Decision search
Your search has 53191 results
-
Norfolk County Council (25 000 139)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Transition from childrens services 13-Jul-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s care planning and decision-making related to his accommodation and support after he turns 18. The Council is considering his complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure and in the process of arranging a stage three panel. It is reasonable to allow the Council to complete the statutory process.
-
Southampton City Council (25 000 142)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Private housing 13-Jul-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to issue a financial penalty notice. Mr X had the right to appeal to the First Tier (Property Chamber) Tribunal, and it was reasonable for him to exercise that right.
-
Shropshire Council (24 021 414)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Refuse and recycling 13-Jul-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to make reasonable adjustments in relation to a charge for the garden waste service. This is because there is not enough fault in how the Council made its decision to justify an investigation.
-
Exeter City Council (24 022 541)
Statement Upheld Homelessness 13-Jul-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s homelessness application. It was reasonable for him to use his statutory right of appeal to the county court about the Council’s decision he was not homeless. The Council has agreed to take suitable action to remedy the injustice we would likely say was caused to Mr X for the parts of his complaint we could investigate.
-
London Borough of Merton (24 022 949)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Special educational needs 13-Jul-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint about the education her son B missed because much of it is too old and there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigation of more recent events. We cannot investigate Ms M’s complaint once she appealed to the SEND Tribunal.
-
London Borough of Bromley (24 019 102)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 13-Jul-2025
Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed accepting her son, Mr G’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan when it was transferred from another Council’s area in July 2022 and failed to provide any educational provision in the Plan. The Council was at fault. It also failed to provide Ms X and Mr G with relevant appeal rights in relation to Mr G’s EHC Plan. The Council will apologise to Mr G and Ms X for the avoidable frustration they were caused, pay Mr G £7,200 for the two years of specialist provision he missed, and take action to improve its service.
-
Kent County Council (24 023 248)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Traffic management 13-Jul-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to close a road and that the Council ignored concerns of residents and other councillors. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint.
-
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (24 023 296)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Disabled facilities grants 13-Jul-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to retrospectively fund completed adaptation works her father, Mr X, paid for and arranged privately. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.
-
Broxbourne Borough Council (25 000 080)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 13-Jul-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of her neighbour’s planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council affecting its decision.
-
London Borough of Hounslow (24 015 858)
Statement Upheld Homelessness 13-Jul-2025
Summary: There was fault by the Council in its handling of this homelessness case. It did not review whether the complainant was in priority need when it should, and required him to provide evidence he was homeless beyond what was legally required, and despite the fact it had already accepted he was homeless. This meant the complainant remained homeless for a period when the Council should have accommodated him. The Council has agreed to offer the complainant a financial remedy, and issue guidance to staff to ensure they correctly understand the law. The Council was also at fault because it gave the complainant inaccurate information about its deposit scheme, but this did not cause an injustice.