Decision search
Your search has 54735 results
-
Derbyshire County Council (24 015 560)
Statement Upheld Alternative provision 28-Nov-2025
Summary: The Council has acknowledged that it took too long to issue a final Education Health and Care Plan for K, and to review the Plan. It also has acknowledged that it did not communicate with K’s mother, Ms X properly, or always deal with her complaints in good time. I have found that the Council also failed to properly consider its duty to make alternative educational provision when K could not go to school. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and to K, and make a further symbolic payment in recognition of the impact on them of the further fault.
-
Lichfield District Council (24 017 473)
Statement Upheld Other 28-Nov-2025
Summary: Mr X complained the Council introduced planning validation fees that had no legal basis. We found this was a matter for the courts but there was fault by the Council as it failed to show its action in not returning the full planning fee when rejecting invalid applications was consistent with the relevant regulations. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, refund his fees and review its policy which we consider provides a suitable remedy.
-
City of Doncaster Council (24 020 034)
Statement Upheld Alternative provision 28-Nov-2025
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council refused to provide section 19 alternative provision for her son, Y, who could not attend school for medical reasons. As a result, Y had no educational provision. We found the Council was at fault for the advice it gave Mrs X and the way it explained its decision. However, we did not find this caused significant injustice to Y as the fault did not affect the Council’s decision.
-
St Marys Care Services Ltd (24 020 786)
Statement Upheld Residential care 28-Nov-2025
Summary: St Marys Care Services Ltd was at fault for failing to provide Mrs X’s late mother with suitable care while she was resident in one of its care homes. The fault caused Mrs X distress and uncertainty for which the Care Provider will apologise and make a symbolic payment. To prevent similar fault in future, the Care Provider will issue staff reminders.
-
East Sussex County Council (24 021 493)
Statement Not upheld Alternative provision 28-Nov-2025
Summary: There was no fault in how the Council decided whether it had a duty to make alternative educational provision while Mrs B’s son, K, could not attend school. There was also no fault in how the Council decided what educational provision it should offer once it accepted that duty.
-
Hertfordshire County Council (24 021 641)
Statement Upheld Child protection 28-Nov-2025
Summary: Miss X complained about the standard of the Council’s safeguarding investigation under the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) process following a safeguarding allegation made against her. There was no fault in how the Council investigated and substantiated the allegations. However, there was unnecessary delays during the investigation. Further, the LADO process did not apply policy or set clear timescales for actions to be completed after the investigation concluded. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss X for the frustration and uncertainty caused to her and review its policy.
-
Nottinghamshire County Council (24 021 977)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 28-Nov-2025
Summary: The Council delayed arranging alternative education when a pupil was too anxious to return to school and delayed securing special educational provision in an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council has agreed to apologise, reimburse tuition costs, make a symbolic financial payment and make service improvements.
-
Kingston Upon Hull City Council (24 022 114)
Statement Upheld Disabled facilities grants 28-Nov-2025
Summary: We upheld a complaint made by Mr D about how the Council considered his request for support with adaptations to his home to benefit his disabled child. We found the Council wrongly refused to consider awarding a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) based on the cost of the proposed adaptations. While we could not say the adaptations would have necessarily proceeded, this fault resulted in avoidable delay and uncertainty for Mr D. The Council accepted these findings and agreed to remedy Mr D’s injustice as we recommended. This will include reviewing its decision. It will also improve its approach to considering high-cost adaptations to prevent a repeat.
-
Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (24 022 313)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 28-Nov-2025
Summary: The Council failed to keep adequate oversight of child Y’s part time educational arrangement between September 2024 and April 2025 or consider whether to put alternative provision in place. It also failed to ensure Y received the specialist provision in their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan between February and April 2025. I could not investigate Y’s loss of specialist provision between September 2024 and February 2025 as Miss X had appealed Y’s EHC Plan to the SEND tribunal. The Council agreed to make a payment to acknowledge the impact the fault had on Y’s education.
-
London Borough of Lambeth (24 022 644)
Statement Upheld Looked after children 28-Nov-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about children services’ matters. There are no justifiable reasons to reinvestigate a Children Act statutory complaints’ procedure investigation. And the Council has agreed a proportionate way to remedy its delay in that process.