Decision search
Your search has 56070 results
-
Lancashire County Council (24 018 042)
Statement Not upheld Residential care 24-Nov-2025
Summary: The Council commissioned care provider was not at fault for the way it served Mr X notice on his residential care placement and was not at fault for the way it considered his reasonable adjustments.
-
Kent County Council (24 019 682)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 24-Nov-2025
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to ensure her child, Y had funding in place for social care provision outlined in their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council was at fault. It failed to provide a personal budget for part of Y’s social care provision and failed to provide any help for Ms X in sourcing a support worker for Y when she struggled to find one herself. It leaves uncertainty around whether more could have been done to ensure the support was in place. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and make a payment to acknowledge the injustice caused. It also agreed to review the social care provision to ensure a support worker is in place without further delay.
-
Hertfordshire County Council (24 020 234)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 24-Nov-2025
Summary: The Council was at fault for not updating Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan within the statutory timescales following a Tribunal order but this did not cause Y an injustice because they were already on roll at the educational placement. The Council was not at fault for failing to secure Y’s section F provision and not at fault for failing to provide suitable alternative provision when Y could not attend school, in the investigation period.
-
London Borough of Camden (24 021 011)
Statement Upheld Homelessness 24-Nov-2025
Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council handled her homelessness application. She said the Council placed her in unsuitable accommodation, delayed moving her, wrongly ended its housing duty, and failed to award her the medical housing points she was entitled to. We do not find fault in the Council’s decision not to award additional housing priority points. We do find fault in the Council’s handling of Ms X’s case, including significant delay in completing the suitability review, failing to move her promptly once accommodation was found unsuitable, poor complaint handling, and inadequate record-keeping. As a result, Ms X remained in unsuitable accommodation for several months longer than necessary and experienced avoidable distress, uncertainty, and frustration due to the Council’s poor communication and complaint handling. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X.
-
Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (24 021 237)
Statement Upheld Allocations 24-Nov-2025
Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not properly consider supporting evidence for his rehousing application and delayed reviewing his medical priority decision. The Council’s delayed medical priority review decision is fault. It caused Mr X distress and uncertainty. On the balance of probabilities, there is no fault in how the Council or medical review panel made its decision on Mr X’s medical priority, so we cannot question the outcome. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X for the delay, make a payment to recognise the distress caused and carry out the service recommendations.
-
Statement Upheld Residential care 24-Nov-2025
Summary: The Council was at fault for the poor standard of care Mrs X received in Frindsbury Hall, a Council commissioned Care Home. The Care Home failed to carry out some of Mrs X’s care in line with her care plan. This has caused distress, frustration and uncertainty about the care Mrs X was receiving and impacted Mrs X’s dignity. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused. It has also agreed to provide us with a copy of its follow up visit to the Care Home from November 2025.
-
London Borough of Lambeth (25 000 397)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 24-Nov-2025
Summary: Ms X complains on behalf of Miss V and Mr Z that the Council delayed providing support to them and their son, Y, while section 19 alternative provision has been in place. Ms X also says the Council has delayed making appropriate school-based provision and has delayed the annual review of Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan. We have found fault in the Councils actions for delaying in completing Y’s annual review and in putting in place tutoring for Y and for failing to provide the provision set out in section F. The Council has agreed to write to Miss V and Mr Z to apologise and pay them a symbolic payment.
-
Hertfordshire County Council (25 000 829)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 24-Nov-2025
Summary: Mrs Y complained about the way the Council managed her husband’s contributions towards his care. We find no fault with the Council’s reviews of his contributions, or its decision not to issue a direct payment card. However, we do find fault in the Council’s flawed decision-making regarding disability related expenditure costs, its failure to explain all financial assessment letters it sent and its complaint handling. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs Y.
-
London Borough of Wandsworth (25 001 624)
Statement Not upheld Special educational needs 24-Nov-2025
Summary: Miss Y complained about how the Council handled the transfer of her sons Education, Health and Care Plan when he moved into the area. She said the Council failed to provide the tuition requested, misled her and Mr X about his eligibility for a functional skills qualification, and failed to engage in mediation. We find no fault in the Council’s actions.
-
Cambridgeshire County Council (25 001 769)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 24-Nov-2025
Summary: We found fault by the Council on Mrs Y’s complaint about it failing to make alternative provision sooner for her son who struggled at school despite having an Education, Health and Care plan. It failed to consider, decide, or respond to her request for alternative provision. It also failed to consider and decide whether he received the provision set out in his plan. It delayed logging the annual review and missed statutory timescales. It did not provide an update it said it would. The Council agreed to send a written apology and pay £3,600 for the impact of lost provision. It will review why the failures happened, act to ensure they are not repeated on future cases and prepare an Action Plan. It will provide an update on actions already taken.