| Please note: our decisions are published six weeks after they are issued to councils, care providers and the person who has made the complaint. The cases below reflect the caselaw and guidance available at the time of issue and the individual circumstances of each case. Northumberland County Council (23 018 428)
Summary: the Council agreed to amend Ms Pâs son Bâs Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. It issued a final amended Plan 16 weeks after the annual review meeting. This was 4 weeks late. As B was not attending school, this compounds the injustice caused by the delay. The Council has agreed a symbolic remedy. Leicestershire County Council (23 019 093)
Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council handled her childâs transition from education other than at school to a school setting and its failure to provide her child with the personal budgets contained in her Education, Health and Care Plan. Mrs X also complained about how the Council poorly communicated with her. There were some faults by the Council which caused injustice to Mrs X. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused. Hampshire County Council (23 019 576)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council misled her and wrongly said her child had been offered a place at a school. Mrs X said this meant she and her child had prepared to start at this school but it was in vain. She said it caused unnecessary and avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. We find the Council at fault, and this caused injustice. The Council has already apologised. It has also agreed to make a payment to Mrs X to reflect the level of injustice caused. London Borough of Wandsworth (23 019 974)
Summary: Mr Y complains the Council did not properly consider his familyâs circumstances when it looked at his appeal for D to receive taxi transport to school. In our view there is procedural fault in how the Council handled Dâs school transport application and appeal and it has agreed to implement the actions listed at the end of this statement to remedy the injustice caused by fault. North Yorkshire Council (23 020 059)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her child, W, with the special educational provision in their Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council was at fault. The Council has already made Mrs X a suitable remedy to acknowledge Wâs injustice. It will also apologise to Mrs X and issue a staff reminder. London Borough of Lewisham (23 020 835)
Summary: Miss X complains about the Councilâs decision to cease to maintain her son, Yâs, EHCP and a failure to inform of a change in Y's caseworker. We cannot investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision to cease to maintain Yâs EHCP. Y had a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal to appeal the Councilâs decision to cease to maintain their EHCP, and this means the matter is out of our jurisdiction. Further, the Council has apologised to Miss X and reminded local settings of its expectations in order to ensure information is correctly shared in future. London Borough of Redbridge (24 001 905)
Summary: having decided to issue an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for Mr Fâs son, B, the Council should have issued the final Plan by 17 May 2024. The Council has not yet issued the final Plan. We have recommended a symbolic payment to acknowledge the injustice this causes. Dorset Council (24 002 157)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide her child, Y, with appropriate education and provision in line with Yâs Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council was at fault which caused Miss X and Y frustration and distress and meant Y missed out on some education provision. The Council should apologise and make a payment to Miss X. East Sussex County Council (24 002 801)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to put in place suitable education for her child when they were unable to attend school. Ms X said her child has missed out on education. We have found the Council at fault. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise, make a payment to Ms X for the distress caused and to acknowledge the loss of education to her child. Lincolnshire County Council (24 008 013)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr Xâs complaint about a schoolâs decision to restrict his contact. We cannot investigate complaints about the internal management of schools. Devon County Council (24 008 186)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the cost of travel to school. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Surrey County Council (24 009 882)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the Councilâs handling of her sonâs education. This is because it is reasonable for Miss X to use her right of appeal. Essex County Council (24 010 849)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs 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 (24 011 064)
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. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (23 007 675)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs actions in relation to contact with and the welfare of the complainantâs daughter. This is because our intervention would not add to the investigation which has already been carried out, or lead to a different outcome. North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 003 797)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in passing information about her to the health service without her consent. This is because there is no prospect that investigation would find fault on the Councilâs part. Lincolnshire County Council (24 007 299)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Councilâs records of her childrenâs status. The Information Commissionerâs Office is better placed than us to consider these matters as it has powers we lack to require rectification and impose penalties. The stress Mrs X says the Councilâs actions caused is not separable from the data matter. Derbyshire County Council (24 007 496)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of social workers and a local safeguarding process. The matters complained of are closely linked to a court process and either were or could reasonably have been raised in court. A permanent legal bar prevents us investigating them. Coventry City Council (24 007 712)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about child protection failings by the Council as doing so would be unlikely to lead to different or better outcome for Mr X, or to any worthwhile outcome in terms of Council practice. Birmingham City Council (24 007 774)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaints about the accuracy of the Councilâs internal correspondence or its use of language regarding service users. This is because the Council has already apologised to Mrs X and sent reminders to its staff about documenting meetings accurately and its use of language. Therefore, an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve any additional outcome. We also cannot achieve Mrs Xâs desired outcome to discipline staff as the law says we cannot investigate personnel matters. Cheshire West & Chester Council (24 008 367)
