Decision search
Your search has 52604 results
-
East Sussex County Council (24 013 860)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 29-Jun-2025
Summary: Miss X complained that the Council had not provided the education set out in her child’s Education Health and Care Plan. She says this impacted her child’s education and emotional wellbeing. She says it also caused her distress and financial strain. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault which caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Miss X.
-
Leeds City Council (24 014 118)
Statement Upheld Transport 29-Jun-2025
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his application for a blue badge. He said it caused delays and failed to properly consider his non-visible disabilities in the process. We found the Council at fault for causing significant delays in the assessment process and for some unclear communication. It was not at fault for how it reached its view on Mr X’s eligibility at the time. The Council should apologise and make a symbolic payment to acknowledge the injustice its delay and unclear communication caused.
-
Cambridgeshire County Council (24 014 722)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 29-Jun-2025
Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed completing his care assessment. Mr X says this meant he did not receive suitable support which has impacted his health. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault which caused injustice. The Ombudsman is satisfied the action taken by the Council has remedied the injustice to Mr X.
-
London Borough of Camden (24 015 333)
Statement Not upheld Homelessness 29-Jun-2025
Summary: Mr X complained about the support and accommodation the Council provided him with while he was homeless. There was no fault with the Council’s actions.
-
Devon County Council (24 015 684)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 29-Jun-2025
Summary: Mr X complained the Council has repeatedly failed to follow its policies and procedures which has resulted in a failure to safeguard his daughter, Miss Y. We found the delays in completing care needs assessments and in following up on Miss Y’s requests regarding how her needs were met is fault. As were the delays and failure to properly consider whether, and how the post adoption support service could support Miss Y. The delay in responding to Mr X’s complaint was also fault. These faults have caused Miss Y and Mr X frustration and uncertainty. The Council will apologise and make payments to Miss Y and Mr X and will review relevant processes.
-
Redcar & Cleveland Council (24 015 945)
Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 29-Jun-2025
Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council’s delay in referring her mother for Continuing Healthcare (CHC) funding cost her some months of care home charges as well as a private assessment fee. The evidence shows the Council was not responsible for the costs incurred by Mrs X.
-
Nottingham City Council (24 016 919)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 29-Jun-2025
Summary: Mr Z complained the Council failed to ensure the care needs of his cousin, Mr X were met when Mr X’s parents left the country. Mr Z says he was forced to provide unpaid care which put him in a difficult position financially as he was unable to work while providing this additional care. The Council failed to offer any suitable alternative care and refused to pay Mr Z even though it had a duty to meet Mr X’s eligible care needs. The Council has agreed to now make additional direct payments to remedy the complaint.
-
Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (24 016 960)
Statement Not upheld Special educational needs 29-Jun-2025
Summary: Dr X complained about delay in the Education, Health and Care Plan process and lack of education and support for her child’s special educational needs. We ended our investigation because the Council accepted it acted with fault and offered an appropriate remedy.
-
London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (24 017 492)
Statement Upheld Licensing 29-Jun-2025
Summary: The Council was at fault because of a lengthy delay in making a decision the complainant had applied for the wrong type of landlord licence, and then threatening him with a significant fine for not holding the correct licence, without considering the fact the complainant had followed the Council’s own advice in making his application in the first place. The Council had already offered an appropriate remedy, but it has now also agreed to formally apologise to the complainant for this.
-
Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (25 005 483)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries School admissions 29-Jun-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel for us to be able to question its decision.