Decision search
Your search has 55054 results
-
London Borough of Ealing (25 001 789)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 20-Nov-2025
Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed completing her occupational therapy assessment. She also complained of poor communication. We find the Council at fault for its delay in completing Ms X’s occupational therapy assessment and for communicating poorly with Ms X. The Council’s actions caused Ms X frustration and uncertainty, and she was put to time and trouble trying to resolve the matter. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and make a symbolic payment of £250. It has also agreed to make a service improvement.
-
Cambridgeshire County Council (25 002 008)
Statement Not upheld Domiciliary care 20-Nov-2025
Summary: The Council was not at fault in charging for a “Peace of Mind” service that Mrs X and Mrs Y chose (on their parents’ behalf) not to use.
-
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (25 002 170)
Statement Upheld Allocations 20-Nov-2025
Summary: Miss X complains about the Council’s decision to remove her from the housing register in February 2025. Miss X says this has caused her distress and financial hardship. We have found fault in the actions of the Council for failing to act in accordance with its allocation policy. The Council has agreed to issue Miss X an apology and reviews its allocation policy.
-
North Northamptonshire Council (25 002 188)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Homelessness 20-Nov-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s responses to her homelessness applications and her local welfare fund application. Miss X had a right of review which it was reasonable for her to use, and there is otherwise not enough evidence of fault causing injustice.
-
Westminster City Council (24 022 013)
Statement Upheld Parking and other penalties 20-Nov-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Enforcement action relating to Penalty Charge Notices because we are satisfied with the actions the Council has proposed to take.
-
Surrey County Council (24 022 896)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 20-Nov-2025
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to complete an Education, Health and Care needs assessment within statutory time limits, failed to refund her for the costs of a private report she commissioned, failed to secure all educational provision for Y, and communicated poorly. The Council was at fault for delays in completing the assessment and in responding to Mrs X’s request for a personal budget. The Council should apologise to Mrs X and make a payment to recognise the injustice caused.
-
Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (25 002 429)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 20-Nov-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the harm the Council pest control measures caused to Mr X’s pet. This is because if Mr X remains of the view the Council was liable for harm or damages, it would be reasonable to expect him to pursue a claim with the courts.
-
Shropshire Council (25 002 449)
Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 20-Nov-2025
Summary: Ms C complains about the care provided to her son, Mr D, by Yani Care Solutions Ltd, which was commissioned by the Council. I have ended my investigation of Ms C’s complaint. I cannot say whether Ms C, or Mr B acting on behalf of Ms C, are suitable representatives to bring the complaint to us. It would not be appropriate to make a finding on Ms C’s complaint about Mr D’s care without confirmation of this information.
-
Hertfordshire County Council (25 005 031)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Assessment and care plan 20-Nov-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement with Mr X and his care. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to lead to a worthwhile outcome.
-
Nottingham City Council (25 005 313)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 20-Nov-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council allowing two businesses to open near her property without enough parking, and its decision not to implement a residents-only parking scheme in her road. The complaints about the planning application processes for the businesses are late and there are no good reasons for us to investigate them now. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s parking permit scheme decision to warrant us investigating. There is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to Mrs X from the permit scheme issues to warrant us investigating.