Decision search
Your search has 55054 results
-
Leicester City Council (24 011 458)
Statement Upheld Other 06-Apr-2025
Summary: Miss B complained about the Council’s delivery of her son’s social care support. We have found that the Council was at fault, as it has not yet dealt with Miss B’s complaint properly. It will now do so.
-
Horsham District Council (24 011 599)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Homelessness 06-Apr-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council wrongly said he was intentionally homeless. That is because it is a late complaint.
-
Surrey County Council (24 011 852)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Charging 06-Apr-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to pay a Care Provider for its resident’s care. The courts are best placed to consider the matter.
-
East Hampshire District Council (24 012 010)
Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 06-Apr-2025
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly consider his Anti-Social Behaviour case review. We find the Council at fault for failing to involve Mr X in the review and for failing to keep him updated, causing uncertainty and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, make a payment to recognise the injustice, and act to prevent recurrence.
-
West Northamptonshire Council (24 012 297)
Statement Upheld Other 06-Apr-2025
Summary: Mr X complained about information included in a children’s social care assessment. We have found that the Council was at fault, as it has not yet dealt with Mr X’s complaint properly. It will now do so.
-
London Borough of Hackney (24 013 245)
Statement Upheld Council tax 06-Apr-2025
Summary: The complainant, X, complained that a Cyber Attack on the Council’s systems meant they were unable to pay Council Tax at the time. X was billed for Council Tax during the financial year and so the Council’s offer of a payment plan is reasonable. There was fault, as the Council failed to tell X of the right to appeal to the Valuation Fund after an application to the Council Tax Reduction Discretionary Fund was refused. Apologising and writing to X to give the right of appeal remedies the injustice.
-
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 06-Apr-2025
Summary: Ms X complained that the Council caused delays when deciding her son’s special educational needs support. We have found that the Council was at fault, and that this likely caused Ms X distress. The Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment to recognise her injustice.
-
Derbyshire County Council (24 014 059)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Special educational needs 06-Apr-2025
Summary: Mr X complained about Derbyshire County Council and NHS Derby and Derbyshire Integrated Care Board. We will not consider his complaint about the delay issuing his son’s Education, Health and Care Plan. That complaint is late. Also, we cannot consider Mr X’s complaint about not securing health provision to enable Y to attend school. That is bound up with matters which Mr X appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability), which places the complaint out of jurisdiction.
-
NHS Derby & Derbyshire ICB (24 014 059a)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Education, health and care plans 06-Apr-2025
Summary: Mr X complained about Derbyshire County Council and NHS Derby and Derbyshire Integrated Care Board. We will not consider his complaint about the delay issuing his son’s Education, Health and Care Plan. That complaint is late. Also, we cannot consider Mr X’s complaint about not securing health provision to enable Y to attend school. That is bound up with matters which Mr X appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability), which places the complaint out of jurisdiction.
-
Hertfordshire County Council (24 001 477)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 06-Apr-2025
Summary: Miss X complained that the Council failed to provide a proper education to her daughter, and caused delays when deciding her special educational needs support. We have found fault with the Council because it caused a significant delay while amending
Miss X’s daughter’s support. This likely caused Miss X distress. We cannot comment on other matters because they are linked to something which could have been appealed to the SEND Tribunal.