Decision search
Your search has 56069 results
-
St Marys Care Services Ltd (24 020 786)
Statement Upheld Residential care 28-Nov-2025
Summary: St Marys Care Services Ltd was at fault for failing to provide Mrs X’s late mother with suitable care while she was resident in one of its care homes. The fault caused Mrs X distress and uncertainty for which the Care Provider will apologise and make a symbolic payment. To prevent similar fault in future, the Care Provider will issue staff reminders.
-
East Sussex County Council (24 021 493)
Statement Not upheld Alternative provision 28-Nov-2025
Summary: There was no fault in how the Council decided whether it had a duty to make alternative educational provision while Mrs B’s son, K, could not attend school. There was also no fault in how the Council decided what educational provision it should offer once it accepted that duty.
-
Hertfordshire County Council (24 021 641)
Statement Upheld Child protection 28-Nov-2025
Summary: Miss X complained about the standard of the Council’s safeguarding investigation under the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) process following a safeguarding allegation made against her. There was no fault in how the Council investigated and substantiated the allegations. However, there was unnecessary delays during the investigation. Further, the LADO process did not apply policy or set clear timescales for actions to be completed after the investigation concluded. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss X for the frustration and uncertainty caused to her and review its policy.
-
Nottinghamshire County Council (24 021 977)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 28-Nov-2025
Summary: The Council delayed arranging alternative education when a pupil was too anxious to return to school and delayed securing special educational provision in an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council has agreed to apologise, reimburse tuition costs, make a symbolic financial payment and make service improvements.
-
Kingston Upon Hull City Council (24 022 114)
Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 28-Nov-2025
Summary: We upheld a complaint made by Mr D about how the Council considered his request for support with adaptations to his home to benefit his disabled child. We found the Council wrongly refused to consider awarding a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) based on the cost of the proposed adaptations. While we could not say the adaptations would have necessarily proceeded, this fault resulted in avoidable delay and uncertainty for Mr D. The Council accepted these findings and agreed to remedy Mr D’s injustice as we recommended. This will include reviewing its decision. It will also improve its approach to considering high-cost adaptations to prevent a repeat.
-
Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (24 022 313)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 28-Nov-2025
Summary: The Council failed to keep adequate oversight of child Y’s part time educational arrangement between September 2024 and April 2025 or consider whether to put alternative provision in place. It also failed to ensure Y received the specialist provision in their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan between February and April 2025. I could not investigate Y’s loss of specialist provision between September 2024 and February 2025 as Miss X had appealed Y’s EHC Plan to the SEND tribunal. The Council agreed to make a payment to acknowledge the impact the fault had on Y’s education.
-
London Borough of Lambeth (24 022 644)
Statement Upheld Looked after children 28-Nov-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about children services’ matters. There are no justifiable reasons to reinvestigate a Children Act statutory complaints’ procedure investigation. And the Council has agreed a proportionate way to remedy its delay in that process.
-
North Yorkshire Council (24 022 842)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 28-Nov-2025
Summary: The Council was at fault as it delayed ensuring Ms X’s child Y received all the provision within their Education, Health and Care Plan and its communication was poor. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and Y and to make a payment to acknowledge the distress and frustration this caused.
-
London Borough of Waltham Forest (25 000 811)
Statement Upheld Allocations 28-Nov-2025
Summary: Ms D says the Council delayed responding to her complaint and incorrectly removed her from the housing register. I have not found fault in the decision to remove Ms D from the housing register but there have been delays by the Council. It has accepted there is fault and offered to pay Ms D redress.
-
London Borough of Southwark (25 000 909)
Statement Upheld Allocations 28-Nov-2025
Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly suspended his housing application and removed him from the bidding system in November 2024. Mr X says the Council’s actions meant he missed out on the offer of a property. We found the Council’s failure to review the decision to close Mr X’s application is fault. As is the failure to properly assess Mr X’s request for medical priority. These faults have caused Mr X distress and uncertainty. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Mr X. It will also review Mr X’s medical priority and the decision to close his application.