Decision search
Your search has 54734 results
-
Herefordshire Council (24 013 233)
Statement Not upheld Enforcement 10-Jul-2025
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to take enforcement action over planning and licensing breaches from a neighbouring property. She said the breaches resulted in noise and anti-social behaviour, causing her distress. We found the Council took suitable steps to investigate Ms X’s complaints and was not at fault.
-
Hertfordshire County Council (24 013 889)
Statement Upheld School transport 10-Jul-2025
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to consider statutory guidance when it decided to charge for his son, Y’s post-16 transport support. We found fault by the Council because it did not consider the statutory guidance when deciding to charge for Y’s post-16 transport support. The Council agreed to apologise, refund Mr X the cost of his contributions towards Y’s transport support and make him a symbolic payment for the avoidable time and trouble caused to him.
-
London Borough of Bromley (24 014 728)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 10-Jul-2025
Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed carrying out a review of her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan. The review should have been completed by 24 November 2024 but the final plan was not issued until July 2025, after Miss X complained to the Ombudsman. This delay is fault and has caused Miss X and her son distress and frustrated her appeal rights. A symbolic payment to recognise this is agreed.
-
South Gloucestershire Council (24 014 820)
Statement Not upheld Planning applications 10-Jul-2025
Summary: We have ended our investigation into Mr X’s complaint. The majority of issues complained of centre around planning matters including alleged planning breaches and enforcement issues relating to a property in the area near to his home. Some of the issues Mr X complained about are out of time for us to investigate. Also, there is either no injustice caused to Mr X himself by the substantive issues or the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. We will not investigate the Council’s complaint handling as we are not investigating the substantive issues.
-
Knightlow C Of E Primary School (25 005 796)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries School admissions 10-Jul-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the school’s admissions appeal panel refusing his appeal. It is unlikely we would find fault which caused Mr X to lose out on a school place.
-
Castle Point Borough Council (25 006 034)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Councillor conduct and standards 10-Jul-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a complaint about the conduct of a councillor. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.
-
London Borough of Waltham Forest (24 006 835)
Statement Upheld Private housing 10-Jul-2025
Summary: X complained that the Council failed to properly respond to reports their rental accommodation suffered from disrepair and the landlord harassed and attempted to illegally evict X. We find the Council failed to properly consider its powers to tackle landlord harassment and retaliatory eviction, which caused X significant distress and risk of harm. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment to X and implement service improvements to remedy the injustice.
-
London Borough of Enfield (24 007 985)
Statement Upheld Homelessness 10-Jul-2025
Summary: We found no fault on Mrs Y’s complaint about the Council failing to move her to permanent accommodation. She was on its housing register but failed to bid for properties which became available. While the Council failed to show it told her it had discharged the full housing duty it owed, this caused no injustice to her. This was because the tenancy agreement she signed did not include the Council as the landlord, but a private limited company.
-
Cheshire East Council (24 016 531)
Statement Upheld Fostering 10-Jul-2025
Summary: Miss X complained the Council’s children’s services department did not effectively communicate with her when her child was placed into voluntary care arranged by the Council. We found fault because the Council failed to consider her complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. This caused Miss X avoidable distress and frustration. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to consider Miss X’s concerns through the statutory procedure and apologise for failing to do this originally. It has also agreed to make a payment to her and issue guidance to staff.
-
London Borough of Ealing (24 016 625)
Statement Upheld Allocations 10-Jul-2025
Summary: We found fault on Ms Y’s complaint about the Council’s delay dealing with the information submitted in support of her request for a higher banding under its housing allocation scheme. It failed to show officers reached their own decisions after considering Medical Advisors’ recommendations. It also failed to action her request for a statutory review following a Social Welfare Panel decision. The Council agreed to send her an apology, pay £100 for her distress, remind officers about recording their decisions, review why two forms and a request for a review were not actioned, and ensure these failures cannot be repeated. It also agreed to review the panel decision. There was no fault on her remaining complaints.