Decision search
Your search has 51938 results
-
Cumberland Council (24 006 340)
Statement Not upheld Planning applications 11-Feb-2025
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of a planning application for development near his home. Mr X said the development was overbearing and reduced privacy to his home. We found no fault in how the Council reached its decision to grant planning permission for the application development.
-
London Borough of Newham (24 006 392)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 11-Feb-2025
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s actions in removing him and his siblings from their parents’ home, and the Council’s actions regarding his parents. The matters complained of are closely related to matters that have or could reasonably have been raised during court proceedings. Additionally, Mr X does not have parental responsibility for his siblings, and his parents could make their own complaint.
-
Suffolk County Council (24 006 959)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 11-Feb-2025
Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed completing her child, Y’s Education, Health and Care needs assessment, and decided not to seek Occupational Therapy and Speech and Language Therapy advice. There are parts of Miss X’s complaint that we have not investigated because she has the right of appeal to the Tribunal. We find the Council at fault for the delay. This impacted Y’s education and caused Miss X avoidable distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Miss X.
-
Buckinghamshire Council (24 007 591)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 11-Feb-2025
Summary: We upheld a complaint from Miss J finding the Council at fault for delays and poor communication leaving her son, Mr K, without care for several months. This loss of care provision had a harmful impact on Mr K, as well as causing distress to Miss J. While the Council had previously acknowledged some fault and offered a remedy to the complaint, we did not consider this went far enough to remedy both Miss J and Mr K’s injustice. So, the Council has now agreed to take further action, comprising an apology and symbolic payments for Mr K and Miss J, and a review of Mr K’s care and support plan. It has also agreed to make service improvements for others to help prevent a repeat of the fault.
-
London Borough of Redbridge (24 009 410)
Statement Upheld Other 11-Feb-2025
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council refused to assess her son’s needs as a disabled child. There was fault in how the Council failed to investigate Mrs X’s complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. This caused Mrs X avoidable frustration and inconvenience for which the Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X to recognise that distress. It also agreed to start an investigation under stage two of the statutory procedure.
-
City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (24 009 853)
Statement Not upheld Other 11-Feb-2025
Summary: We have discontinued the investigation into Mr X’s complaint about unnecessary enforcement action. Enforcement action was a result of the Council pursuing a school attendance issue in court. We could not add anything to the investigation already carried out by the Council, nor could we achieve the outcome Mr X wants.
-
Durham County Council (24 010 093)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Council tax 11-Feb-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax reduction because there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.
-
Surrey County Council (24 010 825)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 11-Feb-2025
Summary: The Council was at fault because it failed to secure educational and social care provision on Mr Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused a loss of provision. The Council agreed an appropriate financial remedy during its internal complaints procedure. The Council will apologise and complete the annual review.
-
Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 011 622)
Statement Upheld Charging 11-Feb-2025
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s delay in assessing Mr Y’s adult social care needs and a delay in arranging funding after Mr Y’s capital fell below the limit. This caused an injustice to Mr X who was put to avoidable time and trouble pursuing the Council and avoidable stress as the care home was pursuing him for outstanding costs in a period the Council should have been assisting financially. We asked the Council to remedy the injustice and it agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr X, and by sharing the learning with relevant staff.
-
Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (24 013 874)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 11-Feb-2025
Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s failure to respond to her safeguarding concerns about her late parent, Mr Y, who was living with another family member. We will not investigate. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The complaint has been made late so it is caught by the time bar on our jurisdiction. But even if we were to exercise discretion to investigate, it is unlikely we would be able to add anything more to the Council’s investigation.