Decision search
Your search has 57541 results
-
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 28-May-2026
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to meet the statutory timescales to issue her son’s Education Health and Care Plan following annual reviews in January and December 2025. Neither plan has been issued causing distress and frustrating Mrs X’s appeal rights. A symbolic payment and immediate action to issue the EHC Plan is agreed.
-
Shropshire Council (25 011 409)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Special educational needs 28-May-2026
Summary: Mrs X complained about delay in the Education, Health and Care plan process for her son. We have ended our investigation as Mrs X has used her right of appeal to the Tribunal.
-
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 28-May-2026
Summary: The Council was at fault because it did not make arrangements for a child to receive education during a period he was not at school. Although the Council has recognised this and offered a remedy, it has now agreed to increase its offer in line with the Ombudsman’s published guidance.
-
Hertfordshire County Council (24 021 654)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 28-May-2026
Summary: We upheld a complaint from Mrs X, finding the Council at fault for how it reviewed a decision to refuse her a personal budget for her son’s education. We also found the Council at fault for its poor complaint handling which caused Mrs X unnecessary time, trouble and frustration. The Council has accepted these findings and agreed action to remedy this injustice, set out at the end of this statement.
-
Surrey County Council (24 023 172)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 28-May-2026
Summary: Mrs B complains she has been waiting for over three years for a new school placement for her son (X). During that time the Council has not provided him with suitable alternative education and has missed deadlines to review his Education, Health and Care Plan. We uphold the complaint and find X missed education and had an out-of-date Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council has agreed to provide an extra symbolic payment to what it has already paid. And to monitor its progress in finding suitable provision.
-
Surrey County Council (25 000 762)
Statement Not upheld Other 28-May-2026
Summary: There was no fault in the enforcement action the Council took against an early years provider after Mr X reported that the provider was unlawfully charging ‘top-up’ fees to parents of children with free nursery places. The Council followed its compliance procedure properly and required changes of the provider which brought its practice in line with government guidance. The Council’s decision that the provider’s additional fees did not amount to ‘top-ups’ was made without fault and therefore we cannot question it.
-
Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (25 003 062)
Statement Upheld Safeguarding 28-May-2026
Summary: Ms X complained about the standard of her reablement care after she suffered a stroke. The Council was at fault because the care provider failed to follow its no reply policy when Ms X fell at home. This caused Ms X uncertainty and avoidable distress which the Council agreed to provide a financial remedy for.
-
Nottinghamshire County Council (25 003 555)
Statement Upheld Residential care 28-May-2026
Summary: Ms X complained about the standard of care Mr Y received during a period of respite care. The Council was at fault because the care provider failed to carry out some of Mr Y’s care in line with the pre-admission agreement, failed to notify the family about its decision-making, failed to keep records of its decision-making, failed to clarify the position on Mr Y’s medication administration, failed to tell the family about redness to Mr Y’s skin, and failed to seek out of hours medical help. This caused Mr Y’s family uncertainty, frustration and distress which the Council agreed to provide a financial remedy for.
-
Birmingham City Council (25 005 975)
Statement Upheld Charging 28-May-2026
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to offer her mother-in-law a choice of residential care home accommodation and wrongly charged her a top up fee. We found fault by the Council in not offering an alternative placement that did not require a top up fee. We consider the Council’s offer to reimburse some of the top up fees and a payment for time and trouble with an apology and service improvement provides a suitable remedy.
-
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (25 006 486)
Statement Upheld Residential care 28-May-2026
Summary: Mrs F complained on behalf of her grandmother, Mrs B, about the quality of her care in Mulberry Manor, a council commissioned care home. We found no fault in the care provided to Mrs B. The Council failed to respond to Mrs F’s complaint which caused her some time and trouble. It has agreed to apologise to Mrs F to remedy that injustice and make a service improvement in relation to its complaint procedures.