Decision search
Your search has 49844 results
-
Essex County Council (24 003 512)
Statement Upheld Alternative provision 06-Feb-2025
Summary: Miss X complains the Council did not deal with her daughter’s education properly. The Council did not make full educational provision and did not communicate with Miss X effectively. Miss X suffered avoidable distress and her daughter lost educational provision. The Council should pay Miss X £5,750.
-
London Borough of Merton (24 003 526)
Statement Upheld Refuse and recycling 06-Feb-2025
Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly issued him with a fixed penalty notice when he left his domestic refuse out for collection at the wrong time. We have found fault by the Council in not considering the full range of powers when deciding to issue the notice. We consider the agreed action by the Council of a refund of the amount paid by Mr X and an apology provides a suitable remedy.
-
London Borough of Newham (24 003 799)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 06-Feb-2025
Summary: We found fault with the Council’s failure to ensure delivery of all special educational provision to the complainant’s (Ms X) daughter (Y). The Council’s fault caused injustice to Y and Ms X. The Council agreed to apologise, make payments to recognise Y’s educational loss and Ms X’s distress and carry out some service improvements.
-
West Sussex County Council (24 003 896)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 06-Feb-2025
Summary: Mr B complained about the way an NHS Trust and Council assessed him to decide whether he should be detained under the Mental Health Act. He also complained about his care and support while he was waiting to be transferred to an in-patient “mental health bed”. We found fault by both organisations. The Trust did not properly inform Mr B about his legal rights and status under the Mental Health Act. The Council did not ensure the medical recommendations remained valid when it reassessed Mr B under the Mental Health Act. These failings caused Mr B avoidable distress and upset. The organisations have agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy, and take actions to improve their services.
-
Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (24 003 896a)
Statement Upheld Mental health services 06-Feb-2025
Summary: Mr B complained about the way an NHS Trust and Council assessed him to decide whether he should be detained under the Mental Health Act. He also complained about his care and support while he was waiting to be transferred to an in-patient “mental health bed”. We found fault by both organisations. The Trust did not properly inform Mr B about his legal rights and status under the Mental Health Act. The Council did not ensure the medical recommendations remained valid when it reassessed Mr B under the Mental Health Act. These failings caused Mr B avoidable distress and upset. The organisations have agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy, and take actions to improve their services.
-
Wokingham Borough Council (24 004 460)
Statement Upheld Charging 06-Feb-2025
Summary: Ms Y complained the Council failed to provide her and Mrs X with information about possible charges for Mrs X’s care at home, leading to a debt causing distress. We found evidence of some fault in the way the Council administered these matters, but these faults did not cause injustice to Mrs X or Ms Y. So, we have completed our investigation.
-
Statement Not upheld Looked after children 06-Feb-2025
Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s failure to acknowledge her status as a former looked after child and honour previous commitment about future support. This affected her priority on the Council’s housing register. We did not find the Council was at fault.
-
Sheffield City Council (24 005 015)
Statement Upheld Refuse and recycling 06-Feb-2025
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to arrange bin collections for a supported living facility. Mr X said this left vulnerable residents without waste collections for weeks, and bins were overflowing. He said it caused unnecessary and avoidable stress and inconvenience. We find the Council at fault and this caused injustice. The Council will apologise to Mr X and improve its service.
-
London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (24 005 027)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 06-Feb-2025
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have no power to investigate complaints about councils acting in their capacity as social landlord.
-
Lancashire County Council (24 005 207)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 06-Feb-2025
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed issuing her son (Y’s) amended Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan within statutory timescales following an annual review in December 2023. She also complained the Council has failed to provide a laptop for her son to access the provision set out in his Plan. The Council was at fault because it failed to issue an amended EHC Plan until December 2024 and it provided delayed and inaccurate complaint responses. The Council was not at fault for failing to provide a laptop but it took too long to consider Mrs X’s request which was fault. This caused Mrs X distress, frustration and uncertainty about her son’s education and delayed her right of appeal to the SEND tribunal. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise this.