Decision search
Your search has 49843 results
-
Middlesbrough Borough Council (24 019 307)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Council tax 04-Feb-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s complaint handling as any injustice arising from this, in isolation, is not sufficient to justify our further action. Issues around information access are best dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office.
-
London Borough of Redbridge (24 004 711)
Statement Upheld Homelessness 04-Feb-2025
Summary: Mr X and Ms Y complain about the way the Council dealt with their mother, Mrs Z’s housing situation causing distress. We found fault by the Council as it kept Mrs Z in unsuitable temporary accommodation for longer than it should. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs Z for the injustice caused so we are completing our investigation.
-
London Borough of Lewisham (24 003 953)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 03-Feb-2025
Summary: Miss X complained that the Council failed to hold an annual review of her son Z’s Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) within the required statutory timescale. We have concluded our investigation making a finding of fault. We found fault with the Council for failing to meet the statutory deadline for the annual review. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by these delays.
-
Central Bedfordshire Council (24 005 340)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 03-Feb-2025
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to issue an amended final Education Health and Care Plan for Miss Z following the Plan’s annual review. Mrs X said this meant Miss Z did not receive suitable support. We found avoidable delay by the Council in completing the annual review. We could not say what support the Plan should provide for Miss Z. But, as the Council issued an amended final Plan during our investigation, this gave Mrs X and Miss Z legal appeal rights, including about the provision made for Miss Z’s special educational needs. However, the Council’s delay denied Mrs X and Miss Z their right to appeal for about 20 months. This caused Mrs X and Miss Z injustice. To address this injustice, the Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and Miss Z and pay Miss Z £500.
-
London Borough of Havering (24 006 516)
Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 03-Feb-2025
Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s failure to act in line with the outcome of her occupational therapy assessment to install an electric shower and shower mixer tap attachment regarding her difficulties getting out of the bath. The Council determined a bath lift was more suitable for Ms X’s needs. I have found no evidence of fault in how the Council reached this view.
-
Statement Not upheld Cemeteries and crematoria 03-Feb-2025
Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed to take the required precautions when digging a grave, causing it to be unsuitable for its intended use and causing damage to neighbouring headstones. We find no fault in the Council’s actions.
-
West Berkshire Council (23 018 177)
Statement Upheld Child protection 03-Feb-2025
Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council carried out Child Protection proceedings for her child. There was fault by the Council which caused avoidable distress, time, and trouble for Ms X. The Council agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy, and place a copy of our decision and the faults identified on its records about Ms X. It will also produce an action plan of how it will avoid recurrence of the same faults and report this action plan to its relevant overview and scrutiny committee for monitoring.
-
London Borough of Brent (24 000 504)
Statement Upheld Other 03-Feb-2025
Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of her son, Mr Y. She complained about the supported living placement, commissioned by the Council. Ms X complained about the lack of activities, lack of support with food preparation, laundry issues, stopping support services and delaying arranging benefits. She also complained she was banned from having contact with Mr Y. Ms X said Mr Y did not get the support he needed, and she put in time to ensure he got support. There was fault in the way the Council did not consider Mr Y’s financial arrangements and delayed completing its complaint response. Ms X was put to time and trouble to complain. The Council should apologise, make a financial payment, remind its staff of the importance of effective complaint handling and complete a capacity assessment and best interests decision about Mr Y’s finances.
-
Woking Borough Council (24 000 626)
Statement Not upheld Planning applications 03-Feb-2025
Summary: Mrs J complained the Council failed to properly consider the impact on her property when it granted planning consent for a footpath in 2020. We have ended our investigation as the complaint is late and there are no good reasons for the complaint not to have been made sooner.
-
London Borough of Brent (23 016 485)
Statement Not upheld Other 03-Feb-2025
Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to offer her suitable accommodation and failed to honour a £250 monthly remedy agreement. Miss X also complained about a failure to make adaptions to her front door and to reimburse expenses incurred. We have concluded our investigation without making a finding of fault. The evidence does not demonstrate fault in the process when the Council made an offer of accommodation and thus its decision to cease the £250 payment arrangement. The evidence also demonstrates that the Council acted within the remit of its professional judgment in addressing the reimbursement of expenses, and the door replacement. None of these decisions indicate fault in how the Council handled the matters raised.