Decision search


What's this ?
  • Organisation
  • Decision type

  • Reference number
  • Date range

     

  • Sort Results

Show advanced search

Your search has 55017 results

  • Milton Keynes Council (24 022 667)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Councillor conduct and standards 21-May-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to investigate his complaint about a town council employee. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

  • Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 022 689)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 21-May-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with his family. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to consider it now.

  • London Borough of Wandsworth (24 022 702)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Parking and other penalties 21-May-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a refund for parking charges because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

  • Royal Borough of Greenwich (24 022 736)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 21-May-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council handled a Local Authority Designated Officer referral and the school’s actions following this. This is because we have not seen any evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

  • Norfolk County Council (24 022 895)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 21-May-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s historic complaint about the Council’s child protection actions in 2010. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now. Further to this, the matters appear to have been subject to court proceedings. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been considered and decided in court. We have no discretion to do so.

  • Nottingham City Council (23 002 442)

    Statement Upheld Planning applications 20-May-2025

    Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his client, a manufacturing business. Mr X said the Council gave planning consent for a housing development next to his client’s factory without adequately considering how to prevent noise from the factory causing a statutory nuisance to the occupiers of the new housing. We found the Council at fault for how it approved a planning condition designed to protect occupiers of the new houses from the noise of the factory. But we could not say this failing would have resulted in a different outcome for Mr X’s client. However, the fault still caused uncertainty which we consider a form of distress. The Council has accepted these findings and agreed to apologise to Mr X’s client and improve its service to prevent a repeat.

  • London Borough of Camden (23 015 415)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 20-May-2025

    Summary: Ms Z, on behalf of Mr X, complained the Council wrongly removed housing register priority points affecting his bidding for available properties. There was fault in respect of the number of points awarded between September 2023 and February 2024 however there is no evidence this meant Mr X missed out on an available property. A symbolic payment for the distress caused is agreed.

  • Shropshire Council (23 020 057)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Homelessness 20-May-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to install sound insulation. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

  • Derby City Council (24 007 045)

    Statement Upheld Alternative provision 20-May-2025

    Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council arranged and reviewed the special education provision in her daughter, Y’s, Education Health and Care Plan. There was fault in how the Council arranged the support for Y, how it responded to changes Mrs X asked for, and delays following a review in May 2024. This caused Mrs X avoidable frustration, worry and uncertainty, along with some extra financial cost. The Council agreed to apologise, issue an amended final plan and pay Mrs X a financial remedy. It also agreed to review how is arranges education outside school settings and issue reminders to its staff.

  • Middlesbrough Borough Council (24 010 390)

    Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 20-May-2025

    Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed in its safeguarding duties towards him. We did not find fault with the Council’s actions.

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings