Decision search
Your search has 57133 results
-
London Borough of Havering (25 009 308)
Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 22-Apr-2026
Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s involvement in the cleaning of his property following an admission to hospital. We find no fault in the Council’s actions, which were in line with its duties. It took appropriate steps to safeguard and support him.
-
London Borough of Brent (25 009 821)
Statement Upheld Homelessness 22-Apr-2026
Summary: The Council was at fault for the delay in moving Mr X to suitable temporary accommodation. There were also faults in the Council’s communication and handling of his complaint. The Council issued its decision on Mr X’s medical priority without delay and was not at fault. The Council will apologise and make payments to Mr X to acknowledge the frustration and injustice caused by its faults.
-
Salford City Council (25 009 850)
Statement Upheld Homelessness 22-Apr-2026
Summary: We found fault with the Council failing to suitably consider its homelessness duty to Mr X for three months causing Mr X to sleep rough. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £1,500 for the injustice its fault caused. We did not find fault with the Council’s offer of interim accommodation in July 2025 or its decision about bedroom need.
-
Elmbridge Borough Council (25 010 691)
Statement Not upheld Homelessness 22-Apr-2026
Summary: We have ended this investigation. Ms X should have complained to us sooner about the Council’s handling of her homelessness applications and her associated temporary accommodation concerns between late 2023 and spring 2024. The Council has already offered Ms X a symbolic payment which is in line with our guidance on remedies. There was nothing worthwhile we could achieve by investigating further.
-
Adur District Council (25 011 221)
Statement Upheld Planning applications 22-Apr-2026
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of a planning application. The Council was at fault for not considering the potential impact of the development on Mrs X’s home during the application process. However, the distance between Mrs X’s windows and the development’s windows is more than the minimum acceptable distance of 22 metres, so the fault did not cause a significant injustice.
-
London Borough of Ealing (25 013 494)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 22-Apr-2026
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
-
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Homelessness 22-Apr-2026
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her housing register application. Part of the complaint is late and it is reasonable for Ms X to ask for a review of the Council’s recent decision if she disagrees with it. We will not investigate her complaint about the Council’s handling of her homelessness application. The Council is carrying out a review of the suitability of the property offered to discharge its housing duty. Ms X will have court appeal rights if she disagrees with the review decision and it is reasonable for her to exercise that right.
-
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Homelessness 22-Apr-2026
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the suitability and disrepair of temporary accommodation provided by the Council under its homelessness duty. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. Ms X could have asked for a statutory review of the suitability of her accommodation with a further appeal to the courts.
-
South Hams District Council (25 014 157)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 22-Apr-2026
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application banding. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
-
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Residential care 22-Apr-2026
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Provider’s handling of an allegation of assault because we could not add to its previous investigation.