Decision search
Your search has 49843 results
-
Buckinghamshire Council (24 015 645)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Licensing 24-Jan-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council decided to place penalty points on Mr X’s taxi licence and give him a final warning. This is because it was reasonable to expect Mr X to ask for a Council appeal.
-
Essex County Council (24 015 847)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 24-Jan-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more.
-
Essex County Council (24 014 708)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 24-Jan-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education, Health and Care plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the delay.
-
Liverpool City Council (24 014 727)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Enforcement 24-Jan-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s threats of enforcement action concerning a breach of planning control. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
-
London Borough of Hillingdon (24 015 540)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Council tax 24-Jan-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about information on the Council’s website about council tax on empty homes as there is insufficient evidence of fault or fault causing the complainant an injustice.
-
Essex County Council (24 015 624)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 24-Jan-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more.
-
Lancashire County Council (23 018 632)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 23-Jan-2025
Summary: There was fault and service failure in failing to issue an Education, Health and Care Plan on time. This caused distress and uncertainty whether Y would have been able to remain on their college course if the Plan had been issued on time. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment to acknowledge the injustice caused. The complaint is upheld.
-
Lancashire County Council (23 018 633)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 23-Jan-2025
Summary: There was delay by the Council in issuing a final Education, Health and Care Plan, and a failure to secure fulltime suitable education when a pupil could only attend school part-time. This caused loss of education, distress and inconvenience to the whole family. The Council will apologise, make symbolic payments and carry out service improvements.
-
Surrey County Council (23 019 509)
Statement Upheld Alternative provision 23-Jan-2025
Summary: The Council was not at fault for initially refusing to deliver alternative educational provision to Ms B’s daughter while she was out of school. It followed correct procedure and considered evidence properly before reaching its decision. When new evidence became available, it re-evaluated its position and began delivering alternative education; however, this education was not full-time, for which the Council was at fault. It has agreed to provide remedies for Ms B’s daughter’s injustice.
-
Cheshire East Council (23 020 111)
Statement Not upheld Charging 23-Jan-2025
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not properly assess her mother Mrs Y’s needs for residential care and the associated charges for this. Mrs X said poor communication meant the family paid more than they expected to and caused them distress. There was one instance where the Council’s communication with Mrs X about charges for respite care could have been clearer, but this did not cause significant injustice. There was no fault in how the Council charged Mrs Y for her contribution to care costs, or her family for top-up fees.