Decision search
Your search has 49843 results
-
Bolsover District Council (24 005 826)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 05-Sep-2024
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions with regard to an empty property. We cannot investigate complaints about how councils spend public resources which affects all or most of the residents of their areas. There is insufficient evidence of any significant personal injustice to Mr X caused by the Council’s actions.
-
Lancashire County Council (24 005 437)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Alternative provision 04-Sep-2024
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council failing to make educational provision for Ms X’s child. Where a parent appeals against an Educational Health and Care Plan, a court judgement prevents us considering what educational provision is made for the child from the date of issue until the date of the Tribunal decision.
-
Durham County Council (24 007 815)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Councillor conduct and standards 04-Sep-2024
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about standard committees because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
-
London Borough of Havering (24 008 046)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries School admissions 04-Sep-2024
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a Council’s school admissions appeal panel’s decision as it is unlikely we would find fault.
-
London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (24 008 085)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries School admissions 04-Sep-2024
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s School Admissions Appeal Panel’s handling of her appeal against the refusal to offer her child a place at her preferred school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant further investigation.
-
Broxtowe Borough Council (24 008 317)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 04-Sep-2024
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with breaches of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.
-
Surrey County Council (24 008 413)
Statement Upheld Disabled children 04-Sep-2024
Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council failed to consider a complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint by issuing a response without further delay. It will also apologise and offer to make a payment to the complainant to remedy the time and trouble they have been too.
-
Melton Borough Council (24 008 859)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Housing benefit and council tax benefit 04-Sep-2024
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s retrospective claim for housing benefit made without the complainant’s knowledge and delay in responding to the complaint. We do not consider Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice because of the Council’s actions. And we consider an apology for the delay in responding to the complainant is a suitable remedy to this part of the complaint.
-
Kent County Council (24 008 906)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Domiciliary care 04-Sep-2024
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to investigate her complaints alleging poor care provision towards her late friend, Mr Y. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s responses to Ms X.
-
East Sussex County Council (24 009 360)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Highway repair and maintenance 04-Sep-2024
Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that his car was damaged by a road defect which the Council had failed to repair. This is because it is reasonable for Mr B to pursue his compensation claim at court. An investigation solely into the Council’s handling of Mr B’s claim is not justified.