Decision search
Your search has 51110 results
-
High Peak Borough Council (24 008 977)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 19-Sep-2024
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning application. This is because the complainant had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.
-
Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (23 017 702)
Statement Upheld Homelessness 19-Sep-2024
Summary: Ms X complains that the Council wrongly considered she did not qualify for the housing register and did not consider her homelessness application. The Council is at fault as it did not properly consider Ms X’s housing register application and failed to consider a homelessness application made by her representative. As a result, the Council’s decision that Ms X did not qualify for the housing register was wrong. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice to Ms X by apologising to her and making a payment of £400. It will also now place Ms X on the housing register.
-
Dacorum Borough Council (23 018 355)
Statement Upheld Noise 19-Sep-2024
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to address dust nuisance from a construction site near her home. We found the Council failed to properly record or explain its findings when it closed its nuisance investigation, and failed to record evidence of dust suppression. This caused Mrs X frustration. The Council also failed to follow its nuisance investigation procedure on site visits, but this did not cause significant injustice. The Council was entitled to reach the view that no statutory nuisance exists.
-
North Yorkshire Council (23 018 681)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 19-Sep-2024
Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council reviewed and amended her child, W’s, Education, Health and Care Plan, about how it found a new school for W and how it provided W with education in the meantime. The Council was at fault. This caused Miss X significant frustration and upset and meant W missed out on education and special educational provision for a year. To remedy their injustice, the Council will apologise to Miss X, pay her a total of £4900, issue a staff reminder and review the information it gives to staff on amending Education, Health and Care Plans.
-
Suffolk County Council (23 019 356)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 19-Sep-2024
Summary: Miss X complained the Council took too long to complete an Education Health and Care (EHC) Needs Assessment and to issue a EHC Plan for her daughter, Y. Miss X also complained Y could not access education between September 2023 to July 2024 and the Council did not properly consider her complaints. We found fault by the Council on all elements of Miss X’s complaint. The Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Miss X and Y to remedy the injustice caused to them by the fault we found.
-
London Borough of Bexley (23 019 772)
Statement Not upheld Enforcement 19-Sep-2024
Summary: X complained about the Council’s failure to protect their privacy from the use of land next to their home by a business operation. We found no fault in the way the Council made its decision to end its enforcement investigation.
-
London Borough of Enfield (23 020 329)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 19-Sep-2024
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a lack of action on the complainant’s reports of breaches of planning control and building regulations. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.
-
King's Lynn & West Norfolk Council (23 020 814)
Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 19-Sep-2024
Summary: We do not find fault in the Council’s decision to close an investigation into Japanese Knotweed invading Mrs W’s land. Nor do we find it at fault for alerting her to an allegation made she had unlawfully disposed of garden waste on neighbouring land.
-
London Borough of Camden (23 010 491)
Statement Upheld Allocations 19-Sep-2024
Summary: Mr B complained how the Council handled his application to rejoin the housing register. He says the Council has not properly considered his medical evidence and mobility issues, and it has taken too long to complete its review. He also complained the Council has failed to provide him with adult social care support despite his repeated requests. We find the Council was at fault for its significant delays in dealing with Mr B’s review request. It was also at fault for how it handled Mr B’s requests for adult social care support. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.
-
Leeds City Council (23 014 185)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 19-Sep-2024
Summary: The Council delayed in completing Mr X’s support plan following a Care Act assessment, failed to advise him at the outset that direct payments could not be used to pay a relative to act as his personal assistant because she was living in the same household and reversed its agreement to backdate direct payments. In recognition of the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to make a payment to Mr X and his family.