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.

Somerset Council (24 020 706)

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide suitable education for her child from January 2024 to January 2025. She says that her child has special educational needs and has lost out on education because of this issue. We found the Council at fault. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused.

Hampshire County Council (24 021 857)

Summary: There was fault by the Council because it unnecessarily delayed making arrangements for alternative provision for a child not attending school. This caused frustration, for which the Council has agreed to offer a financial remedy.

Surrey County Council (24 023 133)

Summary: There was fault by the Council. The Council delayed issuing an EHC Plan after an annual review, an injustice which the Council remedied by a symbolic payment before the complaint came to the Ombudsman. The Council also failed ensure a child had transport to an alternative provision which was intended to be made by the provider. The Council failed to consider whether a child could manage more than the part time alternative educational provision made for three terms. A symbolic payment and reimbursing mileage costs remedies the injustice caused to the family.

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (25 002 941)

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about a school and its head teacher, nor the actions of the Council dealing with his correspondence and complaints to it about these matters.

Lancashire County Council (25 003 408)

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to provide Miss X's child, Y with all the special educational provision they were entitled to in their Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan. It was also at fault for failing to keep under review the alternative educational provision provided to Y when they were unable to attend school. Poor communication also added to Miss X's frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to acknowledge the missed education, delayed appeal rights, distress and frustration caused.

Hertfordshire County Council (25 004 337)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide suitable alternative provision when her child was out of school and failed to issue her child's final amended Education, Health and Care Plan within the statutory timescales. We find the Council at fault for not arranging alternative provision and for failing to issue a final amended Plan. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment to Mrs X, issue the final amended Plan, and provide an update on the actions it is taking to improve its annual review processes.

London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (25 005 370)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions while Miss X's child was out of school, including delays in finalising their Education, Health, and Care Plan. The Council has upheld Miss X's complaint and proposed a suitable financial remedy for Miss X's injustice. There are no wider public interest issues to justify investigating.

Suffolk County Council (25 009 953)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council failed to transfer an Education Health and Care Plan to a different Local Authority. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

West Berkshire Council (25 010 134)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the support the Council provided to Ms X's child, as a Child in Need, after an assessment. This is because the Council has agreed to complete a stage two investigation in line with the three stage children act procedures and this is an appropriate response.

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (25 012 200)

Summary: The Ombudsman carried out an investigation about not completing Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan annual reviews for children in its area. We asked the Council questions about the widespread impact of this action. The Council was at fault. It delayed carrying out a significant number of EHC Plan annual reviews for children in its area in 2024 and 2025. The action proposed by the Council to address the issue is a suitable remedy.

Maidstone Grammar School For Girls (25 013 980)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful school admission appeal. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault for us to question the panel's decision.

West Sussex County Council (24 021 057)

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's decision to assign a safeguarding case to a Local Authority Designated Officer he considered was not impartial or objective. Mr X also complained about actions the Local Authority Designated Officer took as part of the safeguarding investigation. The Council was not at fault in appointing the same Local Authority Designated Officer Mr X previously complained about. And there was no fault in the way the Local Authority Designated Officer oversaw the allegations management process.

Derbyshire County Council (25 001 657)

Summary: Ms X complained about delays in processing her application for a house extension. The Council investigated Ms X's complaint under the statutory children's complaints procedure without fault but it failed to complete agreed recommendations without delay causing Ms X avoidable distress and uncertainty. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and ensure it has procedures in place to monitor and carry out recommendations made as part of the statutory complaints process in a timely manner.

London Borough of Newham (25 008 800)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of Mrs Y's application to renew her child's blue badge. We could not add to the Council's appeal findings, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our investigation, and any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

London Borough of Ealing (25 010 084)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the type of support plans the Council provided. This is because any fault has not caused injustice to Mr X, and there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

Leeds City Council (25 010 932)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr F's complaint about a Children and Family Assessment because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable.

Wokingham Borough Council (23 016 994)

Summary: There was a two-and-a half month delay issuing Y's final Education, Health and Care Plan, causing a delay in appeal rights. There was delay arranging alternative educational provision for her from April 2023. This caused a loss of alternative educational provision between April and September 2023. There was also a failure to consider Ms X's request for tuition in January 2023 which caused avoidable uncertainty. The Council will make payments and apologise. It will also finalise and implement its policy about the duty in section 19 of the Education Act 1996.

