New children and education complaint decisions

View online A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions Please note: our decisions are published six weeks after they are issued to councils, care providers and the person who has made the complaint. The cases below reflect the caselaw and guidance available at the time of issue and the individual circumstances of each case. London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (23 021 261) Summary: Ms X complained her son, S, has been out of school since December 2023. She says the Council has not communicated with her or kept her updated. The Council is at fault for delay finalising the amended Education Health and Care Plan for S, securing him a place in a new school and keeping Ms X updated. The Council has agreed to a remedy payment for distress and missed education. London Borough of Barnet (24 002 893) Summary: the Council failed to put in place the speech and language therapy sessions in Ms X's son's education, health and care plan. An apology, payment to Ms X, arrangements to put in place the provision and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy. Bristol City Council (24 003 802) Summary: The Council took too long to issue an Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan for Ms B's child. It did not communicate with her properly during this time, nor respond adequately to her complaints. The Council did not do enough to satisfy itself that the provision was being made when Ms B raised concerns. This caused Ms B distress and frustration and it is likely that her child missed out on provision she was entitled to. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms B and pay her symbolics payment in respect of the distress its failings caused her, and in respect of her child's missed educational provision; and remind staff to deal with concerns that provision is not being made. Cornwall Council (24 004 282) Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council provided for her child, Y's, special educational needs. There was fault in how the Council took too long to amend Y's EHC plan following a review and how it failed to consider whether it needed to arrange alternative education for him. This caused Y to miss out on some education and caused distress and uncertainty to both Miss X and Y. The Council agreed to apologise, issue an amended EHC plan for Y and pay Miss X a financial remedy. Surrey County Council (24 005 968) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to secure educational provision for her child Y and failed to complete an annual review on time. We upheld the complaint. Y has a loss of educational provision and Ms X had delayed appeal rights and avoidable distress. The Council recognised this and offered a partial remedy for two terms of missed provision. The Council will make a further payment for missed provision for the Autumn Term of 2024. Suffolk County Council (24 006 959) Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed completing her child, Y's Education, Health and Care needs assessment, and decided not to seek Occupational Therapy and Speech and Language Therapy advice. There are parts of Miss X's complaint that we have not investigated because she has the right of appeal to the Tribunal. We find the Council at fault for the delay. This impacted Y's education and caused Miss X avoidable distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Miss X. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (24 009 853) Summary: We have discontinued the investigation into Mr X's complaint about unnecessary enforcement action. Enforcement action was a result of the Council pursuing a school attendance issue in court. We could not add anything to the investigation already carried out by the Council, nor could we achieve the outcome Mr X wants. Surrey County Council (24 010 825) Summary: The Council was at fault because it failed to secure educational and social care provision on Mr Y's Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused a loss of provision. The Council agreed an appropriate financial remedy during its internal complaints procedure. The Council will apologise and complete the annual review. Surrey County Council (24 015 163) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's decision not to provide a chaperone for her child's taxi journey to school. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement . Cheshire East Council (24 015 724) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Y's complaint about how the Council responded to her Freedom of Information request because the Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to investigate. London Borough of Newham (24 006 392) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's actions in removing him and his siblings from their parents' home, and the Council's actions regarding his parents. The matters complained of are closely related to matters that have or could reasonably have been raised during court proceedings. Additionally, Mr X does not have parental responsibility for his siblings, and his parents could make their own complaint. London Borough of Redbridge (24 009 410) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council refused to assess her son's needs as a disabled child. There was fault in how the Council failed to investigate Mrs X's complaint under the statutory children's complaints procedure. This caused Mrs X avoidable frustration and inconvenience for which the Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X to recognise that distress. It also agreed to start an investigation under stage two of the statutory procedure. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (24 014 354) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council's children's services. This is because we could not add to the investigation carried out under the statutory procedure for complaints about children's services. London Borough of Wandsworth (24 015 321) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's engagement with the complainant in matters relating to his son's welfare. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way his complaint has been considered under the statutory procedure for children's services complaints and we cannot therefore consider the merits of the findings. Suffolk County Council (24 015 896) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a Blue Badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. London Borough of Bromley (24 016 824) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint that the Council failed to comply with a court order made in late 2021. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider it now. Gloucestershire County Council (24 017 173) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the contents of a Section 7 report compiled by the Council's children's services. This is because the law prevents us from investigating what happened in court, which includes the preparation and contents of the Council's report. There is insufficient evidence of fault with how the Council has dealt with matters since court proceedings concluded. Staffordshire County Council (24 015 100) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint the Council delayed in issuing her child's final education, health, and care plan, and that the final plan does not meet her daughter's needs. This is because her complaint is out of jurisdiction. In addition, an investigation would not lead to any further findings or outcomes. Wokingham Borough Council (23 009 827) Summary: Ms X complained the Council provided poor communication about her child's Education, Health and Care Plan reviews and failed to complete annual reviews in the correct timescales. We found fault with the Council failing to meet the statutory timescales by 16 weeks and for poor communication with Ms X. The Council has already apologised for this fault and outlined how it will improve its service moving forward. We do not consider the Council needs to take further action to address this fault. London Borough of Lewisham (23 020 687) Summary: Dr X complained the Council did not consider its section 19 duties when her child was too unwell to attend school. This meant her child was unable to access education. We have found the Council at fault for a delay in providing access to suitable provision after receiving a medical letter. This caused distress, uncertainty and frustration for Dr X and her child. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic financial payment and remind its staff of the Ombudsman's guidance on how we expect councils to fulfil their responsibilities to provide education for children who do not attend school full-time. Somerset Council (24 002 083) Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to comply with the statutory process for completing an annual review of her child, Y's, Education, Health and Care Plan and failed to secure access to suitable, full-time education. We have found the Council at fault for a delay in completing the annual review and failing to consider whether the provision it provided Y was adequate for her needs. This has caused distress, frustration and uncertainty to Mrs B and Y. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic financial payment to remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified. Buckinghamshire Council (24 002 187) Summary: The complainant complains the Council delayed completing the reassessment of her daughter's Education, Health and Care Plan. And it refused to refund the costs of an educational psychologist's report she had commissioned and sent its own psychologist to her daughter's school without telling her. We uphold the complaint due to the delay and some poor communication about the educational psychologist. The Council has agreed to our recommendations. Oxfordshire County Council (24 005 830) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not provide suitable education and special educational needs support for her child D. There was fault by the Council which caused D to miss suitable education and SEN support, and avoidable distress for D and their parents. The Council agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy. It will also make an action plan of how it will avoid recurrence of the same faults and report this to its relevant oversight and scrutiny committee. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (24 008 550) Summary: Mrs Y complains that fault by the Council meant her daughter, D, missed out on important special educational provision and therapy. The Council upheld the complaint and provided a substantial financial remedy at the top end of the scale we recommend. In our view, Mrs Y has received an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by fault, and we do not recommend anything further. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (24 009 621) Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained their son has not received a suitable education or his special educational provision. Mr and Mrs X also complained about delays in the annual review process and in issuing an amended final Education Health and Care Plan. We found the Council's failure to identify a suitable school placement or provide suitable alternative provision between September 2023 and July 2024 is fault. As is the delay in completing the annual review process and in issuing a final EHC Plan. This fault meant Z did not receive any education for a whole academic year. He also missed out on the provision in his EHC Plan. The Council has agreed to apologise, make payments to Mr and Mrs X, and take action to improve its service. West Northamptonshire Council (24 014 325) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education, Health and Care plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the delay. Devon County Council (24 014 738) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of Ms X's son's education. Some of the complaint is late, but there is also not enough evidence of fault by the Council. The law limits our powers to investigate complaints about what happens in schools. If Ms X wants specific support in place for her son, then there is a right of appeal to a statutory tribunal. London Borough of Wandsworth (24 006 739) Summary: We have ended our investigation into Ms X's complaint because it is not appropriate for the Ombudsman to investigate until the Council has completed the statutory children's complaints procedure. Derbyshire County Council (24 014 078) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about how her ex employer classified an allegation against her. There is not enough direct injustice to Ms X to warrant an investigation. London Borough of Enfield (24 015 352) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's response to a complaint about a social worker. There is no indication that the alleged fault on the Council's part caused the complainant a significant injustice. Leicestershire County Council (24 015 969) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the professional conduct of a social worker as we would be unlikely to add to the Council's own investigation. Further it would be reasonable to expect Miss X to report any concerns about conduct to Social Work England and any data concerns to the Information Commissioners Office who are better placed to consider those complaints. Reading Borough Council (24 016 843) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council carried out a foster carers assessment. This is because doing so would not add to the investigation carried out by the Council and because the Information Commissioner is better placed to deal with complaints about data breaches. Dorset Council (24 015 404) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in delaying the complainant's children's referral for therapy and in its response to her son's disclosures. This is because investigation would not add anything significant to the response the Council has already made. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (24 015 277) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about special educational provision for a pupil because the complaint is made by the representative of a public body. Hertfordshire County Council (24 015 369) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to provide the complainant's daughter with suitable alternative educational provision and has failed to secure the delivery of the provision set out in her Education Health and Care plan. This is because the complainant has used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability, and this places the complaint outside our jurisdiction. Essex County Council (23 013 788) Summary: Miss X complained about the Council's handling of her child's Education, Health and Care needs assessment and Plan. We found avoidable delay by the Council in its handling of Miss X's case which caused her avoidable distress and frustration. To put matters rights, the Council agreed to make a symbolic payment of £700 to Miss X. We did not find the Council's delay meant Miss X's child lost the opportunity to gain a place at her preferred specialist school. West Sussex County Council (24 000 090) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to complete an Education, Health and Care Plan annual review for Y within the statutory time limits. Mrs X said this caused her real stress and frustrated her appeal rights. We find the Council at fault for delays. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the injustice caused. Buckinghamshire Council (24 007 699) Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide her child, Y, with a suitable school placement or alternative education since January 2024. The Council failed to inform Miss X of the outcome of the annual review of Y's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. However, Miss X had a right to appeal Y's subsequent EHC Plan and did not use it. We therefore will not investigate any lack of special educational provision, or alternative educational provision. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (24 009 797) Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed in carrying out an annual review of their child, Y's, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and failed to ensure Y received the provision in the Plan. Miss X also complained the Council failed to communicate with her during the process. The Council accepts it was at fault. It has apologised and offered Miss X a payment to recognise the impact of its failings. I am satisfied with the Council's actions. The Council has agreed to issue Y's final amended EHC Plan without delay. Kent County Council (24 014 981) Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X's complaint the Council failed to review and amend her child's Education, Health and Care Plan within the legal timeframe, because this part of Ms X's complaint is late and there are no good reasons why we should consider it now. Nor can we investigate her complaint about the Council's conduct during an appeal to the SEND Tribunal because this is outside of our jurisdiction. Essex County Council (24 017 431) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care Plan process. This is because the complaint is made on behalf of a public body and is therefore outside our jurisdiction. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (24 017 693) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel for us to be able to question its decision. Bristol City Council (24 015 230) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's actions in its child protection involvement with his children. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council's decision not to consider his complaint whilst the case was subject to ongoing court proceedings. Now the proceedings have concluded, Mr X can provide the Council with the full details of his resubmitted complaint, as requested, so that it can assess it to see if it can consider it now. Lancashire County Council (24 015 293) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has recorded inaccurate information about Ms X. This is because the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider the matter, and any injustice caused to Ms X by poor communication is not significant enough to warrant investigation. Warrington Council (24 018 341) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's response to a Subject Access Request and its actions as part of court proceedings relating to her child. The law prevents us from considering the start of court action or what happens in court. Leeds City Council (23 020 896) Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed obtaining an Educational Psychology report as part of her child's Education, Health and Care needs assessment, which in turn delayed the assessment process. We found the Council was at fault for delays and poor communication. This caused the family distress, which the Council will apologise for and provide a suitable financial remedy. Essex County Council (24 003 512) Summary: Miss X complains the Council did not deal with her daughter's education properly. The Council did not make full educational provision and did not communicate with Miss X effectively. Miss X suffered avoidable distress and her daughter lost educational provision. The Council should pay Miss X £5,750. London Borough of Newham (24 003 799) Summary: We found fault with the Council's failure to ensure delivery of all special educational provision to the complainant's (Ms X) daughter (Y). The Council's fault caused injustice to Y and Ms X. The Council agreed to apologise, make payments to recognise Y's educational loss and Ms X's distress and carry out some service improvements. Lancashire County Council (24 005 207) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed issuing her son (Y's) amended Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan within statutory timescales following an annual review in December 2023. She also complained the Council has failed to provide a laptop for her son to access the provision set out in his Plan. The Council was at fault because it failed to issue an amended EHC Plan until December 2024 and it provided delayed and inaccurate complaint responses. The Council was not at fault for failing to provide a laptop but it took too long to consider Mrs X's request which was fault. This caused Mrs X distress, frustration and uncertainty about her son's education and delayed her right of appeal to the SEND tribunal. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise this. Devon County Council (24 006 701) Summary: Ms X complains on behalf of her son, Y, the Council has failed to provide suitable education since September 2023. Ms X says the Council failed to find a suitable placement for her son. Ms X says this caused both her and her family distress. We have found fault in the actions of the Council for failing to provide suitable alternative education to Y. The Council has agreed to issue an apology and pay Ms X a financial payment. Council of the Isles of Scilly (24 006 875) Summary: We have ended our investigation into Mrs D's complaint about how the Council considered and administered its policy for post-16 transport to education or training for her child, E, and the costs she has incurred to transport and accommodate E on the mainland. This is because another person started court action about the same, or very similar, matter. An investigation by us might have strayed into matters to be decided by the court. Council of the Isles of Scilly (24 008 304) Summary: We have ended our investigation into Mrs N's complaint about how the Council considered and administered its policy for post-16 transport to education or training for her child, P, and the costs she has incurred to transport and accommodate P on the mainland. This is because another person started court action about the same, or very similar, matter. An investigation by us might stray into matters to be decided by the court. Lancashire County Council (24 014 162) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision to refuse free school transport for his child. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. Suffolk County Council (24 014 441) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's handling of her child's Education, Health and Care Plan. It is unlikely an investigation would add anything to the Council's response or achieve a worthwhile outcome. Central Bedfordshire Council (24 014 610) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council allegedly breaching special educational needs regulations. The matter complained of is closely linked to decisions about the nature of Miss X's child's special educational needs. Miss X has or had a right it would be reasonable to use to appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal about that. It is not a good use of resources to investigate the Council's complaint handling where we are not investigating the substantive matter underlying it. London Borough of Sutton (24 014 714) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's decision not to provide support with home to school transport. There was fault in how the Council considered Miss X's request for support. It has therefore agreed to reconsider her case at stage 2 of its appeals process. This is a suitable remedy and we could not achieve anything more at this stage. Gloucestershire County Council (24 018 465) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. Since bringing her complaint to us, the Council has agreed to offer Ms X a fresh appeal. This is the outcome she wants and an investigation by us would achieve nothing more. Birmingham City Council (23 012 562) Summary: Mrs X complained about Birmingham Childrens Trust's consideration of her complaint under the statutory complaint procedure about a review of the family's short break package. Mrs X said the family suffered a harmful impact on their wellbeing and she incurred additional costs. We have found fault due to delay including in completing recommendations of the Independent Review Panel. We consider the agreed action of an apology and additional symbolic payment provides a suitable remedy. Medway Council (24 005 009) Summary: Miss X complained about the Council's failure to acknowledge her status as a former looked after child and honour previous commitment about future support. This affected her priority on the Council's housing register. We did not find the Council was at fault. Hampshire County Council (24 006 822) Summary: Mr X complained how the Council dealt with child protection matters regarding his daughter. He also complained how the Council dealt with his complaint. He says the Council's failings led to the breakdown of familial relationships and he lost contact with his daughter. We have ended our investigation into Mr X's complaint because it is late, and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate it. Some of the issues Mr X has raised were also considered in court proceedings or could have been reasonably considered in court proceedings. We also do not investigate complaints handling when we are not investigating the substantive issue. Leicester City Council (24 013 762) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how a child protection conference was dealt with. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault with how the complaint was dealt with under the Council's child protection procedures. North Northamptonshire Council (24 013 909) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's decision to hold a child protection conference. It is unlikely we would find fault which directly caused the conference to be held. Derbyshire County Council (24 014 420) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council's officers have been at fault throughout their involvement with the complainant's family. This is because investigation would not achieve the outcomes she is seeking. Leicester City Council (24 014 949) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council handled Ms X's request for driving lessons after leaving care. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Kent County Council (24 015 318) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council is holding inaccurate information about Mr X or about how it has dealt with his subject access request. This is because the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider these matters. Durham County Council (24 016 819) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's actions in its child protection involvement with her family. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council's decision not to consider her complaint whilst the matter is subject to ongoing court proceedings. South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 018 086) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint the Council did not respond to her request for information. The Council has now responded, therefore there is nothing worthwhile to be achieved through investigation. Sunderland City Council (24 018 398) Summary: We cannot investigate part of Mr X's complaint about the Council's children's services involvement with his child because we decided it is reasonable for Mr X to take the matter to court. We will not investigate the remainder of Mr X's complaint about data accuracy because the Information Commissioner is better suited to consider the matter. Lancashire County Council (24 001 376) Summary: We found fault on Mrs Y's complaint about the Council failing to ensure her daughter received alternative education after she stopped attending school. It failed to show it decided whether she received suitable education. It fettered its discretion by requiring medical evidence from a medical consultant or CAMHS manager. It failed to liaise with other sources of evidence. It also failed to follow its complaints procedure. This caused lost education, stress, and lost opportunity. The Council agreed to make a payment for lost education provision, and review policy, monitoring procedures, and her education provision. Suffolk County Council (24 002 727) Summary: Mrs B says the Council failed to put in place speech and language therapy and other provision in her daughter's education, health and care plan, failed to amend her daughter's plan as agreed and delayed completing an annual review. The Council failed to put in place some provision in Mrs B's daughter's EHC Plan, delayed completing an annual review and delayed issuing a new EHC Plan following the annual review. That means Mrs B's daughter missed out on some provision and Mrs B experienced distress. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mrs B, put in place the missing provision and provide the Ombudsman with its action plan for managing annual reviews. Kent County Council (24 006 277) Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council's decision to refuse her application for home to school transport assistance was unfair. The Council was at fault as it wrongly refused Mrs X's application which caused avoidable distress and inconvenience to her. Mrs X also incurred costs in transporting her child to school. The Council agreed an appropriate remedy to Mrs X by offering transport assistance and refunding the costs incurred by her in transporting her child. The Council also agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment of £150 to Mrs X to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused. Essex County Council (24 011 857) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education, Health and Care plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the delay. Cumberland Council (24 014 739) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about an allegation of inaccurate information supplied to third parties. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to apply to Court. Cornwall Council (24 015 114) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council is failing to make alternative educational provision for the complainant's son when he is out of school due to exclusion. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council's part. West Berkshire Council (24 015 916) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that a school is trying to remove Mr X's son from its roll. This is because the law prevents us from investigating what happens in schools, and because the Council is not responsible for Mr X's child's education provision. Somerset Council (24 006 225) Summary: Ms X complained that the Council delayed in carrying out a statutory investigation into her complaints about children services' actions in respect of her disabled child. We find fault by the Council causing avoidable distress and frustration. The Council has now progressed the statutory investigation, agreed a small symbolic payment, and will apologise. Therefore, we are closing the complaint. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (24 015 388) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about various alleged failings of the Council. The complaint is late and in part historic, and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate these matters now. Even if that were not so, some of the matters complained of were also subject to or closely linked to matters subject to court action and we could not investigate them. Others were matters of data that would have been more appropriate for the Information Commissioners' Office to deal with, or matters where the Council had offered a reasonable remedy. Kent County Council (24 016 939) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with child protection matters concerning Mr X's grandchildren. This is because much of the complaint concerns what happened in court and other matters are late. Cornwall Council (24 018 485) Summary: We have upheld this complaint about delay in the children's statutory complaints procedure. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Essex County Council (24 015 624) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more. Essex County Council (24 015 463) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more. We look at individual complaints about local public services and all registerable social care providers in England. We remedy injustice and share learning from investigations to improve services. When we find a council or care provider has done something wrong, we recommend how it should put it right. We are free to use and make our decisions independently. Find out more about us at www.lgo.org.uk Manage preferences or unsubscribe Contact us

 

This email was sent to ooseims.archieves@blogger.com using GovDelivery Communications Cloud on behalf of: The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman · 53-55 Butts Road · Coventry · CV1 3BH