Decision search
Your search has 50691 results
-
Isle of Wight Council (24 018 671)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 25-Mar-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s planning enforcement and application processes relating to developments on his property and how it dealt with his complaint. There is no different outcome achievable on the planning enforcement issues to warrant us investigating. The planning application process is outside jurisdiction because Mr X used his Planning Inspectorate appeal, so we cannot investigate it. We cannot or would not achieve the outcomes Mr X seeks. We also do not investigate complaints about councils’ complaint handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.
-
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Alternative provision 25-Mar-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to change the alternative educational provision it makes for the complainant’s son. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.
-
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 25-Mar-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a social worker, and the Council’s refusal to consider a complaint about that conduct. This is because the complaint is not separable from matters which have been considered in court.
-
Southend-on-Sea City Council (24 018 950)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Private housing 25-Mar-2025
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint alleging bias by Council officers culminating in an Improvement Notice being issued to him as a private landlord. This is because it does not meet the tests set out in our Assessment Code. Mr X has used his legal right to appeal to the First Tier (Property Chamber) Tribunal against the notice. We have no jurisdiction to investigate.
-
Peterborough City Council (24 018 963)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Council tax 25-Mar-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax liability as Miss X can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal about it.
-
Lancashire County Council (24 015 964)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 25-Mar-2025
Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed carrying out a review of a child’s Education Health and Care Plan. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by making a suitable payment to the complainant to remedy the injustice this caused.
-
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Private housing 25-Mar-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of concerns she reported about disrepair in her privately rented property between 2012 and 2024. This is because some of her complaints are late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the late complaints. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault.
-
Bristol City Council (24 016 400)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 25-Mar-2025
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about alleged misconduct, defamation and perjury by the Council. The matters about which Mr X complained to the Council are closely linked to matters concerning the contact arrangements for a child that have been or could reasonably have been raised in court. Defamation and perjury are also matters only a court could consider.
-
London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (24 017 040)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 25-Mar-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about inappropriate communication with family about adult social care provision to a relative. The Council has apologised and explained the actions taken to prevent recurrence. It is unlikely we would add to that or achieve anything further. There is not a significant unremedied injustice to justify an Ombudsman investigation.
-
ClientsInFocus Limited (24 017 336)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 25-Mar-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the quality of care provided by her father’s care provider. This is because an investigation would not lead to any worthwhile outcomes. In addition, we are not likely to find fault and some matters are outside of our jurisdiction.