East Sussex County Council (25 000 728)

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to deliver the content of her child's Education Health and Care Plan; delayed reviewing this plan and failed to provide alternative education provision when her child was too unwell to attend school from September 2023. There was delay in completing two annual reviews and the Council accepts it did not do enough to ensure Ms X's child was receiving suitable education. A financial remedy to acknowledge the loss of education and distress is agreed.

Brighton & Hove City Council (25 001 278)

Summary: We found fault on Mrs Y's complaint against the Council about it failing to ensure her daughter, who has an Education, Health and Care plan, received provision and suitable full-time education when she was not at school. There were periods when provision was not in place. The Council agreed to send a written apology for the injustice the failures caused, pay £900 for lost provision, and review why delays and failures happened so they cannot be repeated.

Derbyshire County Council (25 002 726)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed finalising her son's Education, Health and Care plan and did not respond to her complaint. We have found the Council was at fault. It caused a delay of nearly a year by not finalising her son's plan and took ten months to respond to her complaint. This meant her son missed out on some support he needed. Miss X herself also experienced inconvenience and distress due to the delays in handling her complaint. The Council has agreed to take action to address their injustice.

Nottinghamshire County Council (25 003 787)

Summary: There was no fault in the Council's decision to decline to reimburse Ms X for taxi journeys out of its school transport budget. It was entitled to ask Ms X to first provide evidence about the taxi service that was used.

Holy Saviour RC Primary School (25 010 067)

Summary: The School Admissions Panel was at fault as it failed to properly consider whether entry to reception or year one in September 2026 was in Miss X's child Y's best interests. The School has agreed to apologise to Miss X for the frustration this caused, reconsider its decision, review its policy and provide guidance to Governors.

Derby City Council (25 010 143)

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint about either the provision or the placement set out in her child's Education, Health, and Care Plan. Miss X has appealed to the Tribunal about this matter and therefore the law says we cannot investigate. Additionally, we will not investigate Miss X's complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care Plan review process. The Council have provided an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused and there are no wider public interest issues to justify our investigation.

West Sussex County Council (25 010 336)

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.

London Borough of Bromley (25 010 438)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about information the Council chose to consider when finalising an Education Health and Care Plan. Miss X had a right to appeal to the SEND Tribunal and it would have been reasonable to expect her to have used this right.

Buckinghamshire Council (25 011 774)

Summary: We have upheld this complaint about the Council's failure to complete an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment for Miss X's child within the statutory timescale. The Council has agreed to provide a proportionate remedy and this removes the need for us to investigate.

Essex County Council (25 011 984)

Summary: We have upheld this complaint about the Council's failure to complete an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment for Mrs X's child within the statutory timescale. The Council has agreed to provide a proportionate remedy and this removes the need for us to investigate.

West Sussex County Council (25 015 611)

London Borough of Lambeth (24 016 731)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr F's complaint because the Council agreed to appoint an independent investigator and consider his complaint at the second stage of the statutory children's complaints process. The reason Mr F's complaint has not progressed is because Mr F refused the Council's offer, not because of anything the Council has done.

London Borough of Tower Hamlets (25 009 972)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's decision to refuse her application for a blue badge for her son, Y. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council.

Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (25 010 542)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about what the Council recorded about Mr X. Another agency is better placed than us to consider complaints about data inaccuracy.

Norfolk County Council (25 010 721)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to replace a social worker and compensate the complainant for fault on her part. Our intervention would not add anything significant to the response the Council has made, or lead to a different outcome, and is not therefore warranted.

Sunderland City Council (25 019 756)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions in response to a complaint relating to the welfare of a child. This is because we cannot regard the complainant as a suitable representative for the child in the matters about which she has complained.

West Northamptonshire Council (25 001 648)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to complete a review of Y's Education, Health and Care Plan in line with statutory time limits and failed to arrange alternative provision while he was out of school. The Council was at fault causing uncertainty and frustration, and meaning Y missed out on educational provision he was entitled to. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to reflect the injustice.

