Decision search


What's this ?
  • Organisation
  • Decision type

  • Reference number
  • Date range

     

  • Sort Results

Show advanced search

Your search has 57130 results

  • London Borough of Brent (25 008 995)

    Statement Upheld Homelessness 14-Apr-2026

    Summary: Miss B complained about the way the Council dealt with her case when she approached as homeless in 2024. We found the Council did not deal with her application properly which caused Miss B distress and uncertainty regarding her housing options. The Council has agreed to increase its symbolic payment to Miss B.

  • West Sussex County Council (25 009 336)

    Statement Upheld Special educational needs 14-Apr-2026

    Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council delayed providing funding to the School named in her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan to enable it to put the special educational support in place. We found the Council at fault which caused C to miss out on essential educational support and Mrs B significant distress. The Council ahs agreed to apologise to Mrs B and C and make a symbolic payment to them.

  • North Northamptonshire Council (25 010 975)

    Statement Upheld School transport 14-Apr-2026

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council wrongly refused free home-to-school transport for her son, Y. We found fault in the Council’s decision-making process and failure to retain records. This caused Mrs X uncertainty about the outcome and avoidable time and trouble. The Council agreed actions to remedy the injustice caused.

  • London Borough of Wandsworth (25 011 142)

    Statement Upheld Special educational needs 14-Apr-2026

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide the Speech and Language Therapy (SaLT) provision in his child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan following a Tribunal order. The Council was a fault for a delay in issuing Y’s amended plan and securing the required SaLT. The Council will apologise and make a payment to recognise the injustice caused to Mr X and Y. It will also make changes to its service to prevent the same fault from happening to others.

  • Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (24 017 327)

    Statement Upheld Special educational needs 14-Apr-2026

    Summary: The Council was at fault. It failed to put alternative provision in place for Ms X’s child, Y between January and March 2024 and failed to ensure Y received an education and their specialist provision in line with their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan between March 2024 and February 2025. The Council has already provided a partial remedy for its failings which caused Y to miss education between March 2024 and February 2025. The Council agreed to apologise and make a further payment to also remedy Y’s loss of education between January and March 2024. The Council also agreed to take action to improve its service.

  • London Borough of Bexley (24 018 763)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 14-Apr-2026

    Summary: Miss X complained the Council falsely accused her of poor care of her foster children and did not properly investigate her complaint. She says this distressed her and stopped her fostering more children. The Council was at fault. It failed to keep Miss X informed during the care investigation process and tell her the outcome. It also delayed its complaint response. This caused uncertainty and frustration for Miss X. The Council has agreed to apologise.

  • North Yorkshire Council (24 020 471)

    Statement Upheld Private housing 14-Apr-2026

    Summary: We have not found the Council at fault for how it responded to Ms X’s complaint about the accessibility of Company 1’s complaints procedure. We have found the Council at fault for not taking its own view on a resolution to Ms X’s complaint about the distress and frustration caused by poor coordination of works in Ms X’s home, including deciding whether Ms X was entitled to compensation. The Council has agreed to act to address the uncertainty caused by considering the matter again and providing a written decision to Ms X.

  • Cheshire East Council (25 000 499)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 14-Apr-2026

    Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of allegations made against her and the conduct of its safeguarding procedures. We have not found the Council at fault for its conduct or communication during its initial visit to Ms X’s home, or in how it accounted for the information received in its decision-making. We have found the Council at fault for not appropriately providing Ms X with a copy of its assessment and for delay in issuing its closure letter. We believe this caused Ms X avoidable distress and uncertainty. We found the Council at fault for not making clear Ms X could have been accompanied during an interview. For the reasons set out in the decision, we do not believe this caused a significant injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay a symbolic financial remedy to recognise the avoidable distress caused. The Council also agreed to remind staff that individuals can be accompanied in interviews where appropriate.

  • Westminster City Council (25 000 514)

    Statement Upheld Special educational needs 14-Apr-2026

    Summary: Mrs X complained how the Council handled her daughter’s personal budget. She also says the Council delayed finalising her daughter’s Education, Health and Care Plan, it failed to respond to her request for a sensory assessment and its complaints handling was flawed. We find the Council was at fault for how it handled Mrs X’s daughter’s personal budget and for its delay in finalising the Education, Health and Care Plan. It was also at fault for its complaints handling and its communication. These faults caused Mrs X’s upset and frustration. Mrs X’s daughter missed out on special educational provision. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and her daughter, make payments and implement a service improvement.

  • Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (25 002 593)

    Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 14-Apr-2026

    Summary: The Council was not at fault for withdrawing Mr X’s respite support. There was also no fault in the Council’s decision not to deviate from its charging policy. It was however at fault for a delay in carrying out a carer’s assessment and delaying the start of support for Mr X. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr X to remedy the injustice caused.

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