Decision search
Your search has 49647 results
-
Suffolk County Council (24 004 772)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 17-Feb-2025
Summary: delays by the Council finalising Mrs M’s son B’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan delayed Mrs M’s right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal. There is no evidence the Council considered its duty to make alternative arrangements for B’s education when he stopped attending school in November 2023. The Council has agreed a symbolic remedy for the injustice caused.
-
Bristol City Council (24 005 216)
Statement Upheld Allocations 17-Feb-2025
Summary: Mr B says the Council misled him about whether it had agreed to provide him with a direct offer, failed to respond to his emails and failed to give him sufficient priority on the Council’s housing register. The Council’s communications with Mr B about whether it had included him on the direct offers list were unclear, the Council delayed considering whether Mr B had exceptional circumstances to warrant a direct offer and in awarding him additional priority. That caused Mr B frustration and left him with some uncertainty about whether his situation could have been resolved earlier. An apology, payment to Mr B and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.
-
Cambridgeshire County Council (24 005 341)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 17-Feb-2025
Summary: Mr B complains the Council caused delays during the annual review process for his son’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and amended the Plan without informing him and without any additional assessments. There was fault by the Council in the way it did not meet annual review statutory timescales. Mr B suffered distress and frustration, and the Council’s failure to meet statutory timescales delayed his appeal rights to the Tribunal. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B, make a symbolic payment, and issue a staff briefing.
-
Birmingham City Council (24 005 739)
Statement Not upheld Highway repair and maintenance 17-Feb-2025
Summary: Mr X complained the Council has failed to take action to prevent ground water from building up near his property. We have not found fault in the Council’s actions.
-
Kent County Council (24 005 775)
Statement Not upheld School admissions 17-Feb-2025
Summary: We have ended our investigation into Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her son’s school admissions appeal. There is nothing more we could achieve by further investigation.
-
East Devon District Council (24 006 170)
Statement Upheld Enforcement 17-Feb-2025
Summary: Mr X complained the Council misled its planning committee and approved planning permission based on inaccurate plans. We have found the Council at fault for submitting plans which it knew were not accurate, but we do not consider this caused injustice to Mr X. The apology already provided by the Council in response to Mr X’s complaints is a suitable remedy.
-
Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (24 006 640)
Statement Upheld Alternative provision 17-Feb-2025
Summary: the Council accepted it failed to provide Ms M’s son, B, with suitable education from February 2023 until he started at a special school in February 2024. The Council also took too long to issue B’s education, health and care (EHC) plan. The Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment for the injustice caused.
-
London Borough of Islington (24 006 852)
Statement Upheld Homelessness 17-Feb-2025
Summary: The Council has already accepted fault for its delays and poor communication with Mr X about his application for social housing. Its offer to Mr X of £500 is a suitable remedy for the distress and frustration this caused. The Council was not at fault in how it decided Mr X’s priority on its housing register. The Council’s failure to identify a safeguarding risk and make a referral was fault. The Council has agreed to act to improve its services.
-
London Borough of Camden (24 007 486)
Statement Upheld Trees 17-Feb-2025
Summary: Mr B complained about the Council’s failure to respond to his complaints about an enforcement matter which caused him confusion. We found fault with the way the Council responded to his complaints. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay him £100.
-
St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (24 007 999)
Statement Not upheld Special educational needs 17-Feb-2025
Summary: Mr B complained about the Council’s refusal to respond to complaints he made on behalf of X and Ms Y. We found no fault by the Council. It acted in line with its corporate complaints policy and the children’s statutory complaints guidance, and exercised its discretion Mr B was not an appropriate person to make the complaints and represent X. Without fault in the process, these were decisions it was entitled to make.