Decision search
Your search has 55054 results
-
Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (24 021 403)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Special educational needs 09-May-2025
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue an Education Health and Care Plan. The complainant used his right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). This places the matter outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
-
Reading Borough Council (24 021 441)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Special educational needs 09-May-2025
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in specifying that the complainant’s son had a social, emotional and mental health need in his draft amended Education Health and Care plan. This is because the complaint concerns a matter which could have been considered in the course of the complainant’s appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability), and this places it outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
-
Wealden District Council (23 019 149)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Noise 08-May-2025
Summary: Ms X complains the Council has delayed action to address a statutory nuisance. We will not investigate because there is not enough evidence of fault.
-
Wokingham Borough Council (24 003 179)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 08-May-2025
Summary: Ms A complained to the Council that it was not dealing with her child’s special educational needs appropriately. She brought the matter to the ombudsman because the Council did not respond to her complaint. We found the Council is at fault. The Council has agreed to make payments in recognition of the injustice caused and carry out service improvements to avoid a repeat of what has happened.
-
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 08-May-2025
Summary: Ms C complained the Council has failed to provide alternative provision for her son, who we will refer to as D, and secure the provision set out in his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. There was fault by the Council. It did not arrange alternative provision for D when it was aware he was not receiving regular full-time education, and it did not regularly review this. The Council was also at fault for not ensuring the provision outlined in D's EHC Plan was in place, and for delays in responding to Ms C’s complaints. Because of the fault, Ms C suffered frustration and financial loss, and the delays in the complaint procedure meant she continued to chase the Council for updates. D suffered a loss of education and provision. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms C and D, make symbolic payments, consider reimbursement of the costs of the provisions put in place by Ms C, and issue staff briefings.
-
London Borough of Newham (24 005 505)
Statement Upheld Antisocial behaviour 08-May-2025
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s response to his reports of Anti-Social Behaviour. Mr X said this caused him anxiety and distress. There was fault in the way the Council delayed its investigation, communication and complaint handling was poor. This frustrated Mr X and he was put to time and trouble to complain. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment, reconsider Mr X’s Anti-Social Behaviour reports and provide training to its staff.
-
Birmingham City Council (24 007 584)
Statement Not upheld Enforcement 08-May-2025
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take enforcement action over his neighbour’s fence, which was erected without planning permission and blocks light to Mr X’s property. Mr X said he suffered stress and anxiety. We did not find fault in the Council’s decision-making.
-
Cheshire East Council (24 007 924)
Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 08-May-2025
Summary: Mrs X complained about a Council decision to charge Mr Y the full costs of his care and support. This caused distress and financial hardship. She said the Council accepted it made an error, but did not fully refund Mr Y or acknowledge the impact of its actions. We did not find fault in the Council’s consideration of Mrs X’s complaint and or in the amount it refunded to Mr Y.
-
Staffordshire County Council (24 014 773)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 08-May-2025
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council wrongly refused her request for direct payments and delayed responding to her review request. Mrs X says this caused her child to miss out on provision and caused emotional distress which impacted their physical health. The Ombudsman finds no fault with the Council’s decision making. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council’s delay responding to Mrs X’s review request. The Council will apologise to Mrs X and her child.
-
West Northamptonshire Council (24 014 931)
Statement Upheld Alternative provision 08-May-2025
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her child, Y with an education in line with their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan between May 2024 and January 2025 after Y was permanently excluded from school. She also complained about a delay in holding an annual review of Y’s EHC Plan. The Council was at fault. It failed to provide Y with any education while they were out of school and has delayed holding the annual review, to date, by four months. The Council agreed to make payments to recognise Y’s loss of education and for the distress and uncertainty caused to Mrs X. It will also arrange Y’s annual review without further delay.