Privacy settings

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.

Other


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Cumbria County Council (21 018 438)

    Statement Upheld Other 10-May-2022

    Summary: We uphold Mr X's complaint, as the Council delayed considering a complaint at stage two of the children's statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to complete its stage two without further delay.

  • East Riding of Yorkshire Council (22 000 987)

    Statement Upheld Other 05-May-2022

    Summary: The Council is at fault for delaying consideration of this complaint under the children's statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to complete its investigation at stage one of the procedure without further delay and to make a payment to the complainant for the time and trouble its delay has caused.

  • City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (21 007 192)

    Statement Upheld Other 04-May-2022

    Summary: We uphold Mr X's complaint, as the Council delayed considering a complaint at stage two of the children's statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to complete its stage two without further delay and make a payment for the delay so far.

  • London Borough of Sutton (21 018 463)

    Statement Upheld Other 02-May-2022

    Summary: The Council is at fault for not progressing this complaint to stage three of the children's statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now agreed to arrange a stage three panel.

  • London Borough of Ealing (21 016 388)

    Statement Upheld Other 28-Apr-2022

    Summary: The Council was at fault when it refused to escalate Mrs X's complaints to stage 2 of the statutory children's complaints procedures, after considering them at stage 1. It has agreed to start the stage 2 investigation without delay and make service improvements to prevent a reoccurrence of the faults identified.

  • London Borough of Newham (21 008 441)

    Statement Upheld Other 28-Apr-2022

    Summary: Ms X complains the chair of a child in need meeting bullied her and the Council has delayed in providing respite for her daughter. We cannot come to any view on whether the chair of the child in need meeting bullied Ms X. The Council is not at fault for the delays in securing respite provision for Ms X. But it is at fault for not considering Ms X's complaint through the children's services statutory complaints procedure

  • Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (21 009 551)

    Statement Upheld Other 26-Apr-2022

    Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not properly deal with her application for its holiday activities and food programme. She also complained the Council did not effectively deal with her complaint about this matter. Ms X says the Council's actions caused avoidable distress and led to the loss of opportunity for her children to take part in the activities. We found fault by the Council and the Council agreed to make a payment to recognise the injustice identified.

  • Leicestershire County Council (21 018 764)

    Statement Upheld Other 19-Apr-2022

    Summary: The Council is at fault for delaying consideration of this complaint under the children's statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to complete its investigation without further delay and to make a payment to the complainant for the time and trouble its delay has caused.

  • Bath and North East Somerset Council (20 010 005)

    Statement Upheld Other 19-Apr-2022

    Summary: Miss D and Mr E complained about the Council's statutory complaint investigation. They said the Council did not take their complaint seriously or deal with it professionally. Miss D and Mr E said this left them distressed and without a financial remedy. The Council was at fault for a short delay in stage two of its complaint investigation. We do not consider this caused Miss D and Mr E significant injustice.

  • London Borough of Merton (22 000 100)

    Statement Upheld Other 13-Apr-2022

    Summary: The Council was at fault when it failed to complete stage 2 of the statutory children's complaints procedures within the timescales agreed in a previous Ombudsman investigation. It has agreed to pay Mrs X £100 to reflect the injustice these further delays caused her.