Decision search
Your search has 54734 results
-
Stoke-on-Trent City Council (24 012 535)
Statement Not upheld Other 14-Jul-2025
Summary: Miss D complained that Stoke-on-Trent City Council, Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent ICB and Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust failed to provide her with appropriate care following her discharge from long-term inpatient care. We found no fault with the care and support provided to Miss D by these organisations.
-
NHS Staffordshire and Stoke-On-Trent ICB (24 012 535a)
Statement Not upheld Mental health services 14-Jul-2025
Summary: Miss D complained that Stoke-on-Trent City Council, Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent ICB and Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust failed to provide her with appropriate care following her discharge from long-term inpatient care. We found no fault with the care and support provided to Miss D by these organisations.
-
Cheshire & Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (24 012 535b)
Statement Not upheld Mental health services 14-Jul-2025
Summary: Miss D complained that Stoke-on-Trent City Council, Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent ICB and Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust failed to provide her with appropriate care following her discharge from long-term inpatient care. We found no fault with the care and support provided to Miss D by these organisations.
-
London Borough of Harrow (24 012 853)
Statement Not upheld Disabled children 14-Jul-2025
Summary: We have found no fault with how the Council handled Mrs X’s son’s blue badge application. It followed the correct procedure as required by the Department for Transport’s guidance.
-
Cheshire East Council (24 013 037)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries School transport 14-Jul-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the refusal of free home-to school transport for Mrs X’s child. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the school transport appeal panel reached its decision to warrant our further involvement. We cannot investigate the actions of a school.
-
Arun District Council (24 014 374)
Statement Upheld Allocations 14-Jul-2025
Summary: Miss X complained about the Council changing her priority date on reregistering her housing application under its new Housing Allocations Policy. Miss X said the decision to change her priority date was unfair and put her at a disadvantage when bidding for a new home. We found there was fault by the Council in its handling of Miss X’s application. The Council’s fault had been advantageous for Miss X. In correcting the fault and changing her priority date, the Council had put Miss X in the position she should have been in from the outset. The apology already given by the Council suitably addressed any injustice to Miss X caused by its initial fault in not changing her priority date.
-
Surrey County Council (24 014 876)
Statement Not upheld Alternative provision 14-Jul-2025
Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s failure to provide her child, Y, with a suitable education when he was unable to attend school. We did not find the Council was at fault because it was satisfied with action taken by the school to reintegrate Y back to school during the time we were able to investigate. We did not investigate what happened from April 2024 because Ms X appealed to the SEND Tribunal.
-
Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (24 015 325)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Homelessness 14-Jul-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Mr X’s homelessness application as it is late. We will not investigate the complaint about the suitability of Mr X’s accommodation as there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
-
Surrey County Council (24 015 791)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 14-Jul-2025
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to complete the annual review of her son’s Education Health and Care Plan within the statutory timeframes. She also complained he missed education and specialist provision he is entitled to and that communication with the Council was poor. We found fault by the Council in all matters. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and make her a symbolic payment in recognition of her son’s missed provision and the uncertainty, distress and frustration caused to her.
-
Malvern Hills District Council (25 006 099)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trees 14-Jul-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to allow tree works on protected trees. This is because it was reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal to a government minister. Part of the complaint is also late, and there are no good reasons to investigate it now. We will not separately investigate Mr X’s complaint about a Council officer, as the law prevents us from considering this.