Decision search
Your search has 55054 results
-
London Borough of Lewisham (24 011 647)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 14-Aug-2025
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to deliver education to her child Z when he was out of school. Ms X also complained about how the Council handled Z’s Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council was at fault. The Council delayed reviewing the Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council did not respond to Ms X’s communication properly. The Council failed to make sure Z received suitable education. The Council should apologise to Ms X and make a symbolic payment to her to remedy the injustice caused.
-
North Yorkshire Council (24 012 204)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 14-Aug-2025
Summary: The Council failed to arrange key special educational needs provision for Ms X’s relative, Ms G for more than two terms. This included language tuition and speech and language therapy. The Council also failed to communicate with Ms X properly, failed to review Ms G’s EHC Plan and significantly delayed responding to Ms X’s complaint. In recognition of the missed provision, frustration and uncertainty caused by these faults, the Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X and Ms G £1,450 and carry out service improvements.
-
West Sussex County Council (24 013 239)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 14-Aug-2025
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide the provisions in section F of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council is at fault for failing to monitor the provision was in place. This lack of support has caused Ms X and her child distress. The Councils complaint response was poor, causing Ms X additional distress. This is their injustice. The Council agreed a package of remedies.
-
Bracknell Forest Council (24 013 572)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 14-Aug-2025
Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not properly handle her son Y’s Education Health and Care Plan. She said the Council failed to provide a Personal Budget when it issued the plan, did not secure educational provision for Y, and had poor communication and complaint handling. We find the Council at fault in these areas which caused distress and missed educational provision. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment.
-
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.