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.

Warwickshire County Council (24 020 756)

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's delay in assessing her child's special educational needs and issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan. We found avoidable delay by the Council. The Council, which had already apologised, agreed to make a symbolic payment to Mrs X in recognition of the avoidable distress caused by its delay.

Medway Council (24 021 166)

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to organise provision in her son's Education, Health and Care Plan. We found fault because the Council took too long to source and deliver specialist services and a gym membership for him. This caused Ms X avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. It also meant her son missed out on services he was due. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise to Y and Ms X and make a payment to her.

West Sussex County Council (24 021 298)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed carrying out Education Health and Care Plan reviews and failed to provide the education set out in the plans. The Council failed to meet the statutory timescales in respect of three annual review causing distress and frustrating Mrs X's appeal rights. A financial remedy for the injustice is agreed.

Derby City Council (24 023 086)

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms Y's complaint about the Council's provision of education for her client's daughter. It is not separable from the matters a Tribunal considered.

Somerset Council (25 003 513)

Summary: The Council failed to secure alternative provision for Mrs X's child, Y, after they stopped attending school due to health reasons. This caused Mrs X and Y distress and uncertainty and meant Y did not receive suitable education between May 2025 and July 2025. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X.

JCOSS (25 006 818)

Summary: Mrs X complained the appeal panel failed to properly consider her appeal. The notes from the appeal hearing and the decision letter following the appeal do not properly explain why the appeal panel reached its decisions on the various parts of the appeal. Holding a further appeal is satisfactory remedy.

Somerset Council (25 007 396)

Summary: The Council delayed deciding whether to issue Mrs X's child, Y with an EHC Plan within statutory timescales, caused by a 16-week delay in obtaining Educational Psychologist (EP) advice. It then further delayed issuing Y's final EHC Plan by 14 weeks after it received the EP advice. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment in recognition of the injustice caused to Mrs X and Y.

London Borough of Ealing (25 010 978)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about incidents which occurred at the Complainant's child's school. This is because the law says we cannot consider what happens in schools.

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (25 011 508)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to properly identify and meet the complainant's son's special educational needs and has failed to respond reasonably to her subsequent complaint. The complaint concerns matters which the law says we cannot consider, or which are closely related to matters about which the complainant could have used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability).

Cornwall Council (25 011 612)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about how the Council handled her application for post-16 transport for her son. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Even if we did investigate, it is unlikely that we could add anything to the investigation the Council has already carried.

Nottinghamshire County Council (25 011 775)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's decision to refuse her application for free home to school transport for her son. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Brighton & Hove City Council (25 011 872)

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X's complaint about delivery of education provision. We do not have the power to investigate because Ms X has started court proceedings.

Staffordshire County Council (25 012 198)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to refuse Mr X's application for free home-to-school transport for his child. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (25 012 579)

Summary: We cannot investigate part of Miss X's complaint about the content of her child's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan or the updated EHC needs assessment the Council conducted because Miss X appealed to a tribunal, and the law says we cannot investigate. We will not investigate the remainder because the tests in our Assessment Code are not met.

Suffolk County Council (25 013 092)

Summary: We upheld this complaint that the Council delayed issuing a final Education Health and Care Plan and its poor communication because the Council upheld the complaint, apologised, and offered a financial remedy of £1550. This is in line with our Guidance on Remedies and therefore we decided not to investigate.

Lancashire County Council (25 013 518)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about whether the Council should name a specialist setting on an Education Health and Care Plan for Miss X's child. This is a matter where Miss X has a right of appeal to a Tribunal it would be reasonable to use if she disagrees with the setting named.

Essex County Council (25 015 487)

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 (25 010 886)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's handling of safeguarding concerns about his grandchildren. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating. The law also prevents us from investigating anything that has or is being considered in court.

Kent County Council (25 011 027)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council not providing financial support between 2021 and 2023. There are no good reasons why the late complaint rule should not apply.

London Borough of Hounslow (25 011 242)

Summary: We cannot investigate most of Mrs X's complaint about the accuracy and content of a social work report because the issues were considered by a court. We will not investigate Mrs X's complaints about the conduct of the social worker because it is likely this was raised during court proceedings.

London Borough of Havering (25 017 437)

Summary: The Council was at fault for a significant delay in responding to Ms X's complaint. It has now agreed to issue its response and to make a symbolic payment to recognise her distress.

Kent County Council (24 016 708)

Summary: The Council was at fault. It failed to provide all Mrs X's child, Y's, Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan provision, delayed putting a personal budget in place for Y's provision and delayed responding to Mrs X's complaints. The Council has already paid Mrs X £5,000 to acknowledge Y's lost provision between September 2024 and April 2025 and her time and trouble. The Council will also apologise and pay Mrs X a symbolic payment to acknowledge her distress with Y's personal budget up to July 2025 and avoidable time and trouble caused by the Council's failings with complaint handling for Mrs X's second complaint. The Council has already put in place service improvements.

Herefordshire Council (24 019 090)

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council's failure to provide her child (Y) with the provisions in his Education, Health and Care Plan and its failure to provide him with suitable alternative provision when he stopped attending school. Miss X also complained about the Council's delays with completing the annual review of Y's Plan. There were some faults by the Council which caused injustice to Y and Miss X. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

London Borough of Redbridge (24 020 173)

Summary: Ms F complained about the Council's handling of her daughter's (X) education and transport to school. She said she experienced distress and uncertainty, and X had a loss of education and special educational needs provision. We found fault by the Council for causing delays in arranging some key EHC plan provision and school transport for X. The Council will apologise and make payment to acknowledge the impact its faults caused them. It also agreed to carry out service improvements.

Birmingham City Council (25 002 123)

Summary: Miss X complains the Council has not dealt properly with her son Y's education. The Council is at fault because it did not comply with statutory timescales when it produced Y's Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan. Miss X suffered a delay to receiving her right of appeal and the delay caused Y to miss Special Educational Needs (SEN) provision. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Miss X and make service improvements.

Surrey County Council (25 003 515)

Summary: Miss X complained that the Council had failed to provide the required Occupational Therapy for her son as set out in his Education, Health and Care Plan, and had delayed in issuing an amended Education, Health and Care Plan after an annual review. The Council accepted fault and that this had meant Miss X's son missed some required provision. The Council offered a remedy which Miss X thought was inadequate. We have considered Miss X's comments, but our view is that the Council's offer is proportionate and sufficient to remedy the injustice.

Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (25 004 771)

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Miss X's complaint about the education delivered to her son while he was out of school (and the financial impact this had on her). Much of her complaint is outside our jurisdiction, either because it is too old or because she could have taken her dispute about her son's educational placement to the SEND Tribunal (and our role cannot overlap that of the Tribunal). In any event, her search for compensation is more suitable for the courts.

Somerset Council (25 005 889)

Summary: Most of Mrs X's complaint is out of our jurisdiction because it is closely linked to her SEND Tribunal appeal. However, the Council was at fault for a delay in deciding the support her son should receive for his special educational needs. This delayed Mrs X's right of appeal. The Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment to recognise her distress.

East Sussex County Council (25 010 953)

Summary: We cannot investigate part of Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision to maintain his child's Education, Health and Care Plan or the information it relied on when making that decision because he appealed to a tribunal, and the law says we cannot investigate. We will not investigate his complaints about the Council's failure to provide a copy of a professional's report or its complaints handling because the tests in our Assessment Code are not met.

Leeds City Council (25 010 980)

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.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council (25 011 734)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's handling of her child's Education, Health and Care Plan. Miss X appealed to a tribunal which places much of the complaint outside our jurisdiction. There is no worthwhile outcome we could achieve by looking at the rest of Miss X's complaint.

Suffolk County Council (25 011 868)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr F's complaint about delay amending his son's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan because there is nothing we could add to the Council's response, and no worthwhile outcome achievable.

Gloucestershire County Council (25 006 124)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council shared information about him with his child's nursery. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons for us to exercise discretion to consider it now.

Dorset Council (25 011 314)

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about Police bail conditions. Social Work England are better placed to consider his complaint about a social worker's professionalism.

Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (25 011 420)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement with Mr X and his family and a Council social worker's conduct. This is because further investigation would be unlikely to result in a different outcome for him.

London Borough of Wandsworth (25 011 710)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about poor communication. The Council have offered a suitable remedy.

Brighton & Hove City Council (25 012 142)

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X's complaint that the Council failed to disclose information during court proceedings. The law prevents us from investigating what happened in court.

Lincolnshire County Council (25 012 255)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's response to safeguarding concerns the complainant raised about her daughter. The child's care has been the subject of court action and the issues raised in the complaint are closely related to matters which could have been raised in court.

North East Lincolnshire Council (25 013 647)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about child protection action relating to the complainant's children. Investigation would not lead to a different outcome and is not therefore warranted.

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (24 021 937)

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council's delays with an Education, Health and Care needs assessment. She also said her child had a lack of education when they struggled to attend school. We found fault with the Council's delays and for not being able to evidence proper consideration or make timely decisions about alternative provision. This caused significant frustration, uncertainty, and missed education. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice.

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (25 002 239)

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide her son with alternative provision when he stopped attending school in March 2024. She also says the Council delayed providing her son with an education after it issued his Education, Health and Care Plan in October 2024 and its complaints handling was inadequate. We find the Council was at fault for failing to arrange a suitable full-time education for Ms X's son and for failing to record its decision making. This meant Ms X's son received limited education. It also caused Ms X distress and upset, and it had a financial impact. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and her son, make a financial payment and implement a service improvement.

Brighton & Hove City Council (25 004 438)

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide alternative provision when her child, Y, was unable to attend school. We find the Council at fault for failing to consider whether Y required alternative provision. This caused distress and frustration for Y and Ms X, and meant Y missed education. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and make service improvements to remedy the injustice caused.

London Borough of Southwark (25 011 846)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of an Education, Health and Care Plan. The complaint is late and there is no good reason for us to now investigate. An appeal to the Tribunal places the complaint outside our jurisdiction. Even if we could investigate, there is no worthwhile outcome we could achieve.

Buckinghamshire Council (25 013 165)

Leicestershire County Council (24 015 526)

Summary: I have not found evidence of fault by the Council in failing to secure special educational provision in an Education, Health and Care Plan between January and June 2024. I cannot investigate the period June to October 2024; this is outside our jurisdiction due to an overlapping appeal to Tribunal.

Cumberland Council (25 000 276)

Summary: There was fault by the Council. The Council delayed carrying out an annual review of an Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council also delayed making a decision on whether or not to make direct payments. This meant that two children received no educational provision from Section F of their Education, Health and Care Plan for one term and limited provision for two further terms. An apology, symbolic payment and review of procedures remedies the injustice to the family.

London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (25 002 750)

Summary: Ms F complained the Council failed to provide special educational and alternative provision to her son. The Council has accepted there was fault and has apologised. It has agreed to make a symbolic payment to Ms F to remedy uncertainty and distress caused.

St Bede's School, Redhill (25 003 949)

Summary: Mr X complained the appeal panel failed to properly consider his appeal. The notes from the appeal hearing and the decision letter following the appeal do not properly explain why the appeal panel reached its decisions on the appeal. Holding a further appeal and providing refresher training to appeal panel members and clerks is satisfactory remedy.

Leicestershire County Council (25 003 981)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of Mrs X's daughter's Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment. This is because the issues relate to the way the Council reached its decision not to issue her daughter an EHC Plan and she has appealed against this decision to the First-Tier Tribunal.

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (25 006 270)

Summary: Miss Y complains the Council failed to arrange provision for her child, D, once it became aware they were not attending school. She also complains about a refusal to assess D for an Education Health and Care Plan. The Council has already accepted fault and made an appropriate financial remedy for the first part of Miss Y's complaint. We have not investigated the second part of Miss Y's complaint because she has already used her right of appeal to the relevant tribunal.

Cumberland Council (25 008 907)

West Northamptonshire Council (25 011 083)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Council issuing an Education Health and Care Plan. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by proposing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mrs X and there are no wider public interest issues to justify us investigating.

