Decision search
Your search has 53514 results
-
West Sussex County Council (24 009 730)
Report Upheld Transport 17-Sep-2025
Summary: Mrs C complained the Council failed to properly consider the decision to remove funding for transport to day support for her son, Mr D, because he had a Motability car. Mrs C says the Council’s decision has resulted in added pressure on her and her husband; and costs neither they, nor Mr D, can meet.
-
London Borough of Barnet (24 016 999)
Statement Upheld Council tax 09-Sep-2025
Summary: Ms D complained about the Council’s handling of her council tax liability for a property she was not living at. She said she experienced distress and has financial costs as a result. We found no fault by the Council in how it handled Ms D’s council tax liability and recovery. However, there was some fault as it should have shared information about its Discretionary Council Tax Relief scheme sooner. The Council will apologise to acknowledge the limited injustice this caused her.
-
Cheshire East Council (24 017 097)
Statement Upheld Safeguarding 09-Sep-2025
Summary: There was fault in the way the Agency provided care to Mrs D and in its record keeping. The Council has agreed to apologise, provide a financial remedy and carry out a service improvement.
-
Oxfordshire County Council (24 018 295)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Direct payments 09-Sep-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about flexibility of meeting adult social care needs. It is unlikely we would find enough evidence of fault given the Council did suggest many options. Although the complainant says they were not suitable it is unlikely we would settle that dispute. An Ombudsman investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve a different outcome.
-
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 09-Sep-2025
Summary: Mrs X complained of the Council’s handling of her child, Y’s, Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan. Based on current evidence, the Council was at fault for failing to ensure Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan was reviewed within statutory timescales. The Council was also at fault for a one-month delay in implementing Y’s funding for his Education Other Than at School (EOTAS) package. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the distress, frustration and uncertainty this caused Mrs X. The Council was not at fault for putting the money into a managed account for Mrs X.
-
London Borough of Enfield (24 019 324)
Statement Upheld Homelessness 09-Sep-2025
Summary: The Council was at fault for delay providing Ms X and her children temporary accommodation, failing to consider its main housing duty, and giving Ms X insufficient time to consider an offer. This meant a delay in Ms X moving back to the area where her support network was, and it disrupted her children’s education. The Council will apologise and make a payment to remedy the injustice.
-
East Devon District Council (24 019 452)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Planning applications 09-Sep-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning advice as there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
-
Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (24 012 946)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Direct payments 09-Sep-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council ended direct payments for his daughters’ care and support without following the correct process. This is because the issues could reasonably be or have been mentioned as part of legal proceedings on a closely related matter.
-
Derby City Council (24 014 779)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 09-Sep-2025
Summary: The Council was at fault for delay in assessing Mrs X’s child, W, for an Education, Health and Care Plan. This meant W missed out on provision they should have had at a key time in their education. To remedy W’s injustice, the Council will make a symbolic payment to Mrs X. It has already agreed to take suitable action to prevent similar fault in future.
-
Dacorum Borough Council (24 015 859)
Statement Upheld Noise 09-Sep-2025
Summary: We have no grounds to criticise the Council’s decision that a noise does not amount to a statutory nuisance. However, there was fault by the Council, because it has considered irrelevant factors as part of its decision-making. This did not cause an injustice to the complainant, but the Council has agreed to issue guidance to its staff.