Decision search
Your search has 55054 results
-
Wiltshire Council (25 000 281)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 29-May-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with applications to register land as a town or village green. This is because the complainant has not suffered significant personal injustice.
-
United Health Group Limited (24 009 910)
Statement Upheld Residential care 28-May-2025
Summary: Mr X complained about Bunkers Hill Care Home run by United Health Group Limited and its poor communication with his family and the hospital when his late step-father, Mr Y, became unwell. He also complained it did not have enough staff on duty. The Care Provider was at fault. It failed to notify Mr Y’s family when he became unwell and was taken into hospital. The Care Provider has accepted it was at fault and apologised to Mr Y’s family. It also made changes to its service to prevent a recurrence of fault. This was appropriate. There was no fault in the number of staff on duty.
-
Staffordshire County Council (24 009 956)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 28-May-2025
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to arrange suitable education for her daughter, W, when she was unable to attend school. The Council was at fault. This caused Miss X upset and frustration and meant W missed out on education and special educational provision she was entitled to. To remedy their injustice, the Council will apologise, pay Miss X £3550 and review its practices to prevent the fault happening again.
-
London Borough of Hillingdon (24 010 459)
Statement Not upheld Charging 28-May-2025
Summary: Ms X complained that a delay in carrying out a financial assessment meant that her mother was not aware she would be charged for care in her home. And that no free reablement care was received after two hospital stays. There is no evidence of fault. The delay in the financial assessment was not the fault of the Council and there is no evidence Ms X’s mother was eligible for reablement care.
-
Brighton & Hove City Council (24 010 650)
Statement Not upheld Homelessness 28-May-2025
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to properly assess his care needs and the support he received in a supported accommodation placement. He said he experienced distress, and his mental health was impacted as a result. We found no fault by the Council. It properly reached decisions around the placement and support Mr X should receive based on the information available to it at the time.
-
Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (24 010 948)
Statement Not upheld Enforcement 28-May-2025
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his report of a breach of planning control near his home. We found no fault in how the Council reached its decision not to take enforcement action against the breach.
-
Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 011 766)
Statement Upheld Other 28-May-2025
Summary: Mrs M complains about further delay by the Council arranging overnight respite away from home for her children. We previously considered Mrs M’s complaint in July 2024 when the Council said it hoped to arrange respite by September 2024. Overnight respite began in April 2025. We have recommended a symbolic payment to recognise the impact of the delay.
-
Birmingham City Council (24 012 230)
Statement Upheld Council tax 28-May-2025
Summary: Ms X complained the Council took recovery action for council tax she did not owe for a property she previously lived in. She also complained its communication with her was poor. We found fault by the Council on both matters. As a result Ms X was caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and make her a symbolic payment in recognition of the injustice caused.
-
Buckinghamshire Council (24 012 444)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 28-May-2025
Summary: Mr X complained that the Council delayed completing a financial assessment when the late Mrs A’s assets fell below the threshold amount and then gave incorrect information about the amount it could fund, as well as involving the family in care home assessments for the purpose of establishing a budget. We found fault by the Council which caused injustice to Mrs A’s family and the Council has now agreed a remedy.
-
Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (24 012 714)
Statement Upheld Planning advice 28-May-2025
Summary: Mr X complained about the service he received from the Council when seeking advice about his planning permission. Mr X said dealing with the Council was stressful and left him frustrated. The Council had accepted fault in its communication with Mr X and apologised to him. We found the Council’s earlier acceptance of fault and its apologies had already suitably addressed Mr X’s frustration and distress caused by its poor communication.