Decision search
Your search has 52967 results
-
Kent County Council (24 006 766)
Statement Not upheld Special educational needs 15-Jul-2025
Summary: Ms B complained that the Council has failed to implement the provision in her child’s Education, Health and Care plan. We did not find the Council to be at fault.
-
Surrey County Council (24 002 512)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 15-Jul-2025
Summary: Miss X complained that the Council failed to comply with statutory timescales following a Tribunal decision and did not ensure her son, Y, received the special educational provision set out in his EHCP. We have concluded our investigation with a finding of fault by the Council. These faults caused Y to miss education and support he was entitled to, and led to significant distress and uncertainty for Miss X. The Council has agreed to our recommendations and service improvements.
-
South Gloucestershire Council (23 011 696)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 15-Jul-2025
Summary: There was a failure to issue a carer’s support plan for Mr X which caused him avoidable frustration and uncertainty about the outcome of his carer’s assessment. The Council will apologise and issue Mr X with a carer’s support plan.
-
Surrey County Council (24 015 791)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 14-Jul-2025
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to complete the annual review of her son’s Education Health and Care Plan within the statutory timeframes. She also complained he missed education and specialist provision he is entitled to and that communication with the Council was poor. We found fault by the Council in all matters. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and make her a symbolic payment in recognition of her son’s missed provision and the uncertainty, distress and frustration caused to her.
-
Arun District Council (24 014 374)
Statement Upheld Allocations 14-Jul-2025
Summary: Miss X complained about the Council changing her priority date on reregistering her housing application under its new Housing Allocations Policy. Miss X said the decision to change her priority date was unfair and put her at a disadvantage when bidding for a new home. We found there was fault by the Council in its handling of Miss X’s application. The Council’s fault had been advantageous for Miss X. In correcting the fault and changing her priority date, the Council had put Miss X in the position she should have been in from the outset. The apology already given by the Council suitably addressed any injustice to Miss X caused by its initial fault in not changing her priority date.
-
Surrey County Council (24 014 876)
Statement Not upheld Alternative provision 14-Jul-2025
Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s failure to provide her child, Y, with a suitable education when he was unable to attend school. We did not find the Council was at fault because it was satisfied with action taken by the school to reintegrate Y back to school during the time we were able to investigate. We did not investigate what happened from April 2024 because Ms X appealed to the SEND Tribunal.
-
Coventry City Council (24 010 723)
Statement Upheld Homelessness 14-Jul-2025
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application. We found fault in how the Council dealt with the application that caused added avoidable distress and risk of harm to Mr X. The Council agreed to send Mr X a written apology and make a symbolic payment of £1,575 in recognition of the injustice caused by its fault.
-
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 14-Jul-2025
Summary: Mrs C complained about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s care and support visits and arrangements. We found the Council at fault for failing to clearly communicate the purpose of its review, having some errors in its report, and lack of record keeping of steps taken to find Mr X a suitable placement. The Council will apologise and make payment to acknowledge the injustice its faults caused Mr X and Mrs C.
-
Stoke-on-Trent City Council (24 012 535)
Statement Not upheld Other 14-Jul-2025
Summary: Miss D complained that Stoke-on-Trent City Council, Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent ICB and Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust failed to provide her with appropriate care following her discharge from long-term inpatient care. We found no fault with the care and support provided to Miss D by these organisations.
-
NHS Staffordshire and Stoke-On-Trent ICB (24 012 535a)
Statement Not upheld Mental health services 14-Jul-2025
Summary: Miss D complained that Stoke-on-Trent City Council, Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent ICB and Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust failed to provide her with appropriate care following her discharge from long-term inpatient care. We found no fault with the care and support provided to Miss D by these organisations.