Decision search
Your search has 57133 results
-
Sheffield City Council (26 001 382)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 28-Apr-2026
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the rejection of a claim for damage to a vehicle caused by a pothole in the highway. It is reasonable for Mr X to make a claim against the Council’s insurance or to the courts if liability is not accepted.
-
London Borough of Ealing (26 001 404)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Parking and other penalties 28-Apr-2026
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the enforcement of a Penalty Charge Notice. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre to seek to regain their appeal rights, and then to appeal to a tribunal.
-
West Sussex County Council (26 001 493)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Parking and other penalties 28-Apr-2026
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s rejection of a vehicle crossing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
-
Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (26 002 359)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 28-Apr-2026
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about children services’ actions. We are unlikely to find fault on some elements. We will not reinvestigate the complaint and are unlikely to add to the Council’s reply. We would not achieve Ms X’s aims.
-
Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (25 008 191)
Statement Not upheld Special educational needs 27-Apr-2026
Summary: Miss X complains the Council has failed to ensure her son had access to full time education and received the special educational provision in his Education Health and Care Plan causing distress and lost educational opportunity. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters. So, we have completed our investigation.
-
Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (25 008 419)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 27-Apr-2026
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s preparation of a section 7 report. The law prevents us from investigating such matters and there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s refusal of his complaint. Mr X’s other concerns about his confidentiality and subject access request are better addressed with the Information Commissioner’s Office.
-
Buckinghamshire Council (25 010 035)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Special educational needs 27-Apr-2026
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mrs X’s child’s education, health and care (EHC) plan. This is because the complaint has been substantially upheld and investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to lead to a significantly different outcome.
-
Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (25 010 141)
Statement Upheld Homelessness 27-Apr-2026
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council has not completed repairs to her home since she reported them in March 2024. Mrs X said this distressed her and impacted her financially. There was fault in the way the Council has not reviewed the suitability of the property and not completed repairs. Mrs X and her family have lived in unsuitable accommodation since March 2024. The Council agreed to apologise, complete a suitability review and make a financial payment.
-
London Borough of Croydon (25 010 507)
Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 27-Apr-2026
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions following reports of Anti-social behaviour. When considering this complaint, the Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and provide a written update on its actions, to remedy injustice caused by its delay in responding to her reports. This is a suitable remedy for injustice. There are no wider public interest issues to justify investigating this complaint.
-
London Borough of Bromley (25 013 100)
Statement Not upheld Charging 27-Apr-2026
Summary: There was no fault because Mrs X received information about charging for social care and there is no evidence she was told by the Council that Mr X would get free care for six weeks. The records indicate the Council assessed Mr X was needing long-term care and support which is chargeable from day one. So the Council was not at fault in charging him.