Summary: We cannot investigate Miss Xâs complaint. It lies outside our jurisdiction because it is about matters that have been subject to court proceedings. We have no discretion to consider it. Suffolk County Council (24 008 471)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Councilâs decision not to consider her complaint whilst there are ongoing court proceedings. Kent County Council (24 010 352)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs childrenâs services. Legal proceedings are ongoing, and we cannot investigate matters considered in court. Oxfordshire County Council (23 014 461)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to secure suitable education provision for J, or discharge its statutory education responsibilities, when J stopped attending school. Mr X said this led to J losing education provision, affecting Jâs educational attainment and wellbeing. We have found the Council at fault for failing to properly consider its Section 19 duty between February 2023 and May 2023, when J stopped attending school for health reasons. This caused J an injustice. We have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused. Other parts of Mr Xâs complaint are outside the Ombudsmanâs jurisdiction. This is because they concern matters that were part of, connected to, or could have been part of, the appeal to the SEND Tribunal. West Sussex County Council (23 019 454)
Summary: Miss F complained the Council delayed issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan for her daughter and failed to provide her with a suitable full-time education when she was unable to attend school due to ill health. There was delay in issuing the plan. The Council should make a payment to Miss F to remedy the uncertainty and distress that caused. There was no fault in the provision of alternative education. Leeds City Council (24 001 391)
Summary: Ms X complained about delays during the process of her childâs Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council apologised and offered a remedy that Ms X accepted. We have ended our investigation as further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Somerset Council (24 002 396)
Summary: There was delay in completing an annual review for a young person due to move between post-16 placements and fault in the complaint process. This meant a young person could not start their course on time and missed a year of education. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment, and carry out service improvements. The complaint is upheld. Surrey County Council (24 006 134)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council completed an education health and care needs assessment, or its failure to provide alternative education. The complainant has appealed to the Tribunal therefore we have no jurisdiction to investigate. The Council has agreed to remedy the delay in issuing the final Education Health and Care Plan. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (24 007 007)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about education provided to her child, Y since September 2023. Ms X had a right of appeal to a tribunal about the school placements named in Yâs Education, Health and Care Plans and it was reasonable for her to use her appeal rights. London Borough of Hillingdon (24 007 191)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr Xâs complaint about a social workerâs report for court proceedings and their conduct in court because we cannot investigate complaints about court action. We will not investigate his complaint about the social workerâs conduct at a core group meeting as we could not add to the Councilâs response. Devon County Council (24 009 709)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about changes to home to school transport. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Essex County Council (24 010 254)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss 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. Surrey County Council (23 012 543)
Summary: Miss X complained about the way the Council dealt with support for children in her care. The Council was at fault delaying the completion of the stage two investigation of the statutory childrenâs complaints procedure. The Council will apologise for this. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (23 018 336)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Councilâs decision not to consider her complaint whilst the matter is subject to ongoing court proceedings. Brighton & Hove City Council (24 005 515)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint that the Council failed to provide financial support to her between 2011 and 2016 when she began caring for a child family member and obtained a Residence Order. This is because the complaint is late, and there are no good reasons Mrs X could not have complained sooner. South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 006 097)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council preventing Mr X seeing his now-adult sonâs bank account statement before he turned 18, and the late circulation of minutes in advance of a looked-after child review for another child. Investigating these matters would not lead to a different or worthwhile outcome. Wakefield City Council (24 006 798)