Surrey County Council (24 014 302)

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to put in place suitable alternative provision after her child stopped attending school. The Council failed to demonstrate that it kept its duty to arrange alternative education provision under review for a period of seven months. This caused Ms X avoidable frustration and uncertainty and to recognise this, the Council has agreed to apologise and pay Ms X £300. For the rest of the period Ms X complained of, the Council kept this duty under review as we would expect and was not at fault.

Buckinghamshire Council (24 020 769)

Summary: Dr X complained the Council delayed finalising her daughter's Education, Health and Care plan and failed to ensure suitable education was provided during this period. We have found the Council was at fault. It caused a delay of thirteen months. This likely meant Dr X's daughter missed out on the education and support she needed. The Council has agreed to take action to address the injustice.

Dorset Council (24 023 468)

Summary: We found fault with the Council for failing to keep Mrs X's child's access to education under suitable review from March 2025 to the end of the academic year. The Council agreed to reconsider its Section 19 duty to arrange alternative provision of education for Mrs X's child considering up-to-date information, apologise to Mrs X and pay her £400 for her child's potential lost opportunity and her uncertainty caused by the Council's fault.

Plymouth City Council (25 000 274)

Summary: Mrs Y complains about delays in finalising and issuing her child's Education, Health and Care Plan. She says her child missed important provision and the Council did not arrange any alternative provision during the period of delay. Some parts of the complaint are outside of our jurisdiction because Mrs Y appealed to the Tribunal. There are also matters which are closely connected with the appeal. For the parts of the complaint within our jurisdiction, the Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment of £600 and will share a copy of its service improvement plan.

Kent County Council (25 002 402)

Summary: There was no fault in how the Council considered a request for reasonable adjustments for Mr X's child when they sat the grammar test exam. There was also no fault in how the independent appeal panel considered Mr X's appeal of the decision not to award his child a school place.

Plymouth City Council (25 002 447)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed completing an annual review, failed to ensure her son received full-time education and failed to respond to her communications and complaint. The Council delayed completing the annual review, failed to consider the level of education available to Mrs X's son, delayed responding to her complaint and failed to address the concerns she raised. That caused Mrs X distress, delayed her appeal rights and caused her some uncertainty. An apology, payment to Mrs X and guidance to officers is satisfactory remedy.

Surrey County Council (25 003 726)

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide her child with suitable, alternative education when her child was out of school for two years. In recognition of the injustice caused, the Council has paid Ms X a symbolic financial remedy and there are already service improvements underway at this Council. We therefore decided to discontinue this investigation, as further investigation would not lead to a worthwhile or different outcome.

Surrey County Council (25 004 841)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her child with the Occupational Therapy provision specified in their Education, Health and Care Plan. We find the Council at fault, causing a loss of provision. The Council has apologised and offered a suitable payment to Mrs X, which is a satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

Brighton & Hove City Council (25 005 263)

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X's complaint about her son being out of school, because she could have taken (or can take) her dispute about the school to the SEND Tribunal (and our role cannot overlap that of the Tribunal). However, the Council was at fault for a delay in reviewing Y's special educational needs support, and for a partial failure to deliver that support. It has agreed to apologise to Ms X and Y, and will make a symbolic payment to recognise Ms X's injustice.

London Borough of Haringey (25 010 354)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about what happened in a school because we have no power to do so. We will also not investigate the Council's decision not to investigate the school because it is unlikely we would find fault and we are unable to achieve Ms X's desired outcomes.

Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (25 014 568)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about an unsuccessful school admission appeal. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault for us to be able to question the panel's decision.

Hartlepool Borough Council (25 010 533)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's involvement with her grandchildren. The law prevents us from investigating anything that has or is the subject of court proceedings. It is reasonable for Miss X to return to court if she believes court ordered contact arrangements are not being followed.

Norfolk County Council (25 011 615)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's handling of his children's case. There is nothing more we could achieve by investigating because the Council has already taken action to correct the content of Social Work Assessments. The law prevents us from investigating anything the Council has produced for court proceedings, so we cannot consider Mr X's complaints about a section 37 report.

