Decision search
Your search has 49843 results
-
Leicester City Council (24 020 563)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Council tax 11-Mar-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax discounts as there is a right of appeal to a Valuation Tribunal.
-
Rossendale Borough Council (24 020 671)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Council tax 11-Mar-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax banding as the decision was made by a body out of jurisdiction.
-
Blackpool Borough Council (24 020 816)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Parking and other penalties 11-Mar-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the enforcement of a parking penalty charge notice as it is unlikely we will find fault by the Council.
-
Hertfordshire County Council (23 017 638)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 11-Mar-2025
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a visit by Council officers to Mr X’s property or his allegation they stole items. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation. We will also not investigate Mr X’s complaint about police and ambulance attendance, as this is outside our jurisdiction.
-
West Sussex County Council (23 021 450)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 11-Mar-2025
Summary: Ms F complained the Council failed to provide her son (X) with an education in school or through an alternative provision placement since September 2023. She also said it communicated poorly and caused delays in its complaints handling. The Council agreed it was at fault. We found its proposed remedy was not enough. It will apologise to Ms F and make payment to her and X to properly acknowledge the injustice its faults caused them. We have also made service improvement recommendations to address the delays and faults.
-
South Holland District Council (24 003 168)
Statement Upheld Planning applications 11-Mar-2025
Summary: Miss X complains about the way the Council has dealt with and taken enforcement action against a breach of planning control at a neighbouring property. We found no evidence of fault in the way the Council has considered these matters. We found fault in the way the Council responded to Miss X’s complaints causing her an injustice through her time and trouble in pursuing a complaint. We have recommended a suitable remedy for the injustice caused in this case.
-
North Yorkshire Council (24 003 377)
Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 11-Mar-2025
Summary: Miss X complains about the handling of her application for a disabled facilities grant. Miss X says it does not meet her child’s needs, and the Council has refused to consider new information. We find fault with the Council for delaying confirming the funds, and for its complaint handling. The Council has agreed to pay Miss X a distress payment and carry out service improvements.
-
London Borough of Waltham Forest (24 003 751)
Statement Upheld Other 11-Mar-2025
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused to her and her son, Y, after it upheld a complaint she made through the children’s statutory complaint procedure about how it supported them. The Council failed to properly identify the injustice caused to Ms X and Y and did not provide adequate remedies. The Council will apologise to Ms X and pay her a symbolic amount of £700 to recognise the uncertainty, frustration and distress she was caused and the risk of harm Y was put to by the Council’s faults.
-
East Devon District Council (24 005 791)
Statement Not upheld Antisocial behaviour 11-Mar-2025
Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly issued him with a community protection warning, and did not help with neighbour disputes. Mr X said this caused unnecessary distress, frustration, humiliation, and had a disproportionate impact on his mental health. We do not find the Council at fault.
-
Agincare UK Limited (24 006 212)
Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 10-Mar-2025
Summary: We upheld Mr X’s complaint. Complaint handling was not in line with our expectations, record-keeping was poor and staff conduct in a meeting unprofessional. This caused avoidable distress. The Care Provider has accepted our recommendations for a further apology, a symbolic payment and actions for it to take to improve its service and minimise the chance of recurrence.