Kent County Council (25 011 356)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint brought on behalf of Mr Y about the Council's failure to provide alternative education to Mr Y when he was permanently excluded from his school when he was a child in 2022, or its failure to secure the content of Mr Y's Education, Health and Care Plan during the same period because the complaint is late.

Leicester City Council (25 011 484)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of the Education, Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by delay. The remaining points of complaint we will not investigate because it is reasonable for the complainant to appeal to the First-Tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) if she is unhappy with the contents of the finalised Plan.

Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (25 011 706)

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X's complaint about the education provided to her child since November 2024 because she has appealed to the SEND Tribunal. We will also not investigate her complaint about poor communication. We cannot investigate the actions of the school. The Council has apologised to her for times when it did not communicate effectively and told her how it is working to improve its service. It is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

London Borough of Lewisham (25 011 913)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss Z's complaint about the Council refusing to carry out an Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment. It was reasonable for Miss Z to appeal to the First-Tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability).

Bracknell Forest Council (25 015 796)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about a domestic abuse incident because it was made late. For the 2025 issues, further investigation is unlikely to change the outcome. The Information Commissioner's Office ICO is better placed to consider his data concerns.

London Borough of Enfield (25 021 340)

Summary: Ms X says the Council failed to complete the remedy recommended by a previous Ombudsman investigation. In that it has failed to arrange the additional speech and language therapy sessions owed to her child. This has continued to impact her child. We found the Council at fault. It should apologise, provide a further payment to Ms X and arrange for the additional sessions to take place.

Staffordshire County Council (25 002 963)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's viability assessment and position on care and contact of a child relative. the law prevents us from investigating anything that has or is being considered by a court.

North Yorkshire Council (25 011 517)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a child in care. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early and reconsider Mr X's complaint under the children's statutory complaints process.

Kent County Council (25 011 673)

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss Y's complaint about social work involvement with her children. The complaint is late. It was reasonable to expect Miss Y to complain to us sooner.

Lincolnshire County Council (25 012 063)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council failed to act to safeguard his child. This is because the complaint is made late and I see no good reason to consider it now.

Kent County Council (25 005 503)

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide her child with suitable education and specialist provision over a two-year period. Many of the issues raised are late. For the period I can investigate I have found no fault.

Lincolnshire County Council (25 006 052)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to make educational provision for the complainant's daughter and failed to properly identify and address her special educational needs. The complainant has used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and the Courts have decided that the Ombudsman cannot intervene where the right to appeal has been used. We will not investigate part of this complaint as it is late and there are no good reasons to investigate now.

Pittville School (25 006 088)

Summary: Mrs X complained about an unsuccessful appeal for her child to attend Pittville School. We find procedural fault because the clerk's notes of the appeal hearing do not comply with the School Admission Appeals Code. They do not show how the appeal panel reached its decision, how it assessed and balanced the competing arguments, or how the panel voted. This creates uncertainty about whether the appeal was properly decided. The School has agreed to remind panels and clerks of their duty to properly record decision-making in line with the Code. We would normally also recommend that the School arrange a fresh appeal hearing with a different panel, however Mrs X has confirmed she no longer wishes to pursue a change of school.

London Borough of Enfield (25 011 587)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's home-to-school transport arrangements for her child. This is because, at our invitation, the Council agreed to conduct a new Independent Review appeal to consider the transport arrangements. We consider this a suitable remedy.

Birmingham City Council (25 012 024)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about Free Early Education Entitlement payments the Council made to his child's nursery. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

Medway Council (25 012 219)

Summary: We upheld Mrs X's complaint about the Council's failure to organise alternative education for her child, Y, when their school closed because the Council upheld the complaint, offered Mrs X a symbolic payment of £3,040, apologised, and explained service improvements it made. This is in line with the Ombudsman's Guidance on Remedies and therefore we decided not to investigate.

