Decision search


What's this ?
  • Organisation
  • Decision type

  • Reference number
  • Date range

     

  • Sort Results

Show advanced search

Your search has 52042 results

  • Royal Borough of Greenwich (24 010 673)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 28-Mar-2025

    Summary: Miss X complained about how a care home commissioned by the Council managed Ms Y’s care. We find the care home failed to keep complete records, causing uncertainty to Miss X. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to recognise the uncertainty caused and act to prevent recurrence.

  • Melton Borough Council (24 010 936)

    Statement Not upheld Planning applications 28-Mar-2025

    Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council had not considered the impact on residents when it approved an application for a phone mast. She says the mast is highly visible and has significantly impacted on her enjoyment of her garden. There was no fault by the Council in how it approved the mast.

  • London Borough of Haringey (24 011 598)

    Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 28-Mar-2025

    Summary: Mrs X’s representatives complain about the Council’s actions in seeking a suitable care provider for Mrs X. They say this meant Mrs X was without the care she needed for longer than necessary. We find no fault with the Council’s actions.

  • Somerset Council (24 011 836)

    Statement Upheld Special educational needs 28-Mar-2025

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to ensure her child (Y) received the specialist provision set out in their Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council failed to ensure Occupational Therapy (OT) and Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) provision was in place as outlined in Y’s EHC Plan for the 2023/2024 school year. This caused Mrs X distress, frustration and uncertainty and Y’s needs went unmet for longer than necessary. The Council should apologise and make a payment to recognise this.

  • Herefordshire Council (24 012 326)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 28-Mar-2025

    Summary: There is no fault in the way the Council conducted a safeguarding investigation into concerns raised about the safety and wellbeing of Mr Y in a residential care home.

  • Telford & Wrekin Council (24 012 629)

    Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 28-Mar-2025

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to reduce his late mother in law’s care package. There was no fault in the way the Council reached its decision to reduce Mrs Y’s care package.

  • Hertfordshire County Council (24 015 898)

    Statement Upheld Special educational needs 28-Mar-2025

    Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed carrying out an Education Health and Care needs assessment for a child. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by offering to make a suitable payment to the complainant to remedy the injustice this caused.

  • Cornwall Council (24 015 940)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 28-Mar-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council did not complete her mother’s financial assessment correctly. She says the Council did not consider information she provided and inappropriately included her late father’s estate. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

  • Luton Borough Council (23 016 706)

    Statement Upheld Homelessness 28-Mar-2025

    Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to act when she was issued with an eviction notice from her privately rented accommodation. She also complained about the Council’s actions following her eviction. We found fault by the Council in its handling of Ms X’s case. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and make her payment in recognition of the financial losses she incurred, and the distress caused to her and her children.

  • London Borough of Brent (24 017 756)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 27-Mar-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s communication. That is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. We will also not investigate his complaint about the Council’s decision to end the main housing duty. It is reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the county court if he disagrees with this decision.

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