Advice on comparing statistics across years

In 2022-23 we changed our investigation processes, contributing towards an increase in the average uphold rate across all complaints. Consider comparing individual council uphold rates against the average rate rather than against previous years.

In 2020-21 we received and decided fewer complaints than normal because we stopped accepting new complaints for three months due to Covid-19.

London Borough of Redbridge

Complaint overview

Between 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025, we dealt with 169 complaints. Of these, 54 were not for us or not ready for us to investigate. We assessed and closed 71 complaints. We investigated 44 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 44 complaints and upheld 40.

    91% of complaints we investigated were upheld.

    This compares to an average of 84% in similar authorities.

    Adjusted for London Borough of Redbridge's population, this is 12.8 upheld decisions per 100,000 residents.

    The average for authorities of this type is
    9.1 upheld decisions per 100,000 residents.

    View upheld decisions
  • Satisfactory remedies provided by the Council

    In 6 out of 40 upheld cases we found the Council had provided a satisfactory remedy before the complaint reached the Ombudsman.

    15% satisfactory remedy rate.

    This compares to an average of 12% in similar authorities.

  • Compliance with Ombudsman recommendations

    We recorded compliance outcomes in 31 cases.
    In 31 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.

View annual letters

Reports

The Ombudsman has published the following reports against London Borough of Redbridge

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.

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is this week issuing two separate reports into the way London Borough of Redbridge has failed the family of a 20 year old man with Special Educational Needs.

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has asked London Borough of Redbridge to audit all children who receive Special Educational Needs provision at a borough school after the council left a boy without the support he needed for more than two years.

Two London schoolchildren were left in bed and breakfast accommodation for too long by Redbridge council, according to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

Local authorities are being reminded about the need to house homeless families appropriately, following two separate investigations into the London Borough of Redbridge by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has asked a London borough to pay for a family holiday as partial remedy for causing a disabled boy to miss out on nearly two years of specialist support.

5

Reports for London Borough of Redbridge

View all

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: 25 007 484

Category: Adult care services

Sub Category: Safeguarding

  • The Council will share this decision with staff in homelessness, adult social care and complaint handling.
  • The Council will review its procedure for arranging interpreters within adult social care and update relevant staff on this.
  • The Council will review how it monitors and ensures progress where a safeguarding referral is closed on the basis that the risk is managed by Care Act assessments.

Case reference: 24 022 800

Category: Housing

Sub Category: Council house sales and leaseholders

  • The Council will remind relevant staff to consider the Government Guidance on Right to Buy when making offers where the cost floor price is higher than the market valuation.

Case reference: 24 021 597

Category: Housing

Sub Category: Allocations

  • The Council will carry out a training session for officers dealing with homeless applications to cover priority need, the circumstances in which the Council should provide interim accommodation and the Council’s discretionary powers to provide interim accommodation where a person is rough sleeping.

Case reference: 24 018 072

Category: Transport and highways

Sub Category: Parking and other penalties

  • Review its procedure in relation to the date up until which representations can be provided to ensure it is in line with legislation and provide evidence it has done so.

Case reference: 24 017 739

Category: Adult care services

Sub Category: Disabled facilities grants

  • Create an action plan with the aim of helping to reduce the significant delays in the Council's Disabled Facilities Grant processing times.

Case reference: 24 017 686

Category: Adult care services

Sub Category: Charging

  • 2. Within three months of the final decision the Council will:a) review why Mrs D did not receive an Occupational Therapy assessment before she went home and provide an action plan about how the Council will avoid this happening in the future;
  • Within three months of the final decision the Council will: b) provide a reminder by way of a staff circular, team meeting or as part of formal training, to relevant officers about the importance of completing person centered support plans;
  • Within three months of the final decision the Council will: c) provide a reminder by way of a staff circular, team meeting or as part of formal training, to relevant officers about the importance of recording interactions including telephone calls;
  • Within three months of the final decision the Council will: d) provide an update on what actions the Council has taken about Bio Luminuex Healthcare Ltd to ensure it provides contracted services.

Case reference: 24 017 062

Category: Housing

Sub Category: Homelessness

  • The Council agreed to remind relevant officers of the need to assess the suitability of temporary accommodation for applicants before placing them in it and to retain a record of the assessment.

Case reference: 24 016 722

Category: Housing

Sub Category: Homelessness

  • The Council should produce an action plan to address the delays in dealing with applications and review requests caused by staff shortages, and any backlogs this has created.

Case reference: 24 016 712

Category: Housing

Sub Category: Homelessness

  • Using this case as an example, the Council has agreed to remind relevant staff of the duty to make inquiries and issue a reviewable decision when it has reason to believe someone might be homeless or threatened with homeless, regardless of any duty owed by another council
  • The Council has agreed to ensure all decisions on applications for social housing give reasons for the decision and set out the applicant’s right to ask for a review. Amend any templates as necessary.
  • The Council has agreed to identify and implement a means of ensuring that automated decision making in housing allocations does not prevent the Council considering individual circumstances and exercising discretion
  • The Council has agreed to review and amend the housing allocations policy to ensure it reflects the requirement of the Housing Act 1996 to give reasonable preference to applicants owed a homelessness duty by any council and does not disqualify a group of applicants who would otherwise have reasonable preference.
  • The Council has agreed to keep records of all applications for social housing and resulting decisions in line with the Council’s document retention policy.

Case reference: 24 014 994

Category: Education

Sub Category: School transport

  • The Council used the wrong age policy and did not identify this at appeal stage. The Council will check its guidance and training for decision makers to ensure they apply the correct law and guidance for the age / year group of the applicant, and this is checked at every stage. The Council could consider introducing prompts or checklists to assist with this.

102

Cases with service improvements agreed by London Borough of Redbridge

View all

Last updated: 4 April 2015

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings