Hertfordshire County Council
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the disruption to her grandson’s education because there is nothing we could add to the Council’s response.
Source · Ombudsman decisions
LGO Individual Decisions
40,244 total decisions
13,353 investigated
10,886 upheld
82% upheld of investigated
Years: Jan 2022–Sep 2026
40,244 published decisions from the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman. The Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman investigates complaints about councils and registered social care providers in England. Source: lgo.org.uk.
Decisions
London Borough of Haringey
Summary: The Council was at fault for delays carrying out a review into Ms X’s housing allocations decision. The Council was also at fault for its complaint handling. This caused Ms X frustration and uncertainty. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and make …
London Borough of Hackney
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council mishandling his homelessness case because there is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision making to justify our involvement. Mr X has exercised his statutory review rights in relation to the decision that he …
Maldon District Council
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take enforcement action to control his neighbour’s development. We have ended our investigation because the complaint is late there are no good reasons why Mr X could not have complained sooner.
London Borough of Barnet
Summary: We upheld Mr X‘s complaint about the Council failing to refund a council tax overpayment. This is because the Council has since refunded the outstanding credit, updated its website, and agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mr X.
Sheffield City Council
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a credit due to Miss X’s mother’s account. This is because we have decided any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
Essex County Council
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council did not respond appropriately to a complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to consider complaints about complaint procedures, and we will not do so here.
Oxfordshire County Council
Summary: The Council was not at fault for the way it dealt with Miss X’s child’s educational provision when they could not attend school. We also find the Council replied to Miss X’s complaint.
Birmingham City Council
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her child’s school transport assistance application. This is because it was reasonable for her to ask the Council for an appeal by an independent panel.
London Borough of Newham
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a home to school transport application. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation.
Liverpool City Council
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement with X’s family. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome that X is seeking.
Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s school’s admissions appeal panel refusing her appeal. It is unlikely we would find fault which caused Miss X to lose out on a school place.
Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about council tax liability. The Council has applied for a Liability Order, and the law prevents us from investigating complaints about the start of court action or what happened in court. For the rest, it was reasonable to expect …
St Paul's School for Girls, Edgbaston
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is nothing more we could achieve.
East Sussex County Council
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care commissioned by the Council. This is because this complaint is late and there are no good reasons why the complainant did not bring the complaint to the Ombudsman sooner.
Isle of Wight Council
Summary: The Council was at fault for delay issuing a planning enforcement notice on a business near Mr X’s home. He said noise from the business disturbed his sleep. The fault caused Mr X frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make …
London Borough of Enfield
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled a complaint about the placement of a telecommunications cabinet. This is because we have decided any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
Swindon Borough Council
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a planning officer’s report. The claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant investigation.
Wiltshire Council
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council holding him responsible for his late relative’s care charges. This is because the complaint has been made late and there are no good reasons for investigating.
Stafford Borough Council
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a council tax matter. Some of the complaint is late, and Mr X has sought a remedy in court.
Sunderland City Council
because there is a right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.
City of York Council
Summary: We upheld Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to provide the support to meet his Care Act assessed needs. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by issuing an apology and paying Mr X a symbolic payment to recognise the injustice caused.
Surrey County Council
Summary: We cannot investigate X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to carry out an Education Health and Care needs assessment, or the conduct of the Council during a tribunal appeal. The law prevents us from investigating complaints when someone has used their right of appeal …
London Borough of Croydon
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a council tax support overpayment. This is because it was reasonable to expect Mrs X to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.
City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
Summary: We upheld Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to address his safety concerns. The Council has agreed to apologise and provide him with an explanation.