Decision search
Your search has 49843 results
-
Surrey County Council (24 018 816)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Highway repair and maintenance 31-Jan-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the condition of a pavement. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We are unlikely to find fault with the Council’s response to the complaint.
-
Isle of Wight Council (24 002 957)
Statement Not upheld Enforcement 31-Jan-2025
Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed enforcement action on several breaches of planning control at a development near his house. The Council was not at fault.
-
Sheffield City Council (24 004 006)
Statement Not upheld Charging 30-Jan-2025
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to follow the correct procedures when it decided Mrs Y had deliberately deprived herself of assets. There was no fault in the way the Council reached its decision.
-
Essex County Council (24 004 237)
Statement Upheld Highway repair and maintenance 30-Jan-2025
Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to resolve drainage and disrepair issues on the road and pavement outside his house and this caused him distress. There was fault by the Council which caused avoidable distress, time, and trouble to Mr X. The Council agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy. It will also share a copy of our final decision and issue reminders to relevant staff.
-
London Borough of Waltham Forest (24 005 268)
Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 30-Jan-2025
Summary: Ms B complained about the actions of the Council in respect of her mother’s care needs before and after she was evicted, partly due to hoarding behaviour. We have found no fault.
-
Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 30-Jan-2025
Summary: Ms X complained about the Care Provider’s standards of care for her family member, Mrs Y. I found the Care Provider failed to record and report injuries to Mrs Y and had poor communication with Ms X, which caused distress, risk of harm, and time and trouble. The Care Provider should make a symbolic payment to Ms X, reimburse her for damage caused to a table and change its procedures for quoting case costs to align with the law.
-
Surrey County Council (23 019 472)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 30-Jan-2025
Summary: The Council failed to arrange a suitable full-time education for Ms B’s son, K, when he was unable to attend school. It has agreed to apologise and makes payments to Ms B and K. It has also agreed to make service improvements.
-
Wakefield City Council (23 020 784)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 30-Jan-2025
Summary: The Council was at fault for a delay in seeking medical advice after finding out that Ms X’s son was not attending school. However, it then offered him full-time educational provision, for which it was not at fault. When it did seek medical advice, this advice did not support his non-attendance at school. This means the delay is unlikely to have caused him a significant injustice, and we have not recommended that further action be taken.
-
London Borough of Sutton (24 000 482)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 30-Jan-2025
Summary: Ms B complained that the Council had failed to ensure the provision detailed in her daughter C’s EHC Plan since December 2022 was put in place. This caused her distress as to whether C had missed out on essential support. We have concluded the Council did not ensure all the provision was in place. The Council to apologise to Ms B, make her a symbolic payment of £300 for her own injustice and £1300 to an education provider (agreed to by the Council and Ms B) for the benefit of C’s education.
-
Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (24 001 219)
Statement Upheld Homelessness 30-Jan-2025
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s response to his request for homelessness assistance when he was fleeing domestic abuse. We have found fault by the Council, causing injustice, in failing to: properly consider its homelessness duties to Mr X, in particular the duty to provide interim accommodation; refer him to domestic abuse support services; be clear about the information required for his separate housing and homelessness applications; and properly consider the need for the provision of safe accommodation for male domestic abuse victims within its area. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by: apologising to Mr X, making payments to recognise the impact on him of the failure to provide suitable interim accommodation and the distress and upset caused, reviewing his housing register application and making service improvements.