Other


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Suffolk County Council (18 008 401)

    Statement Not upheld Other 31-May-2019

    Summary: Ms M's son, B, has missed a considerable amount of education following his permanent exclusion from school in June 2017, but this is not the result of fault by the Council. The Council offered B a place at a Pupil Referral Unit, but Ms M chose to apply for school places instead. There are no grounds for the Ombudsman to question the Council's offer.

  • East Riding of Yorkshire Council (18 015 774)

    Statement Upheld Other 30-May-2019

    Summary: Mrs B complains about the Council's decision that her son must enter Year 1 rather than Reception when he reaches compulsory school age. There was no fault in how the Council made the decision about the year group in which he should start but the letter giving the final decision did not provide as full an explanation as it should.

  • Hampshire County Council (18 008 997)

    Statement Not upheld Other 07-May-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complains of fault in the way the Council decided to close the school her son attends. The Ombudsman has not found evidence of fault in the Council's decision-making.

  • Lancashire County Council (18 007 038)

    Statement Upheld Other 07-Feb-2019

    Summary: there is not enough evidence to conclude an Educational Psychologist failed to carry out an assessment following an incident in 2012, but the Council did not complete a review of Mr B's Statement of Special Educational Need in March 2013.

  • Dorset County Council (17 013 442)

    Statement Not upheld Other 31-Jan-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsmen find fault in the way a Council, NHS Trust and private provider worked together when a specialist placement ended in an unplanned way. The provider did not keep others properly informed of the resident's deterioration, and the Council and Trust did not work together effectively to arrange alternative care in a timely way. This caused the young woman distress, and her parents stress. The organisations will apologise and provide symbolic financial payments to recognise this injustice. They will also take steps to learn from the case and prevent recurrences.

  • Oxfordshire County Council (18 002 126)

    Statement Upheld Other 15-Jan-2019

    Summary: Mr B complains the Council has not dealt with an allegation against him properly, causing him distress and leaving him unable to work for longer than was necessary. The Council acted properly when it held a multi-agency meeting to consider a child protection referral concerning Mr B and when it considered whether there should be an internal investigation. The Council did not fully follow its own guidance for dealing with allegations against people working with children. This did not cause Mr B any injustice.

  • Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (16 015 401)

    Statement Upheld Other 21-Dec-2018

    Summary: Miss B says the Council failed to investigate her safeguarding concerns, failed to provide her daughter with education for a three month period and unreasonably refused to put her complaint through the complaints procedure. The Council failed to consider the safeguarding concerns Miss B had raised once she completed the school's complaints procedure and failed to consider providing alternative education while it considered those concerns. This potentially left Miss B's daughter without education for 6-8 weeks longer than she should have and led to Miss B having to take time to pursue her complaint. An apology, payment to reflect the lost education and a time and trouble payment are satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

  • London Borough of Bexley (18 007 360)

    Statement Not upheld Other 04-Dec-2018

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council wrongly told her childcare provider her son was eligible for free two-year-old childcare funding. She states this has caused financial loss. The Council is not at fault.

  • London Borough of Lambeth (17 009 830)

    Statement Not upheld Other 23-Oct-2018

    Summary: Ms X complains the Council's Education Welfare Service failed to provide enough support when her son was increasingly absent from school and only tried to prosecute her. However, the Ombudsman has not identified fault with the Council's approach. By the time it received a referral from her son's school several typical measures had already been attempted to improve his attendance. Although these were reviewed by the Council at later meetings, its decision to quickly send the case to its court panel for review was something it was entitled to do.

  • Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (18 001 241)

    Statement Not upheld Other 21-Sep-2018

    Summary: Mr B complained about the way in which the Council accepted a referral for legal action form his daughter's school in respect of her poor attendance. I can find no fault with its actions.