Summary: We upheld this complaint, and the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by taking the complaint through the childrenâs statutory complaints procedure. It also agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her £200 to acknowledge the frustration caused by the delay. We did not investigate Ms Xâs substantive complaint about the involvement of the Councilâs childrenâs services because the Council agreed to progress the complaint through the statutory childrenâs complaints procedure. Kent County Council (24 006 976)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs refusal of a blue badge application for Miss Xâs child. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement. Hampshire County Council (23 011 063)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the Councilâs response to a complaint about fees charged by a nursery in receipt of government funded childcare money. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation. Hampshire County Council (23 011 307)
Summary: the Council took too long to amend Ms Mâs son Bâs Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan following a review. We have recommended a symbolic payment to acknowledge the impact of the delay. Ms M disagreed with the amended Plan and appealed to the Tribunal. We cannot investigate complaints about matters someone has appealed to the Tribunal. Leicester City Council (23 015 579)
Summary: the Council took too long to issue Ms Mâs son Bâs Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Councilâs apology is a suitable remedy. Northumberland County Council (23 017 490)
Summary: Ms Y has two sons who both have Education, Health and Care plans in place. Ms Y complained the Council has failed to implement the provision in either plan, and the Council accepted this to be true. We found the Council at fault and recommended the Council apologise, make a payment in acknowledgement of the injustice caused, and make service improvements. Kent County Council (23 019 374)
Summary: Miss Y complains the Council wrongly refused to provide transport assistance for her two children to attend a local primary school. There is no fault in how the Council considered the application and appeal for Miss Yâs youngest child because they are not attending their closest school. However, there is fault in how the Council considered the application for the other child because the closest school told Miss Y it had no spaces in that childâs year group. The Council has agreed to the actions listed at the end of this to statement to remedy the injustice caused by fault. Cambridgeshire County Council (23 019 550)
Summary: Mr X complained about the Councilâs handling of his child, Yâs education since their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan annual review in September 2022. The Council was at fault. It delayed consulting with secondary schools for Y and delayed issuing Yâs amended EHC Plan. All this delayed Yâs transition to secondary school until 2024 which caused Y and Mr X distress, uncertainty and frustration and impacted on Yâs social development. Lancashire County Council (23 021 314)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a review of an Education Health and Care Plan. This is because delays and poor communication have not caused a significant enough injustice to the complainant and the contents of the plan has been appealed to a tribunal. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (24 001 676)
Summary: Miss X complains the Council has not dealt properly with her son Yâs Special Educational Needs. The Council has not completed annual reviews for her sonâs Education Health and Care Plan. Miss X suffered avoidable distress and her son missed special educational needs provision. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Miss X £200 for distress, pay Miss X £6,000 for missed provision and review its processes. London Borough of Wandsworth (24 005 853)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs assessment process for Education, Health and Care plans for Ms Xâs two children, and its complaint-handling. The substantive matters are not separable from the issues that Ms X can appeal to tribunal. We will not consider complaint-handling in isolation. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (24 006 257)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the Councilâs delay in issuing her daughterâs final Education Health and Care Plan and its failure to put in place sufficient speech and language therapy to meet her needs. This is because the injustice Ms X claims is not significant enough to warrant investigation. Lancashire County Council (24 007 110)
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. North Lincolnshire Council (24 007 133)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about school transport provision. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. London Borough of Bromley (24 007 234)
Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Council failing to update Mrs Xâs childâs Education Health and Care Plan properly since 2018. Mrs X was or ought reasonably to have been aware of this matter much more than a year before she approached us. Worcestershire County Council (24 007 538)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has refused to consider some complaints about a childâs special educational needs. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault with how the Council has dealt with his complaints and we also cannot investigate them for the same or similar reasons given by the Council. Norfolk County Council (24 007 888)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Council's decision to refuse free home to school transport for her child. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the matter to justify an investigation. Essex County Council (24 008 371)
