Decision search
Your search has 54124 results
-
Leeds City Council (24 010 011)
Report Upheld Special educational needs 15-Aug-2025
Summary: Education – Special educational needs (SEN) assessments and reviews The Council took more than 72 weeks to issue an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for Mr X's child, Y. It should have completed this in 20 weeks. As a result, Mr X was caused uncertainty about whether Y could have started at their preferred school a year sooner if not for the fault. The family have also been caused a prolonged period of frustration. The Council’s lack of educational psychologists has already significantly delayed many families in obtaining EHC Plans. However, once the Council receives the educational psychology advice it needs, it is still routinely taking more than 7 months to finalise EHC Plans. This is significant drift and delay by this Council affecting hundreds of its children and young people with special educational needs.
-
Suffolk County Council (24 022 100)
Statement Upheld Other 14-Aug-2025
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not provide her brother, Mr Y, with satisfactory support for 28 days. We will not investigate this complaint. Although it is clear the events caused Mr Y some distress, the Council has accepted some fault and taken action to resolve the issues brought to us. This includes apologising for the distress its actions caused and putting support in place to meet Mr Y’s needs. It is unlikely we could add more by investigating.
-
NHS Suffolk & North East Essex ICB (24 022 100a)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Mental health services 14-Aug-2025
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not provide her brother, Mr Y, with satisfactory support for 28 days. We will not investigate this complaint. Although it is clear the events caused Mr Y some distress, the Council has accepted some fault and taken action to resolve the issues brought to us. This includes apologising for the distress its actions caused and putting support in place to meet Mr Y’s needs. It is unlikely we could add more by investigating.
-
London Borough of Lewisham (24 016 564)
Report Upheld Homelessness 14-Aug-2025
Summary: Mr Y complained on behalf of Ms X about the Council’s handling of her homeless application after she received notice to leave a private tenancy. Particularly, that the Council told Ms X to stay in the property until the court issued a bailiff warrant. Mr Y says Ms X experienced avoidable financial loss and distress.
-
Southampton City Council (24 015 530)
Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 14-Aug-2025
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed completing Mental Capacity Assessments to decide if a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard was required for her son, Mr Y. Mrs X said Mr Y may have been illegally deprived of his liberty since he turned 18. Mrs X said this caused her significant distress. There was fault in the way the Council did not complete the correct assessments within a reasonable timescale. This fault meant Mr Y has been deprived of his liberty without the legal authority to do so. This frustrated and distressed Mrs X. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment, provide training to its staff and take action to address its backlog of other outstanding Mental Capacity Assessment and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards
-
Suffolk County Council (24 015 762)
Statement Upheld Alternative provision 14-Aug-2025
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide her daughter with suitable education and support, failed to keep her updated and has not been transparent. It has also delayed dealing with her complaint. Ms X says this has caused stress to the whole family. The Council has upheld Ms X’s complaint, apologised and offered a remedy. I consider this is a satisfactory response and is line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
-
London Borough of Harrow (24 015 889)
Statement Not upheld Safeguarding 14-Aug-2025
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to safeguard her mother, Ms Y, who currently lives in sheltered accommodation. Mrs X said the Council did not properly consider whether Ms Y was able to make decisions about where she wanted to live and her care and support needs. We ended our investigation as the Council had investigated the concerns and offered an appropriate remedy for the distress and frustration caused by the faults identified. It would be unlikely to achieve anything more with a further investigation. In addition, the Council has not had the opportunity to consider Mrs X’s new complaints.
-
Kent County Council (24 016 385)
Statement Upheld Other 14-Aug-2025
Summary: Ms F complained that Kent County Council and NHS Kent and Medway Integrated Care Board’s flawed Section 117 aftercare policy meant she would have to unfairly contribute toward accommodation costs. We consider the Council and ICB’s Multi-Agency Policy is flawed, which has caused Ms F confusion, uncertainty and distress. The Council and ICB have agreed to apologise to Ms F, make a symbolic payment to her, review the policy, and offer to reassess her Section 117 aftercare needs.
-
NHS Kent & Medway ICB (24 016 385a)
Statement Upheld Mental health services 14-Aug-2025
Summary: Ms F complained that Kent County Council and NHS Kent and Medway Integrated Care Board’s flawed Section 117 aftercare policy meant she would have to unfairly contribute toward accommodation costs. We consider the Council and ICB’s Multi-Agency Policy is flawed, which has caused Ms F confusion, uncertainty and distress. The Council and ICB have agreed to apologise to Ms F, make a symbolic payment to her, review the policy, and offer to reassess her Section 117 aftercare needs.
-
London Borough of Hounslow (24 016 835)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 14-Aug-2025
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to secure a school placement for her son. She adds it failed to provide her son with an education and the specialist provision in his Education, Health and Care Plan since they moved to the area in December 2023. We find the Council at fault for how it handled Mrs X’s son’s education and specialist provision when they moved to the area. This caused Mrs X upset and frustration, and her son lost out on an education and specialist provision. In response to our enquiries, the Council proposed apologising to Mrs X. It also proposed making payments to Mrs X for her son’s missed education and provision and the upset and frustration caused. We consider the Council’s proposals to be suitable recommendations to reflect Mrs X’s and her son’s injustice.