Decision search
Your search has 54735 results
-
London Borough of Tower Hamlets (25 001 863)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Disabled children 25-Jul-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainant’s application for a Blue Badge for her son. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.
-
East Sussex County Council (25 001 754)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Special educational needs 25-Jul-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to make alternative provision for the complainant’s son while he was unable to attend school, and declined to reimburse costs she incurred in sourcing provision herself. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.
-
East Riding of Yorkshire Council (24 016 179)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 24-Jul-2025
Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed providing a tutor for her child, communicated poorly with her, and lacks policies for children not in school. Ms X this caused unnecessary and avoidable distress, frustration, and uncertainty. We find the Council at fault and this caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment, and improve its service.
-
Staffordshire County Council (24 016 432)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 24-Jul-2025
Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to adhere to the statutory timeframe for issuing an amended Education, Health and Care Plan following an annual review. We find the Council at fault for a delay in issuing the final amended Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused distress, frustration and uncertainty to Mrs B and delayed her son, Y, starting specialist provision. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mrs B in recognition of the injustice caused.
-
Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (24 016 944)
Statement Not upheld Planning applications 24-Jul-2025
Summary: Mr D complained, on behalf of Mrs X, about the Council’s decision to grant her neighbour planning permission for extensions and works to a property, including how she was notified about the development. She said the development caused her distress and impacted her residential amenity. We found no fault in how the Council notified Mrs X, considered the planning application, or responded to her complaint. It therefore reached a decision it was entitled to make.
-
Birmingham City Council (24 018 404)
Statement Upheld Allocations 24-Jul-2025
Summary: Mr B complained about the Council closing his housing applications. We find that the Council’s communications were unclear and its decision that Mr B had not provided all the required documents with his application was wrong. This caused Mr B avoidable frustration and inconvenience. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mr B.
-
Birmingham City Council (24 018 720)
Statement Upheld Parking and other penalties 24-Jul-2025
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed in reaching its decision to refuse her dropped kerb application and that its communication with her was poor. We have not found fault with the way the Council reached the decision but we found its communication with her was poor, causing confusion and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mrs X.
-
London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (24 019 772)
Statement Upheld Safeguarding 24-Jul-2025
Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed to safeguard him, did not assess his social care needs properly, and did not implement the reasonable adjustments he needed under the Equality Act. There was no fault in how the Council considered its safeguarding duties and how it assessed Mr X’s care needs. There was fault when the Council failed to implement Mr X’s reasonable adjustments and this caused Mr X distress and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X.
-
St Richard's Catholic College, Bexhill-on-Sea (24 021 688)
Statement Upheld School admissions 24-Jul-2025
Summary: The complainant (Miss K) complains the Governors failed to properly consider her appeal against its school’s decision to not admit her son. Miss K complained the appeal process was delayed and failed to properly consider her son’s specific needs. We found the appeal failed to consider, record, and decide issues which are mandated by the School Admission Appeals Code. The appeal was also not heard within the required timeframes. These faults have caused Miss K uncertainty and frustration, and prevented a fair appeal. The Governors have accepted our recommendations in order for it to put right the injustice caused.
-
Staffordshire County Council (24 021 778)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 24-Jul-2025
Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to adhere to the statutory timeframe for issuing an amended Education, Health and Care Plan following an annual review. We find the Council at fault for a delay in issuing the final amended Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused distress, frustration and uncertainty to Mrs B and delayed her son, X, starting specialist provision. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mrs B in recognition of the injustice caused.