Decision search


What's this ?
  • Organisation
  • Decision type

  • Reference number
  • Date range

     

  • Sort Results

Show advanced search

Your search has 51456 results

  • London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (24 008 085)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries School admissions 04-Sep-2024

    Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s School Admissions Appeal Panel’s handling of her appeal against the refusal to offer her child a place at her preferred school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant further investigation.

  • Broxtowe Borough Council (24 008 317)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 04-Sep-2024

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with breaches of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

  • Surrey County Council (24 008 413)

    Statement Upheld Disabled children 04-Sep-2024

    Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council failed to consider a complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint by issuing a response without further delay. It will also apologise and offer to make a payment to the complainant to remedy the time and trouble they have been too.

  • Melton Borough Council (24 008 859)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Housing benefit and council tax benefit 04-Sep-2024

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s retrospective claim for housing benefit made without the complainant’s knowledge and delay in responding to the complaint. We do not consider Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice because of the Council’s actions. And we consider an apology for the delay in responding to the complainant is a suitable remedy to this part of the complaint.

  • Kent County Council (24 008 906)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Domiciliary care 04-Sep-2024

    Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to investigate her complaints alleging poor care provision towards her late friend, Mr Y. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s responses to Ms X.

  • East Sussex County Council (24 009 360)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Highway repair and maintenance 04-Sep-2024

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that his car was damaged by a road defect which the Council had failed to repair. This is because it is reasonable for Mr B to pursue his compensation claim at court. An investigation solely into the Council’s handling of Mr B’s claim is not justified.

  • Shropshire Council (24 009 421)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Highway repair and maintenance 04-Sep-2024

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s handling of road widening works. This is because the alleged fault has not caused Mr B a significant injustice.

  • Staffordshire County Council (24 006 690)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Highway repair and maintenance 04-Sep-2024

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a claim for damages as this caused the complainant insufficient injustice to warrant our further involvement.

  • London Borough of Wandsworth (24 006 704)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 04-Sep-2024

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how much priority the Council gave Miss X’s housing application. The evidence suggests the Council reached its decision properly, so investigation would be unlikely to find fault.

  • Transport for London (24 006 738)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Parking and other penalties 04-Sep-2024

    Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about five penalty charge notices. This is because Mrs X is not registered as the owner/registered keeper of the vehicle and is not therefore liable for the penalty charge notices. If the owner had wished to challenge the penalty charge notices it would have been reasonable for them to appeal.

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