Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

COVID-19


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • East Sussex County Council (21 002 898)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 06-Apr-2022

    Summary: We upheld a complaint from Miss X on behalf of her son Mr Y about the Council's handling of his special educational needs provision. The Council failed to secure some of the therapeutic support in Mr Y's plan. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr Y, make a payment to recognise his lost provision, and review its systems for checking provision is in place.

  • Suffolk County Council (20 011 531)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 05-Apr-2022

    Summary: We upheld Mrs X's complaint about a lack of special educational needs provision for her son, Y. The Council failed to take steps to secure the provision Y needed. We also found fault with how the Council oversaw Y's annual review, and how it handled Mrs X's complaints. The Council agreed to take action to remedy the injustice to Mrs X and Y.

  • Staffordshire County Council (21 006 864)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 30-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mrs Z complains about the way the Council dealt with her application and appeal for help with school transport for her 15-year-old son, and with suspension of the Temporary Vacant Seat scheme. The Council was at fault in dealing with her application. It has agreed a suitable remedy. We stopped investigating the issue of the suspension of the scheme as it does not directly affect Mrs Z's family now.

  • Staffordshire County Council (21 001 380)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 27-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to secure the provision in her daughter's Education, Health and Care plan since April 2020. Mrs B says her daughter lost provision and this affected her daughter's health. The Council was at fault for failing to secure provision and this caused Mrs B and her daughter injustice. The Council will make a financial payment to Mrs B to remedy this injustice.

  • Cheshire East Council (20 012 023)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 09-Mar-2022

    Summary: We did not investigate Mrs X's complaints about decisions the Council made about a child she fostered. This is because we did not find fault with the Council's stage two and three statutory complaint investigations. However, we did find fault with delays in the Council's complaint handling and in complying with the recommendations from those investigations. The Council has offered a suitable remedy for the delay. It will also complete the recommendations, apologise to Mrs X and remind officers of the timescales for carrying out investigations.

  • Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (21 005 971)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 07-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mrs X is a foster carer. She complains about the way the Council dealt with safety concerns she raised about the home of the family adopting a child in her care. We find there was some fault by the Council in the way it responded. It has agreed to apologise to Mrs X.

  • Kent County Council (21 002 352)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 02-Mar-2022

    Summary: We upheld part of Mrs X's complaint about an unsuccessful school appeal for her son. There was no fault in the Council's decision to hold appeals based on written submissions or in how the panel considered the evidence Mrs X provided. However, there was fault in the decision letter following the appeal. While this did not cause Mrs X an injustice, the Council has agreed take action to prevent future injustice to others.

  • Kent County Council (21 002 304)

    Statement Not upheld COVID-19 02-Mar-2022

    Summary: We did not uphold Mrs X's complaint about an unsuccessful school appeal for her daughter. There was no fault in the Council's decision to hold appeals based on written submissions and the appeal panel took account of the evidence Mrs X provided.

  • London Borough of Bromley (20 009 324)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 24-Feb-2022

    Summary: We found fault with the Council's handling of home to school transport arrangements for Ms X's granddaughter, Y. The Council failed to ensure Y could use the transport she was eligible for free of charge. It will apologise to Ms X and reimburse the money she paid towards Y's school transport. It will also review its approach to home to school transport for eligible looked after children and reimburse other connected and foster carers who made claims for transport expenses and had money deducted before their claim was paid. There was no fault in the Council's handling of a home visit in October 2020.

  • Suffolk County Council (21 001 022)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 23-Feb-2022

    Summary: We upheld Miss X's complaint about the Council's failure to secure the provision in her daughter Y's education, health and care plan. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss X and Y and make a payment to recognise Y's lost provision.