Leeds City Council (24 023 270)

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide her daughter with alternative provision while she was out of school. We find the Council at fault for failing to arrange a suitable full-time education or any alternative provision from October 2024 to February 2025. The Council also failed to meet its statutory duty to ensure the provision set out in her daughter's Education, Health and Care Plan was delivered. This fault meant Ms X's daughter missed out on education and special educational provision. This also caused Ms X and her daughter distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X.

Torbay Council (25 000 193)

Summary: Miss B complained there were delays by the Council during the Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan process for her son, who I will refer to as C; it failed to secure provision for C as set out in his EHC Plan, and it failed to arrange alternative provision for C when he was unable to attend school. There was fault by the Council. The Council did not meet statutory timescales during the EHC Plan process, did not properly consider and evidence if a section 19 duty applied and if C's school was available and accessible, and delayed putting in place education provision for C. Because of the fault, Miss B suffered uncertainty and a delayed right of appeal. C also missed out on education provision. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss B, provide symbolic payments, issue staff briefings, and send us a copy of its action plan.

Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 000 407)

Summary: The Council failed to maintain oversight of Miss X's child, Y's, education while they were out of school. It also failed to review Y's Education, Health and Care Plan and delayed implementing Education other than at School (EOTAS) provision. This caused Miss X uncertainty over Y's education and Y to miss out on half a term's EOTAS provision. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Miss X.

Somerset Council (25 002 485)

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's failure to deliver special educational provision included in her daughter's (Y) Education Health and Care Plan. Mrs X also said the Council had failed to provide alternative education for Y when she was out of school, to carry out Y's Education Health and Care needs assessment and communicate with her adequately. She also complained about the quality of the Educational Psychology advice for Y. We cannot investigate this complaint as the matters complained about were either part of Mrs X's appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Tribunal or are too closely linked to the appeal.

North Yorkshire Council (25 002 545)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about how the Council managed a personal budget for her child. This is because we are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken.

Cheshire East Council (25 002 768)

Summary: The Council secured the one-to-one support provision set out in the Education, Health and Care Plan of Miss X's child, Y. The Council was not at fault.

Essex County Council (25 002 908)

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.

North Yorkshire Council (25 004 858)

Summary: The Council was at fault as it did not issue Mrs X's child Y's amended Education, Health and Care Plan within statutory timescales after their annual review. It was also at fault for its poor communication. It will apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mrs X to recognise the avoidable frustration caused.

Hertfordshire County Council (25 006 774)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council's actions amount to a failure to secure the provision set out in an Education Health and Care plan. This is because the specific provision was not in the plan until October 2024 so the Council had no duty to make or fund it, and from that point it would have been reasonable for the complainant to use her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) to challenge the basis on which it was included.

Birmingham City Council (25 007 133)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to provide suitable educational provision, while the child was out of school, and deliver the special educational provision. Part of this complaint is late and the Council has not yet had the opportunity to consider and respond to a complaint about more recent matters.

Hertfordshire County Council (25 009 023)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about delays agreeing a personal budget and issuing a final amended Education, Health and Care Plan, and poor communication. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Hampshire County Council (25 009 449)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about educational provision within her child's Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because it was reasonable for Miss X to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). An investigation into the remainder of Miss X's complaint would not lead to a different outcome.

Suffolk County Council (25 009 551)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about delivery of occupational therapy. The Council have offered a suitable remedy.

Suffolk County Council (25 009 729)

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's decision regarding the school setting named in her child's Education, Health and Care plan. This is because Mrs X has used her right of appeal against this decision.

Essex County Council (25 013 107)

London Borough of Lewisham (24 018 722)

Summary: Ms X and Mr Y complained about the way the Council dealt with an adoption process. The Council was at fault for failing to consider all their complaints and delaying in completing the complaint procedure. This caused Ms X and Mr Y distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to recognise the injustice caused and complete a new stage two investigation.

London Borough of Lambeth (25 007 862)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's handling of matters involving her children. The Council has already investigated and responded to some of Ms X's concerns under all three stages of the statutory complaint procedure. It has apologised and offered remedial action for the injustice caused by the faults identified. We could not add to the Council's response or achieve anything more.