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. Essex County Council (24 008 412)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss 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. The Bemrose School (24 008 649)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (24 009 237)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the Education, Health, and Care plan process. There are no good reasons the late complaint rule should not apply for the period from December 2022 to June 2023. It is reasonable to expect her to have appealed to the Tribunal a decision in November 2023. And we cannot investigate the Education Health and Care Plan because she has appealed. Essex County Council (24 009 448)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay his £100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more. Devon County Council (24 008 324)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a council employee wrongly sharing personal information. This is because the Information Commissionerâs Office is best placed to consider complaints about data protection issues. The complaint is also linked to court proceedings which we have no powers to consider. Salford City Council (24 008 378)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the removal of the complainantâs daughter from her care. The complaint concerns the start of court action or what happened in court. Staffordshire County Council (24 009 167)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Councilâs decision not to consider her complaint whilst there are ongoing court proceedings. Milton Keynes Council (24 005 528)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about children servicesâ actions before May 2022. There are no good reasons the late complaint rule should not apply. West Sussex County Council (24 006 171)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Childrenâs Statutory Complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to consider the matters through a further stage two investigation. It would not be proportionate for us to investigate the complaint also. London Borough of Wandsworth (24 007 289)
Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Councilâs response to child protection concerns. There is not a good reason for the delay in bringing the substantive part of the complaint to the Ombudsman. Any fault in more recent events has not caused injustice. Suffolk County Council (24 007 634)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs actions during its engagement with the complainantâs family. The complaint is late and there are no grounds to consider it now. Lancashire County Council (24 009 010)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs conduct during an appeal to a tribunal. This is because the matter is outside our jurisdiction with no discretion. London Borough of Croydon (24 007 476)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision not to issue a Blue Badge for the complainantâs son. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Councilâs part. Shropshire Council (24 007 665)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the production and content of the complainantâs daughterâs Education Health and Care Plan. The complainant used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and this places the matter outside the Ombudsmanâs jurisdiction. Medway Council (24 007 527)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Councilâs social workers have been at fault in the management of the complainantâs daughterâs case. Part of the complaint is late and there are no grounds to investigate it now. We will not investigate the later matters because they can be considered in Court, or are closely related to matters the Court will decide. Surrey County Council (23 016 746)
Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council considers school transport applications for children in his village, and how it considered his extenuating circumstances. We do not find fault with how the Council assesses these applications or how it responded to Mr Xâs application and appeals. North Yorkshire Council (23 019 825)
Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council failed to provide alternative education provision to her daughter, Y. The Council is at fault as it failed to consider if it had a duty under section 19 of the Education Act to make alternative provision for Y. This fault caused distress and uncertainty to Mrs X but did not cause Y to miss education provision. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice to Mrs X. Devon County Council (24 003 787)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed completing his son Yâs Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment in line with statutory timescales. The Council was at fault because it failed to decide whether to issue Y with an EHC Plan within the statutory timescales, caused by a delay in obtaining Educational Psychologist advice. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mr X to acknowledge the distress, frustration and uncertainty this caused him. Derbyshire County Council (24 005 467)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the alleged failure of the Council to assess and meet Mrs Xâs childâs needs over a period of 15 years. There is a good reason to exercise discretion to consider late matters. But there are several reasons why investigation of these matters is unlikely to lead to any worthwhile outcome. Gloucestershire County Council (24 010 725)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a school admission appeal. This is because Mrs X can submit a fresh appeal for the current academic year. An investigation by the Ombudsman is not justified because it would not achieve anything more. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 007 084)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged failings by the Council with respect to the provision of child social support, its formal assessments, or compliance with data protection legislation. This is because the complainantâs complaint has yet to complete all three stages of the statutory childrenâs complaints procedure. Further, he could reasonably complain to the Information Commissioner about issues of non-compliance with data protection legislation. Bristol City Council (24 007 109)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council concerning Mr Xâs deceased friend and her children. Mr X does not have parental responsibility for the children, and we could not make any finding or recommend any remedy relating to his friend. Telford & Wrekin Council (24 008 641)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Councilâs decision not to consider his complaint whilst the matter is subject to ongoing court proceedings. Redcar & Cleveland Council (24 008 958)
Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Councilâs childrenâs services. There is not a good reason for the delay and we could not come to sound conclusions about historical events. Kent County Council (24 009 046)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Councilâs decision not to consider his complaint until the ongoing court proceedings have concluded. Devon County Council (23 020 178)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed completing her daughter, Yâs Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment in line with statutory timescales. The Council was at fault. It delayed deciding whether to issue Y with an EHC Plan within the statutory timescales, caused by a 19 week delay in obtaining Educational Psychologist advice. It then further delayed issuing Yâs final EHC Plan by 22 weeks after it received the EP advice. This caused Mrs X distress and delayed Yâs access to the specialist provision specified in the final Plan by around half a term. The Council agreed to make payments to Mrs X to acknowledge this injustice. Devon County Council (24 005 425)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education, Health and Care plan process. This is because the Council has provided an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the delay. London Borough of Southwark (24 006 310)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision to remove a transport assistant from her childâs home to school transport. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Councilâs decision-making to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman. Surrey County Council (24 006 455)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Councilâs handling of her childâs special educational needs. She says the Council failed to support her child, missed legal deadlines, and completed a poor reassessment. This is because it is out of the Ombudsmanâs jurisdiction as she has used her right of appeal. Even if we had jurisdiction to investigate, we would not investigate as it would not lead to any further outcomes. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (24 006 593)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the education provided to her daughter and the content of their Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because Ms X has used her right of appeal and so the complaint is outside our jurisdiction. City of Doncaster Council (24 006 978)
Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed issuing an Education Health and Care Plan for a child. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by making a suitable payment to the complainant to remedy the injustice its delays caused. Cardinal Heenan Catholic High School, Liverpool (24 007 059)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. Slough Borough Council (24 007 272)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the school allocated to his child. This is because he has used his right of appeal to a tribunal. We will not investigate the Councilâs handling of the matter. Any fault causing injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Suffolk County Council (24 007 521)
Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council had delayed, and continues to delay, in completing an Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment for her son C and issuing an amended EHC Plan. The Council has apologised of the delay and offered a payment of £300 to Mrs B. We found fault. The Council has agreed to increase the payment to £500 and issue the final EHC Plan without further delay. Essex County Council (24 008 404)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss 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 (24 009 467)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss 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 (24 010 028)
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. Essex County Council (24 010 563)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss 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. Maidstone Grammar School For Boys (24 010 762)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful school admission appeal. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault for us to question the panelâs decision. Luton Borough Council (24 006 404)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with child safeguarding concerns. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Kent County Council (24 007 322)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Councilâs involvement in the care and contact arrangements of a child. This is because the matter has either been considered in court or could reasonably be raised in court. Surrey County Council (24 007 339)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council allegedly failing to correct a spelling error on Miss Xâs birth certificate when it took her into care. This matter is late, and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to consider it now. There is not enough potential injustice from the alleged recent comment by a Council officer to warrant our further involvement. Manchester City Council (24 007 477)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about where Miss Xâs children should live. There has been court action about this matter and only a court can make further decisions. Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (24 007 482)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in the course of child protection action. This is because we would not add anything to the investigation which has already been carried out under the statutory procedure for childrenâs services complaints. London Borough of Brent (24 007 642)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint that the Council wrongly closed a file regarding her ex-partner. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Councilâs actions to warrant our further involvement. Warwickshire County Council (24 007 835)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about a data breach by the Council. This is because complaints about data matters such as this are best considered by the Information Commissionerâs Office. Darlington Borough Council (24 011 380)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaints about the Council's involvement in a report used in court. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We have no remit to consider matters in connection with court reports. |
