Decision search


What's this ?
  • Organisation
  • Decision type

  • Reference number
  • Date range

     

  • Sort Results

Show advanced search

Your search has 53601 results

  • Cambridgeshire County Council (24 018 250)

    Statement Upheld Alternative provision 07-Sep-2025

    Summary: We found fault by the Council on Miss Y’s complaint about it failing to ensure her daughter received provision set out in her Education, Health and Care plan when on a reduced timetable. It failed to consider whether it needed to provide suitable alternative education and did not meet the statutory timescales following her annual review. The Council agreed to send Miss Y an apology, pay £3,000 for the distress caused, remind officers about the triggering of the section 19 duty for children out of school with a plan, and ensure processes are in place to monitor and review children with plans on part-time timetables. It will review why delays happened, produce an action plan showing how it will meet statutory timescales, and remind officers of the need to communicate with parents whose children are in similar situations.

  • Basildon Borough Council (24 018 358)

    Statement Not upheld Homelessness 07-Sep-2025

    Summary: Mr Z complains on behalf of Miss X that the Council placed her in Bed and Breakfast accommodation with her small children for longer than the law allows. Mr Z said the area the Council placed Miss X was unsuitable due to the crime rate. Mr Z has also complained about the way the Council has investigated his complaint. Mr Z says Miss X has been caused distress and has been placed in accommodation which was not suitable. We find no fault in the actions of the Council.

  • Kent County Council (24 019 201)

    Statement Upheld Special educational needs 07-Sep-2025

    Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council delayed in completing an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for her daughter, D. She also complained about the complaint-handling and the lack of education for D during this period. We found the Council delayed in completing the process and issuing a final EHC Plan, but we considered that the Council’s offer of £450 is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused to Mrs B.

  • Surrey County Council (24 019 820)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Alternative provision 07-Sep-2025

    Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions regarding the provision of suitable alternative educational provision to child Y. This is because Mrs X appealed the content of Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan to the First-tier Tribunal and the law does not allow us to investigate any matter that was connected to the appeal.

  • Royal Borough of Greenwich (24 002 456)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 07-Sep-2025

    Summary: Mr and Mrs B say the Council delayed awarding them medical priority on the housing register, gave them incorrect information about their priority date and the properties they could bid on, failed to consider whether they had exceptional circumstances and delayed considering their complaint. The Council delayed awarding medical priority and in backdating Mr and Mrs B’s priority on the housing register, gave Mr and Mrs B conflicting information about the status of their application and delayed considering their complaint. That caused Mr and Mrs B uncertainty, frustration and distress. An apology, payment to Mr and Mrs B, referral to the case review panel, a review of the Council’s complaints policy and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

  • Waverley Borough Council (24 007 894)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 07-Sep-2025

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to pursue enforcement action over a planning condition requiring a former local pub to be refurbished. He also complained the Council refused a local community group’s request to buy the pub using a compulsory purchase order, and the Council’s listing of the pub as an asset of community value failed to include all its garden. We found there was some fault in the Council’s first consideration of the request to use its compulsory purchase powers. However, this did not result in significant remaining injustice. The remainder of Mr X’s complaint is late, and we did not investigate it.

  • Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (24 008 198)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 07-Sep-2025

    Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council has supported her care and support needs since March 2024. We find no fault in the care agencies arranged by the Council or in the timeliness of the information provided to Miss X. However, we do find fault in the delay in completing her care and support assessment. This delay caused Miss X avoidable distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and complete the outstanding assessment.

  • Surrey County Council (24 015 675)

    Statement Not upheld Special educational needs 07-Sep-2025

    Summary: Ms J complains about delays in the Council’s Education, Health and Care needs assessment for her son. And that, after an appeal, the Council refused to refund fees they paid for her son’s education. We do not find fault as the Council carried out its assessment within statutory timeframes. The question of fees is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, as Ms J has used her appeal right.

  • North Yorkshire Council (24 015 891)

    Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 07-Sep-2025

    Summary: Miss Y complains the Council failed to properly consider the concerns she raised about the care and support her late mother received and the suitability of the care home placements commissioned by the Council. We find the Council consulted Miss Y and listened to her concerns. However, the Council did not relay the outcome of one safeguarding concern. It has already made a service improvement for this and we do not recommend anything further.

  • Wokingham Borough Council (24 016 095)

    Statement Upheld Enforcement 07-Sep-2025

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not take effective action with complaints he made with alleged planning breaches against the business he lives above. We did not find fault with the Council’s general actions and decision there was no planning breach. We found fault with it failing to properly evidence its consideration of Mr X’s reports about anti-social behaviour, causing him frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and take action to prevent future recurrence.

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