Halton Borough Council (25 009 143)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint the Council has failed to support his family. The law prevents us from investigating anything that is or has been the subject of court proceedings. It would be reasonable for Mr X to raise any concerns he has about the Council's handling in court.

West Berkshire Council (25 018 677)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about an inaccurate case record regarding him held on the Council's systems because the Information Commissioner's Office is better suited to consider the matter.

Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 008 287)

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr F's complaint about his daughter's education, health and care (EHC) plan because he has appealed to the Tribunal. The Tribunal will decide whether to make changes to his daughter's Plan, and which school she should attend.

Leeds City Council (25 009 325)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's school transport service. This is because we are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken, or proposes to take.

Hampshire County Council (25 009 440)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council refused home to school transport for his child, Y. There is insufficient evidence of fault.

Kent County Council (25 009 809)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms M's complaint about the Council's decision to recover unspent direct payments because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Kent County Council (25 010 128)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's failure to provide education to her child between December 2023 to July 2024 because it is late. We will not investigate delays in the Council's complaint handling because it does not meet the tests in our assessment code.

Swindon Borough Council (25 010 284)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled the education, health and care plan process because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Essex County Council (25 012 656)

Oxfordshire County Council (25 016 332)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement in a school's Ofsted inspection. This is because the law prevents us from investigation what happens in schools.

Nottinghamshire County Council (25 018 423)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Ms X's application for free school meal vouchers for her child. This is because we would not achieve a worthwhile outcome by doing so.

Staffordshire County Council (24 016 115)

Summary: We have found fault with the Council for delays during Mrs X's son's (Y's) Education, Health and Care needs assessment and Mrs X's son's (Z's) annual review process. These delays caused the family frustration, uncertainty and missed opportunity. The Council has agreed to apologise and make Mrs X a symbolic payment in recognition of this avoidable distress.

Gloucestershire County Council (24 020 378)

Summary: The Council put in place suitable alternative educational provision for Mr X's child, Y when they stopped attending school, so it was not at fault. The Council was at fault for failing to issue Y's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan within the statutory timescales and for failing to provide Y with some of the specialist provision set out in the Plan. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the impact of Y's missed education.

Hampshire County Council (25 001 383)

Summary: X complains on behalf of Y that the Council failed to secure special educational provision in Y's Education, Health, and Care Plan, failed to properly consider input from Y and X, and did not handle his complaints clearly. X said this delayed Y's educational development and future opportunities and caused significant distress to them both. We find the Council at fault for failing to secure an element of the special educational provision, but the fault did not cause injustice. We do not find the Council at fault for its complaint handling and we cannot investigate how it completed the plan because it was linked to the Tribunal appeal and is therefore out of our jurisdiction.

Suffolk County Council (25 002 738)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to secure the provision in her child, Y's, Education, Health and Care Plan. We found there was no fault by the Council in how it secured the provision for Y.

Birmingham City Council (25 009 215)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr and Ms X's complaint about how the Council handled child protection enquiries. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Liverpool City Council (25 009 649)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's alleged lack of support to Miss X and her child from 2017 to 2024, and its decision to begin court proceedings. The law prevents us from investigating matters that have been before the courts. It was reasonable for Miss X to raise all concerns as part of the proceedings.

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (25 012 232)

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X's complaint about the removal of her child from her care or the decision to place her child for adoption. The decisions were made by a court, and the law says we cannot investigate.

London Borough of Southwark (25 012 422)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to investigate Ms X's concerns about how it safeguarded a family member, for whom she had a special guardianship order. The Council set out its reasons for declining her complaint and it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council's decision, not to consider it.

Royal Borough of Greenwich (25 012 425)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to investigate Ms X's concerns about its actions relating to a special guardianship order. It is unlikely we would find fault in the Council's decision, not to consider it.

North East Lincolnshire Council (25 012 932)

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaints about the decision to remove her child from her care and place them for adoption more than 10 years ago, or the evidence produced by the social worker at the time. The issues complained about occurred during court proceedings, and the law says we cannot investigate.


This email was sent to ooseims.archieves@blogger.com using GovDelivery Communications Cloud on behalf of: The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman ·5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT

Food Blog

Thursday, January 29, 2026

New children and education complaint decisions

A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions

No comments:

Post a Comment