South Gloucestershire Council (24 022 154)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Councillor conduct and standards 20-May-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an officer’s failure to declare a conflict of interest. We cannot investigate personnel issues and it is unlikely an investigation would achieve a worthwhile outcome.
-
London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (24 022 231)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Special educational needs 20-May-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about an Education Health and Care Plan annual review. It is reasonable to expect her to appeal the outcome. And the faults she alleges are not significant enough or cause a significant enough injustice to warrant an investigation.
-
North Yorkshire Council (24 022 365)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 20-May-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council racially discriminated against Mrs X. We cannot determine whether the Council has breached the Equality Act 2010 or determine whether the Council is liable for her financial losses. These are matters for the courts.
-
Nottingham City Council (23 002 442)
Statement Upheld Planning applications 20-May-2025
Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his client, a manufacturing business. Mr X said the Council gave planning consent for a housing development next to his client’s factory without adequately considering how to prevent noise from the factory causing a statutory nuisance to the occupiers of the new housing. We found the Council at fault for how it approved a planning condition designed to protect occupiers of the new houses from the noise of the factory. But we could not say this failing would have resulted in a different outcome for Mr X’s client. However, the fault still caused uncertainty which we consider a form of distress. The Council has accepted these findings and agreed to apologise to Mr X’s client and improve its service to prevent a repeat.