Decision search
Your search has 52726 results
-
London Borough of Hillingdon (24 017 357)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 20-Feb-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s priority on the housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
-
Norfolk County Council (24 018 410)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Elections and electoral register 20-Feb-2025
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a delay in elections as the complainant is not caused any significant injustice from his complaint as this matter impacts all or most of the people in the Council’s area.
-
Luton Borough Council (24 018 494)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Homelessness 20-Feb-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to place him in a priority need on his homelessness application. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal the Council’s decision to the county court.
-
City of Wolverhampton Council (24 019 150)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Licensing 20-Feb-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainant’s application for a taxi driver licence. This is because he can appeal to the magistrates’ court.
-
Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (24 019 639)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 20-Feb-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a former employee of a Council-commissioned service. Complaints about their actions while employed by the Service are late and there is not a good reason for Mr X’s delay in bringing them to us. Events after the person left employment by the Service are not an administrative function of the Council, and we have no power to investigate them. In any event, we could not say any fault by the Service caused the injustice Mr X alleges.
-
Westminster City Council (24 019 640)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 20-Feb-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a former employee of a Council-commissioned service. Complaints about their actions while employed by the Service are late and there is not a good reason for Mr X’s delay in bringing them to us. Events after the person left employment by the Service are not an administrative function of the Council, and we have no power to investigate them. In any event, we could not say any fault by the Service caused the injustice Mr X alleges.
-
Buckinghamshire Council (24 001 013)
Statement Not upheld Other 19-Feb-2025
Summary: We found no fault on the complaint of Mr S and Ms T about the Council failing to follow procedures after receiving reports about a mobile home park. I am satisfied the Council acted on the reports of breaches of planning consent, for example, and investigated and considered the evidence before making its decisions on them.
-
Sunderland City Council (24 002 134)
Statement Upheld Child protection 19-Feb-2025
Summary: Mr C complained about the Council’s involvement in a child protection investigation for his child and how it handled the children’s statutory complaint process. We found no evidence the Council’s investigation was so procedurally flawed that the conclusions it reached should be questioned. We therefore found no evidence of fault by the Council. It did cause a short delay in the statutory complaints process, but this did not cause Mr C a significant injustice.
-
City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (24 003 980)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 19-Feb-2025
Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council dealt with her son, Y’s education. The Council was at fault for failing to follow the annual review process, failing to keep proper records, issuing the final amended EHC plan before the draft amended EHC plan and failing to provide section F provision and transition support. This caused distress, frustration and uncertainty to Mrs X and Y. The Council will apologise and make a payment to recognise the personal injustice caused.
-
Worcestershire County Council (24 005 022)
Statement Upheld Alternative provision 19-Feb-2025
Summary: There was fault by the Council. There was a months delay in finalising an EHC Plan, which the Council has apologised for, to remedy the injustice of distress to the family. The Council also failed to quickly respond to a request to increase the time in education for a child on a part-time timetable. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the distress and injustice from the loss of full-time education.