Decision search
Your search has 52298 results
-
Bristol City Council (24 004 120)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 21-Feb-2025
Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to finalise her child’s education, health and care plan within statutory timeframes. This is fault and the delay resulted in Ms X’s child receiving the provision to meet her needs eight months later than she should have. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising to Ms X and making a payment to her to acknowledge the loss of provision and the avoidable distress caused by the fault.
-
Southampton City Council (24 014 955)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Safeguarding 21-Feb-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of safeguarding concerns relating to her mother, Mrs Y. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
-
Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (24 015 063)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Special educational needs 21-Feb-2025
Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to arrange a suitable school placement or alternative educational provision for her child. This is because these matters overlap with a SEND Tribunal appeal about her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan.
-
Westminster City Council (24 015 144)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Housing benefit and council tax benefit 21-Feb-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to award her a discretionary housing payment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
-
Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (24 015 154)
Statement Upheld Alternative provision 21-Feb-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council’s remedy offer to recognise her child’s missed education is insufficient. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.
-
City of York Council (24 015 547)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Traffic management 21-Feb-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment before installing speed bumps in the road where the complainant lives. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.
-
Birmingham City Council (24 015 660)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 21-Feb-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council has incorrectly reduced the disability related expenses allowed in his brother’s financial assessment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.
-
London Borough of Croydon (23 020 786)
Report Upheld Assessment and care plan 21-Feb-2025
Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s decision to withdraw funding for nighttime care. She said the Council’s decision to remove the care meant she did not have suitable support and could not afford the care and tax obligations as an employer of a personal assistant. Miss X said this impacted her independence, health and finances. There was fault in the way the Council did not meet Miss X’s needs and did not manage the direct payment suitably. Miss X’s needs were not met.
-
Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (24 006 677)
Statement Upheld Allocations 21-Feb-2025
Summary: Miss X complained the Council has incorrectly assessed her priority on the housing register and failed to properly consider the extent of their overcrowding and how many bedrooms her family is short of their assessed need. The Council’s failure to have proper regard to the statutory overcrowding standards in this instance is fault. As is the significant delay in responding to Miss X’s complaint. These faults have caused an injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X, make her a payment and re-assess her request for increased priority. It has also agreed to make service improvements.
-
Devon County Council (24 007 318)
Statement Upheld Disabled children 21-Feb-2025
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his son, Y’s care. He also complained about delays in complaint handling. Mr X said this distressed him and Y did not receive the respite care specified in his Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council was at fault. It delayed completing the complaint process and Y missed respite provision. This frustrated Mr X and he was put to time and trouble to complain. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment and provide guidance to its staff.