Kent County Council (25 012 237)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the required parental contribution towards his child's post-16 school transport. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Buckinghamshire Council (25 012 888)

Essex County Council (25 014 896)

Essex County Council (25 016 346)

Essex County Council (25 016 538)

West Sussex County Council (24 009 787)

Summary: Miss X, representing her daughter Miss Y, complained the Council did not ensure that her grandchild (Z) had access to a full-time education after January 2023. We found fault by the Council as it delayed reviews of Z's Education, Health and Care Plan and a reassessment of their needs. It also did not ensure Z had access to full-time education after June 2024, following their permanent exclusion from school. This led to some avoidable distress for Miss Y and a loss of education for Z. The Council accepted these findings and at the end of this statement we set out the action it agreed to take to remedy Miss Y and Z's injustice.

West Northamptonshire Council (24 019 836)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council took too long to issue her son's Education, Health and Care Plan, failed to send agreed funding to his school and failed to deliver specialist services in his plan. We found fault because the plan was issued late, agreed funding was not sent when it should have been and not all of his provision was delivered to him. This caused Miss X avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. It also meant her son did not receive the services he was due. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and make a payment to her.

Warwickshire County Council (24 020 200)

Summary: Mrs X complained her son has been out of education for over a year. She says the Council failed to secure a school placement or arrange suitable alternative educational provision that meets his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. We found fault in the Council's actions. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X, pay a financial remedy and review its procedures for securing timely educational provision.

Norfolk County Council (24 023 423)

Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council, in respect of her daughter C's special educational needs, failed to send her C's final Education, Health and Care Plan on 20 March 2024 with her right of appeal and failed to provide suitable alternative educational provision. We have found some fault in the Council's actions. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B and make a symbolic payment to her.

Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 001 719)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council has failed to provide suitable alternative provision for her son during the periods he has been unable to attend school due to ill health. And that the Council failed to ensure her son received the provision specified in his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. We found the Council's failure to ensure Y continued to receive a suitable education and the provision in his EHC Plan during the periods he was unable to attend school is fault. This fault has caused Mrs X and Y an injustice. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Mrs X, and remind staff of its statutory duties.

Somerset Council (25 001 855)

Summary: Miss X, on behalf of her son Mr Z, complained the Council failed to convene a meeting to identity a suitable care provider to deliver social care for her son. The Ombudsman recommended the meeting as part of a remedy on a previous complaint and the Council failed to arrange it which is fault causing further frustration and Mr Z missing out on provision. A payment to recognise the frustration is agreed.

Brighton & Hove City Council (25 001 967)

Summary: There was fault by the Council in failing to consider alternative education when a child was unable to attend school on health grounds, and delay in securing special educational provision in an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This caused loss of education and distress. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic financial payment and make service improvements.

Essex County Council (25 003 260)

Summary: There has been delay by the Council in putting in place the provisions in Section F of an Education, Health and Care Plan. This was fault. An apology, putting in place the provision, and making a symbolic payment remedies the injustice.

London Borough of Lewisham (25 003 395)

Summary: The Council was at fault as it failed to carry out appropriate planning for the ending of Mr Y's Education, Health and Care Plan when he reached the age of 25. This caused him distress and uncertainty and his sister, Miss X frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise, make payments and through training or guidance remind staff of the importance of post 25 transition planning.

Norfolk County Council (25 004 592)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide her children with home to school transport when her family was moved to temporary accommodation. There was no fault by the Council in the way it considered and made its decision about home to school transport support in Miss X's case.

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (24 013 467)

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about how the Council dealt with safeguarding concerns he raised about a school. This is because Mr X has commenced court proceedings about these matters.

Hampshire County Council (25 010 808)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's handling of matters involving her children and its decision to restrict her contact with the Council. One part of the complaint is late without good enough reason for us to accept it now. The Council is still dealing with another part. The remaining part has not caused Miss X significant enough injustice to justify us investigating.

London Borough of Bromley (25 012 113)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's children's services involvement in her children being removed from her care. This is because it concerns matters that have either been considered in court or could reasonably be raised during court proceedings.

West Sussex County Council (25 019 481)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's concerns about the Council's response to her report of a safeguarding matter concerning a child. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council's response.


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, March 12, 2026

New children and education complaint decisions

A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions

No comments:

Post a Comment