Decision search
Your search has 49843 results
-
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Parking and other penalties 07-Mar-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to complaints of obstructive parking as the complaint is made late and there are not good reasons to investigate now.
-
London Borough of Wandsworth (23 017 554)
Statement Upheld Disabled children 07-Mar-2025
Summary: Ms X complains about delays by the Council and the Trust in completing an autism assessment for her child and for not fast‑tracking their assessment. We found fault with the initial referral, but the Trust has already remedied this. We also found fault with the triage panel meeting that led to some delay. We did not find fault by the Council and the Trust with how they considered Ms X’s fast‑track request. However, fault with a panel meeting led to some uncertainty about whether this could have been considered sooner. We have recommended the Trust and the Council take actions to address the faults and apologise for the distress caused to Ms X.
-
St Georges University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (23 017 554a)
Statement Upheld Education, health and care plans 07-Mar-2025
Summary: Ms X complains about delays by the Council and the Trust in completing an autism assessment for her child and for not fast‑tracking their assessment. We found fault with the initial referral, but the Trust has already remedied this. We also found fault with the triage panel meeting that led to some delay. We did not find fault by the Council and the Trust with how they considered Ms X’s fast‑track request. However, fault with a panel meeting led to some uncertainty about whether this could have been considered sooner. We have recommended the Trust and the Council take actions to address the faults and apologise for the distress caused to Ms X.
-
St Georges University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (23 017 554b)
Statement Upheld Education, health and care plans 07-Mar-2025
Summary: Ms X complains about delays by the Council and the Trust in completing an autism assessment for her child and for not fast‑tracking their assessment. We found fault with the initial referral, but the Trust has already remedied this. We also found fault with the triage panel meeting that led to some delay. We did not find fault by the Council and the Trust with how they considered Ms X’s fast‑track request. However, fault with a panel meeting led to some uncertainty about whether this could have been considered sooner. We have recommended the Trust and the Council take actions to address the faults and apologise for the distress caused to Ms X.
-
London Borough of Lambeth (23 020 047)
Statement Upheld Homelessness 07-Mar-2025
Summary: We have found fault with the Council for delays incurred during Ms X’s homelessness application process. This caused Ms X the injustice of living in unsuitable accommodation with her family. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her a financial amount to remedy the injustice.
-
London Borough of Ealing (23 020 398)
Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 07-Mar-2025
Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council decided Ms B’s care plan and its provision of care.
-
Lancashire County Council (23 021 445)
Statement Upheld School transport 07-Mar-2025
Summary: We found fault on Mr P’s complaint about the Council’s assessment of his request for free home to school transport which means his daughter will have a longer travel route to school. There was no guidance about how to assess the shortest walking route to the nearest school. Its policy could have been clearer about the assessment for deciding the nearest school and that used after this was decided. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.
-
Leicestershire County Council (24 001 615)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 07-Mar-2025
Summary: We uphold Mrs X’s complaint about the way her husband, Mr X, was discharged from hospital and the care he received in a care home. We found fault with how Leicestershire County Council and Leicestershire General Hospital NHS Trust discharged Mr X. We also found fault with some aspects of Mr X’s care. As a result, Mr X did not always receive appropriate care and Mrs X was caused distress and uncertainty. The Council and the Trust will apologise to Mrs X and pay her a total of £400. The Council will also make some systemic improvements. We did not find fault with Queens Road Surgery.
-
Leicester General Hospital NHS Trust (24 001 615a)
Statement Upheld Hospital acute services 07-Mar-2025
Summary: We uphold Mrs X’s complaint about the way her husband, Mr X, was discharged from hospital and the care he received in a care home. We found fault with how Leicestershire County Council and Leicestershire General Hospital NHS Trust discharged Mr X. We also found fault with some aspects of Mr X’s care. As a result, Mr X did not always receive appropriate care and Mrs X was caused distress and uncertainty. The Council and the Trust will apologise to Mrs X and pay her a total of £400. The Council will also make some systemic improvements. We did not find fault with Queens Road Surgery.
-
Queens Road Surgery (24 001 615b)
Statement Not upheld General practice 07-Mar-2025
Summary: We uphold Mrs X’s complaint about the way her husband, Mr X, was discharged from hospital and the care he received in a care home. We found fault with how Leicestershire County Council and Leicestershire General Hospital NHS Trust discharged Mr X. We also found fault with some aspects of Mr X’s care. As a result, Mr X did not always receive appropriate care and Mrs X was caused distress and uncertainty. The Council and the Trust will apologise to Mrs X and pay her a total of £400. The Council will also make some systemic improvements. We did not find fault with Queens Road Surgery.