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:

  • London Borough of Redbridge (21 002 037)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 10-Sep-2021

    Summary: Ms B complained that the Council failed to ensure her child received occupational therapy sessions specified in his Education, Health and Care plan. We found fault by the Council in this matter, causing injustice for which a remedy has been agreed.

  • Milton Keynes Council (20 010 102)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 09-Sep-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains about a school admission panel's decision to hold his appeal for a place for his son at his preferred school by written submissions. There is no evidence of fault in the appeal panel's decision to consider Mr X's appeal by written submissions. There is fault in how the appeal panel considered Mr X's appeal so he cannot be certain it was properly considered. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by offering a fresh appeal to Mr X.

  • Kent County Council (20 012 324)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 06-Sep-2021

    Summary: We did not find fault with the Council's decision not to refund the cost of a travel pass Mrs X bought for her daughter. However, there was fault in the Council's failure to communicate its decision not to recover the outstanding debt on the account. That Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and tell other customers of its decision not to recover outstanding debts on travel passes for the 2020-2021 academic year.

  • Wakefield City Council (20 010 974)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 31-Aug-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained that the Council did not do enough to provide suitable education for his son, D, or get him back on the school roll after he withdrew D from school to home educate him. Mr X told the Council he did not want to home educate and had only withdrawn D because he did not think the school could keep him safe from the risk of COVID-19. We find that while the Council made considerable efforts to try and ensure D had a school place, it should have brought matters to a head sooner. The Council was at fault in failing to offer alternative education while it was trying to resolve the matter. The Council has agreed a suitable remedy.

  • London Borough of Brent (20 009 601)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 20-Aug-2021

    Summary: Ms D complains the Council failed to ensure she received speech and language therapy as set out in her Education, Health and Care Plan during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ms D says this has had a detrimental effect on her education, delaying her entering exams. We have found fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Ms D and her mother.

  • Cheshire East Council (20 009 764)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 05-Aug-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to secure the provision of the Speech and Language Therapy (SaLT) assessment specified in her son, Mr S's, Education, Health and Care Plan and delayed putting into place transport arrangements to college which then proved to be unsuitable. The Council was at fault when it delayed in ensuring the SaLT assessment took place. This caused Mrs X and Mr S an injustice. The Council should make a financial payment to recognise this. There was no fault in the transport arrangements the Council put into place or the timing of those arrangements.

  • Essex County Council (20 007 395)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 05-Aug-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's handling of the review of her son's Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan and lack of therapy provision during the COVID-19 lockdown. We find that the Council delayed issuing the EHC Plan but this did not disadvantage Mrs X's son. The Council took reasonable steps to deliver therapy provision when services were suspended because of the pandemic.

  • Birmingham City Council (20 005 883)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 05-Aug-2021

    Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council dealt with her son's Education Health and Care Plan and his special educational needs support following a Tribunal decision. The Council failed to take reasonable steps to put the support in place during the COVID-19 lockdown, and delayed in reviewing his Plan. This meant Y lost the opportunity to receive support he needed and there was a failure to plan for his future, causing him anxiety and uncertainty. The Council has agreed a remedy, including payments and a review of procedures.

  • Hampshire County Council (20 000 632)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 03-Aug-2021

    Summary: We upheld Mrs X's complaint about how the Council has handled her daughter Y's education, health and care provision. There was fault in the Council's approach to Y's annual reviews and preparation for adulthood. The Council also failed to explain what provision would be delivered when colleges closed to most learners in response to COVID-19. These faults caused an injustice to Mrs X and Y, and the Council agreed to take action to remedy this.

  • London Borough of Lambeth (20 001 515)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 19-Jul-2021

    Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to ensure her nephew, Mr N, received some of the provision specified in his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council was at fault when it failed to ensure some of the special educational provision in Mr N's EHC Plan was provided. This led to Mr N missing out on support he required and caused Ms X distress and frustration. The Council was also at fault in the way it handled Ms X's complaint. It has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X and Mr N £4,000 and make service changes.