The Ombudsman ensures the good administration and transparency of EU institutions. The main objective of the ombudsman is to support the EU institutions in becoming more effective, transparent and accountable and is completely independent and impartial in the performance of its duties. The Ombudsman can open an investigation on its own initiative or following a complaint, if an institution or body of the EU fails to respect fundamental rights, legal rules or principles, or the principles of good administration. For more information on the Ombudsman, see the European Ombudsman website.

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has published a report on its investigation into a complaint against Isle of Wight Council. The Ombudsman has criticised the council for its failure adequately investigate a mother’s complaint into its delayed reassessment of her disabled son’s personal budget. The investigation found the council did not follow statutory procedures for dealing with complaints.

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has published findings from its investigation into London Borough of Haringey following a safeguarding complaint, revealing more than 1,100 unread emails in the council's social work inbox, including over 500 unread police welfare reports. The investigation arose from a complaint that the council failed to act promptly on concerns about a vulnerable individual's living situation before he sustained a life-changing injury during a seizure. The Ombudsman has ordered Haringey to pay £2,000 compensation to the affected individual for leaving him at risk of harm and £200 to the complainant. The council has agreed to implement an action plan including reviewing its safeguarding policy, providing staff training on accepting safeguarding referrals and complaint handling, and reporting progress to the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and relevant scrutiny committee. The case reference is London Borough of Haringey (24 014 203).

The Housing Ombudsman Service has found severe maladministration for how Peabody responded to reports of anti-social behaviour and noise nuisance for a significant period of time, which caused a resident and her terminally ill husband to end their tenancy. The husband, who died during the case, had been caused stress and anxiety due to the anti-social behaviour and noise nuisance. The resident’s ongoing reports of nuisance went unanswered for months on end, causing her to terminate the tenancy and rent another property to care for her terminally ill husband. Peabody’s inaction meant that it did not consider the guidance on supporting victims and witnesses as outlined in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (ABCPA 2014), or as described in the landlord’s own policies and procedures. As a result, the landlord has introduced specialist community safety teams to work with residents and communities on any anti-social behaviour issues and has created a dedicated complaints team. The Chief Executive at the landlord has been ordered to apologise to the resident personally, pay £2,000 in compensation, and review how it manages anti-social behavior.

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has criticised the Folkestone and Hythe Council for its failure to assist a homeless family who had approached the council for help. The Ombudsman investigation found that the council delayed helping the family for three weeks during January and February 2019. The Ombudsman requested the council to apologise to the family and pay £100 to remedy the uncertainty and distress it had caused.

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has issued an Adverse Findings Notice against Peepal Care after it refused to apologise to a family for providing poor quality care because it was its owner’s dying wish not to do so. The provider also argued that apologising would show culpability to the family and leave it open to further claims. According to the Ombudsman, Peepal Care is the only provider in the UK to have received two such notices. The Ombudsman has said that the provider failed to provide appropriate training to its staff and gave a day’s notice prior to withdrawing its services after the family complained.

Local Government analysis: An application for judicial review of two decisions of the Teacher Regulation Agency not to pursue disciplinary action against a headteacher and their deputy headteacher was bought by Mr Lau, purportedly a witness to the misconduct. His application was bought 15 and 19 months after the decisions against the respective teachers. The court assessed whether permission for an application for judicial review should be given in light of the delay, and declined to give permission regarding either decision. It held that a complaint to the appropriate Ombudsman was not an alternative remedy due to limits on the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, such that waiting for its determination was not a good reason to delay. There was prejudice to the teachers involved, and to the administration of justice regarding ongoing disciplinary matters against the headteacher. In making its decision, the court looked to the Denton criteria. Written by Adam Heppinstall QC and Jack Castle, barristers at Henderson Chambers.

Pensions analysis: The Deputy Pension Protection Fund Ombudsman has rejected a complaint about a member’s level of Pension Protection Fund (PPF) compensation. Martin Scott of gunnercooke LLP looks at the decision.

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) has reported that Bromley Council been ordered to pay a family of seven £6,000 for failing to provide suitable accommodation to the family when threatened with homelessness. The Council took 13 months from the point it accepted a duty to provide the family with accommodation to when it offered the family suitable accommodation, during which time the family were living in overcrowded conditions. The investigation found the Council did not do enough to consider the family’s circumstances, and had it done so it would have found the family to be in priority need. It also found the Council failed to review its prevention duties and personalised housing plan until the complaint was made.

Local Government analysis: Jamie Potter, partner at Bindmans LLP, examines the High Court’s decision in R (Morris) v Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman that the defendant ombudsman’s investigation of the interested party's loss of medical records relating to the claimant's late daughter had not breached the claimant's legitimate expectation.

The European Ombudswoman, Teresa Anjinho, has opened an inquiry concerning the European Commission’s preparation of a legislative proposal included in its omnibus package of simplification measures. This inquiry was initiated following a complaint submitted by eight civil society organisations, which alleged that the Commission failed to comply with its Better Regulation Guidelines by not providing a justification for omitting a public consultation or an impact assessment on the draft legislation, and for not conducting a climate consistency assessment as mandated by the European Climate Law. The Ombudswoman has sought clarifications from the Commission regarding the stakeholder consultations referenced in the explanatory memorandum accompanying the proposal, including details of the companies and stakeholders invited to meetings in early February 2025 and the criteria used for their selection, as well as an explanation for the decision not to hold a public consultation.

The presumption that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary (a) something which should have been done was in fact done, or (b) something which has been done was done in accordance with all relevant technicalities.