Decision search
Your search has 53873 results
-
Leicester City Council (24 005 362)
Statement Not upheld Street furniture and lighting 05-Mar-2025
Summary: Mrs X complained about a decision to close bus stops in the city centre and move bus services to start and terminate at a bus station. She said the changes are discriminatory and caused her hardship. The Council was not the decision maker on bus route changes. It was therefore not at fault for any impact the changes may have had on Mrs X or other bus users.
-
London Borough of Lewisham (24 005 577)
Statement Upheld Other 05-Mar-2025
Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s decision to stop her Housing Benefit and failure to notify her of this. Miss X said this left her with a debt of rent arrears. We find the Council at fault for not properly notifying Miss X of its decision. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and make a payment to recognise the injustice caused.
-
Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (24 005 766)
Statement Not upheld Planning applications 05-Mar-2025
Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council decided to approve a planning application for a temporary installation near to his home. Mr X said this has caused increased traffic and illegal parking in the area. We do not find the Council at fault.
-
Arun District Council (24 006 595)
Statement Not upheld Planning applications 05-Mar-2025
Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council dealt with a non-material amendment application for a residential development near her home. She said the application should have been referred to planning committee for determination. The Council was not at fault.
-
Sheffield City Council (24 007 094)
Statement Upheld Other 05-Mar-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint the Council incorrectly advised her child’s school how to record their absence. The Council has fully upheld the complaint, apologised and made service improvements. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
-
Central Bedfordshire Council (24 007 286)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 05-Mar-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. This is because the complainant has appealed to the Planning Inspector.
-
Cambridgeshire County Council (24 007 461)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 05-Mar-2025
Summary: Ms X complained the Council has not provided an Educational Psychologist report for her child, which has caused delay receiving the Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council delayed issuing both. This is fault causing injustice. The Council agreed a financial remedy of £1,200.
-
London Borough of Islington (24 007 599)
Statement Upheld Planning applications 05-Mar-2025
Summary: We found no fault on Mr Y’s complaint about the Council failing to tell him of a neighbour’s planning application. Nor was there fault on his complaint about it failing to consider the impact of the proposal on his amenities. There was fault in it failing to identify discrepancies in the applicant’s submissions. This did not cause an injustice as the application was properly considered in terms of impact.
-
Essex County Council (24 007 741)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 05-Mar-2025
Summary: Mrs X complained about non-delivery of all special educational provision included in her son’s (Y) Education, Health and Care Plan. She also said the Council had sent her a misleading letter and had failed to communicate with her. We found fault, which caused injustice to Y and Mrs X. The Council agreed to apologise, make symbolic payments to recognise Y’s loss of provision and Mrs X’s distress and liaise with Mrs X to ensure Y has proper equipment and all the support included in his plan.
-
Arun District Council (24 008 598)
Statement Not upheld Planning applications 05-Mar-2025
Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about how the Council dealt with a non-material amendment application for a residential development near their home. They said the application should have been referred to planning committee for determination and there should have been public consultation. The Council was not at fault.