Decision search
Your search has 53601 results
-
Sheffield City Council (24 022 111)
Statement Upheld Building control 04-Sep-2025
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed issuing building control approval. There was delay as it took over seven months for the application to be approved. This delayed Mrs X’s building work and caused frustration. The Council will make a payment to recognise the distress caused.
-
Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (24 016 885)
Statement Upheld Direct payments 04-Sep-2025
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to end direct payments to his relative Mr Z. There was no fault in the way the Council reached its decision. There was fault in its communication with Mr Z and in its failure to ensure there was a proper coordinated handover of care. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr Z to acknowledge the uncertainty and distress this caused him. The Council also failed to properly explore Mr Z’s request for a day centre and Mr and Mrs X’s request for respite. It has agreed to apologise to Mr and Mrs X for the uncertainty caused, review Mr Z’s care needs assessment and carry out new carer’s assessments of Mr and Mrs X.
-
Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (24 017 790)
Statement Upheld Alternative provision 04-Sep-2025
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide education for her child who has been absent from school since January 2024. We found fault with the Council failing to ensure Y had access to suitable education for time periods totalling two terms and one week from 21 February 2024 to 21 March 2025. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £3,325 for Y’s missed education. The Council also agreed to remind staff about the importance of acting in line with government guidance over timescales for considering its Section 19 duty. And, the Council agreed to provide training to staff about how it should consider and carry out its Section 19 duty.
-
Derbyshire County Council (24 017 854)
Statement Upheld School transport 04-Sep-2025
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council wrongly refused to award transport for her son Mr Y who is over 19 and has an Education Health and Care Plan. She also said the Council had failed to carry out transport appeal properly, communicate with her and respond to her complaint. We found fault in the way the Council made its decision about transport for Mr Y and in the way it handled Mrs X’s appeal. This fault caused injustice to Mrs X as she was distressed and could not be satisfied her appeal was properly considered. The Council has agreed to apologise, re-take a decision on Mrs X’s new transport application and make a distress payment.
-
Cheshire East Council (24 017 993)
Statement Upheld Direct payments 04-Sep-2025
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council produced backdated billing for her sister’s care charges because it states she overpaid her carers. Mrs X also complained the Council started to charge client contributions towards her sister’s care. And, Mrs X complained about the handling of her complaint. We found fault with the Council applying top-up fees for Mrs X’s sisters care. We also found fault with the Council delaying in billing Mrs X’s sister for her client contributions. During our investigation, the Council accepted fault for charging top-up fees and agreed to remove these. The Council has also advised it is only backdating charges to 2021 rather than 2017 for the client contributions. I consider the Council’s actions suitably address the injustice caused through its fault. The Council has also agreed to apologise to Mrs X for the distress its actions caused and confirm in writing the remaining balance owed.
-
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (24 019 789)
Statement Not upheld Refuse and recycling 04-Sep-2025
Summary: Miss N complains about having received a fixed penalty notice for placing her rubbish out too early. We have ended our investigation as the Council has voided the notice.
-
Portsmouth City Council (24 007 732)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 04-Sep-2025
Summary: The Council was not at fault for its handling of Miss X’s request that her son receive alternative educational provision. It followed the correct process in considering the request, so we cannot question its decision. However, the Council was at fault for a delay in deciding Miss X’s son’s special educational needs support, and then for a further delay in delivering that support. This likely caused him an injustice, and caused Miss X distress in her own right, which the Council will now take steps to address.
-
Suffolk County Council (24 011 165)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 04-Sep-2025
Summary: Ms X complained that the Council failed to provide Speech and Language provision as outlined in her child’s education, health and care (EHC) Plan. The Council is at fault for failing to provide the provision and it failed to meet statutory timeframes in issuing a final EHC Plan following an annual review. This has caused a loss of provision and avoidable distress. The Council has offered a suitable remedy for the loss of provision and it has agreed to remedy the avoidable distress caused by the delay in finalising the EHC Plan. The Council has also agreed to make service improvements.
-
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 04-Sep-2025
Summary: Mr Y complains about the Council’s actions in relation to the care and support of his late mother, Mrs W. There was some delay in the Council’s assessment and support planning of Mrs W which caused Mr Y some distress. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment of £200 in recognition of the injustice caused by the fault. We do not find fault in other parts of Mr Y’s complaint.
-
Birmingham City Council (24 014 669)
Statement Upheld Council tax 04-Sep-2025
Summary: Mr C complained that the Council unreasonably tried to recover a council tax debt from him, 14 years after the debt arose and without any prior notification. We have not found fault with the decision to recover the debt, but we have found fault with the lack of information provided to Mr C about the debt before it sent a summons and when he disputed it. This resulted in two summons being sent without explanation for the debt, which caused Mr C distress. The Council also delayed in responding to Mr C’s stage one complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr C, pay him £250 and improve its procedures for the future.