High Peak Borough Council
Complaint overview
Between 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025, we dealt with 25 complaints. Of these, 13 were not for us or not ready for us to investigate. We assessed and closed 6 complaints. We investigated 6 complaints.
More about this data
Complaints dealt with – the total number of complaints and enquiries considered. It is not appropriate to investigate all of them.
Not for us – includes complaints brought to us before the council was given chance to consider it, or the complainant came to the wrong Ombudsman.
Assessed and closed – includes complaints where the law says we’re not allowed to investigate, or it would be a poor use of public funds if we did.
Investigated – we completed an investigation and made a decision on whether we found fault, or no fault.
Complaints upheld – we completed an investigation and found evidence of fault, or the organisation provided a suitable remedy early on.
Satisfactory remedies provided by the Council – the council upheld the complaint and we agreed with how it offered to put things right.
Compliance with Ombudsman recommendations – not complying with our recommendations is rare. A council with a compliance rate below 100% should scrutinise the complaints where it failed to comply and identify any learning.
Average performance rates – we compare the annual statistics of similar types of councils to work out an average level of performance. We do this for County Councils, District Councils, Metropolitan Boroughs, Unitary Councils, and London Boroughs.
For more information on understanding our statistics see Interpreting our complaints data.
Complaints dealt with
Not for us
Assessed and closed
Investigated
-
Complaints upheld
We investigated 6 complaints and upheld 5.
83% of complaints we investigated were upheld.
This compares to an average of 66% in similar authorities.
View upheld decisionsAdjusted for High Peak Borough Council's population, this is 5.5 upheld decisions per 100,000 residents.
The average for authorities of this type is
1.1 upheld decisions per 100,000 residents. -
Satisfactory remedies provided by the Council
In 0 out of 5 upheld cases we found the Council had provided a satisfactory remedy before the complaint reached the Ombudsman.
0% satisfactory remedy rate.
This compares to an average of 15% in similar authorities.
-
Compliance with Ombudsman recommendations
We recorded compliance outcomes in 4 cases.
In 4 cases we were satisfied with the actions taken.100% compliance rate with recommendations.
This compares to an average of 100% in similar authorities.
Annual letters
We write to councils each year to give a summary of the complaint statistics we record about them,
and their performance in responding to our investigations.
Reports
The Ombudsman has published the following reports against High Peak Borough Council
Find out more about reports
We issue reports on certain investigations, particularly where there is a wider public interest to do so. Common reasons for reports are significant injustice, systemic issues, major learning points and non-compliance with our recommendations. Issuing reports is one way we help to ensure councils are accountable to local people and highlighting the learning from complaints helps to improve services for everybody. Reports are published for 10 years.
No reports published
Service improvements
The Council has agreed to make the following improvements to its services following an Ombudsman investigation.
Find out more about service improvements
When we find fault, we can recommend improvements to systems and processes where they haven’t worked properly, so that others do not suffer from these same problems in future. Common examples are policy changes; procedural reviews; and staff training. Service improvements from decisions are published for 5 years and those from reports are published for 10 years.
The latest 10 cases are listed below – click ‘view all’ to find all service improvements.
Case reference: 24 002 008
Category: Benefits and tax
Sub Category: Council tax
- The Council agreed to remind relevant officers of the need to consider and assess all evidence of vulnerability on a case file and to record the outcome.
- The Council agreed to remind relevant officers of the need to consider and assess whether it is a proportionate response to start formal recovery action in all the circumstances of the case, which would include considering vulnerability and the sum outstanding.
Case reference: 23 010 819
Category: Benefits and tax
Sub Category: Council tax
- The Council will provide training or guidance to relevant officers to ensure it informs customers of any opportunities to appeal decisions or apply for discretionary council tax relief.
Case reference: 23 003 847
Category: Planning
Sub Category: Enforcement
- The Council has agreed to review what happened and decide whether any changes to practice or procedure are needed, or whether additional training is necessary.
Case reference: 23 006 019
Category: Environment and regulation
Sub Category: Drainage
- The Council agreed to review procedures and produce guidance for officers to ensure clear information is given to members of the public reporting issues with drainage/flooding problems which explains the outcome of any initial visit, the role of the Council and the Lead Local Flood Authority, the nature of any information given by officers, the possible need for them to get their own independent legal advice, correcting any misunderstandings promptly as they arise, advise about visits,and notifying them of its decision to close a case and the reasons for doing so.
Last updated: 4 April 2015