Decision search
Your search has 53601 results
-
Greater Manchester Combined Authority (25 007 684)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Public transport 11-Aug-2025
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a tram penalty fare because the fine was issued by an Authority that does not provide an administrative function on behalf of the Combined Authority.
-
Lincolnshire County Council (25 008 074)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 11-Aug-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council shared personal information without her consent. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider the matter.
-
Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (25 008 210)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Parking and other penalties 11-Aug-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a bus lane penalty as the complainant had the right to appeal it to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.
-
Swale Borough Council (25 008 290)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Homelessness 11-Aug-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council handled her homelessness and housing applications. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
-
East Riding of Yorkshire Council (25 008 595)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Parking and other penalties 11-Aug-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a parking penalty charge notice as Mr X could have appealed it to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.
-
Bath and North East Somerset Council (25 008 919)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Council tax 11-Aug-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax exemption and backdating as these matters can be appealed to a Valuation Tribunal and there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
-
London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (23 005 121)
Statement Upheld Allocations 11-Aug-2025
Summary: There was fault by the Council when it failed to ensure Mr X’s flat was suitable before he moved there, to explain to him how it would deal with his reports of antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance, to consider properly his homeless application or his requests for interim accommodation, and when it took too long to arrange an occupational therapist’s assessment. The Council also did not handle Mr X’s complaints to it properly or have proper regard for his reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act. This caused Mr X distress, inconvenience, and frustration. The Council should make a symbolic payment to Mr X and take specific steps to improve its services.
-
London Borough of Tower Hamlets (24 014 592)
Statement Upheld Homelessness 10-Aug-2025
Summary: The Council was at fault in its handling of Miss X’s homelessness. It took too long to provide interim accommodation, provided unsuitable accommodation and delayed accepting duties. There was no fault in the Council’s application of its housing allocations policy to Ms X’s case. To remedy the injustice the Council has agreed to apologise, make payments and act to improve its service.
-
Statement Upheld Building control 10-Aug-2025
Summary: Mr X complained the Council has not taken planning enforcement action to control a development near his home that does not have planning permission. He said the Council delayed its investigation until four years elapsed since the build, then said the work was immune from enforcement. Mr X said his home is overlooked because of the Council inaction and this impacted his mental health. There was fault because the Council lost control of unlawful development at this site, delayed considering Mr X’s concerns and its communication was poor. This frustrated and distressed Mr X. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment, complete a review of its enforcement service and share this decision with the relevant scrutiny committee.
-
Milton Keynes Council (24 015 821)
Statement Upheld Disabled children 10-Aug-2025
Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council delayed arranging education for her son after his school placement ended, and wrongly took recovery action against her when some of the money for her son’s care went missing. We cannot comment on Mrs X’s liability for the missing money, as this may well be dealt with in court. But we have found that the Council was otherwise at fault. It delayed arranging education for Mrs X’s son and caused delays in its recovery of the missing money. It has now agreed to take action to remedy the injustice caused to Mrs X and her son.