-
Buckinghamshire Council (24 012 399)
Summary: The complainant (Mrs E) has two sons, who both have SEN. For one son the Council failed to provide them with speech and language therapy and occupational therapy included within their EHC Plan. For the other son, the Council also failed to provide him with speech and language therapy and failed to complete reviews of his EHC Plan in time. The investigation has highlighted systemic failings in the delivery of speech and language and occupational therapy services by the provider used by the Council to deliver these services to children with EHC Plans. This despite the Council having recommissioned that service and introduced a new strategy to meet the therapeutic needs of children with SEN in its area during 2024.
-
Buckinghamshire Council (25 022 150)
Summary: The complainant (Mrs E) has two sons, who both have SEN. For one son the Council failed to provide them with speech and language therapy and occupational therapy included within their EHC Plan. For the other son, the Council also failed to provide him with speech and language therapy and failed to complete reviews of his EHC Plan in time. The investigation has highlighted systemic failings in the delivery of speech and language and occupational therapy services by the provider used by the Council to deliver these services to children with EHC Plans. This despite the Council having recommissioned that service and introduced a new strategy to meet the therapeutic needs of children with SEN in its area during 2024.
-
Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (24 023 246)
Summary: The Council failed to decide if it was "necessary" to provide appropriate free transport to enable Ms X's adult daughter, Miss Y, to attend the college named in her Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. It confused matters for adult learners, like Miss Y, who began their course after the age of 19, with the education transport rules for sixth form students. The Council's amended Transport Policy 2024/2025 was not in line with the Education Act 1996 or case law for 19–25 year old learners with an EHC Plan. The faults caused Ms X avoidable frustration, avoidable time and trouble and uncertainty to her and Miss Y.
-
Suffolk County Council (24 023 255)
Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to provide the salt and language therapy provision in his daughter Y's Education, Health and Care Plan for several years.And the Council failed to arrange suitable full-time education for Y when she stopped attending school in January 2024 impacting on Y's education and wellbeing and causing stress to Mr X. Based on current evidence, we found fault by the Council as it did not make the salt and language therapy provision in 2024. The Council has accepted it was at fault and offered a suitable remedy. We found fault by the Council as it failed to respond to Mr X's concerns about Y not attending school, but this did not cause a significant injustice to Mr X and Y. So, we have completed our investigation.
-
West Northamptonshire Council (25 006 076)
Summary: We upheld Miss X's complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care process regarding her child. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by apologising to Miss X and paying her a symbolic payment of £250 to acknowledge the injustice caused.
-
Cheshire West & Chester Council (25 007 096)
Summary: Miss X complained about the Council's failure to meet the statutory timescales when issuing and reviewing her son's (Y) Education Health and Care Plan. We found fault with the Council. This fault caused injustice to Miss X. The Council has already offered some suitable remedies. The Council has also agreed to make a symbolic payment to Miss X to recognise her distress.
-
Cambridgeshire County Council (25 007 885)
Summary: We have upheld this complaint about the Council's failure to complete an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment and issue an Education Health and Care plan for the complainant's child within the statutory timescale. The Council has agreed to provide a proportionate remedy and this removes the need for us to investigate.
-
Cornwall Council (25 011 946)
Summary: We upheld part of Miss X's complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care process because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. We did not investigate part of the complaint because it was late. We did not investigate the remainder because the tests in our assessment code were not met.
-
Lancashire County Council (25 012 496)
Summary: We have upheld Mrs X's complaint about delay in issuing her child's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council have agreed to resolve the complaint by offering a suitable remedy.
-
Bath and North East Somerset Council (25 013 182)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the education, health and care plan process because the complainant has used her right to appeal to a Tribunal.
-
Cambridgeshire County Council (25 013 209)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's handling of her request it issue her child with an Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council has offered an appropriate remedy for the initial delay, and an investigation would not achieve anything more. Miss X has now appealed to The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). That places much of the complaint outside our jurisdiction and we cannot consider complaints about what happens in schools.
-
Cornwall Council (25 013 268)
Summary: The Council has agreed to provide a bus pass for Ms M's son. This resolves Ms M's complaint. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable by further investigation.
-
Milton Keynes Council (25 013 659)
Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X's complaint about the school named in her child's Education, Health and Care Plan. Ms X has used her right of appeal to a tribunal.
-
Devon County Council (25 003 082)
Summary: We have found no fault with how the Council handled Ms X's son's (Y's) case. Y missed education but we do not consider this to be the fault of the Council.
-
Devon County Council (25 004 129)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed his daughter, Miss Y's, Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment. He also complained communication from the Council was poor. Mr X said this frustrated his family. There was fault in the way the Council delayed issuing Miss Y's EHC Plan, and communication and complaint handling was poor. This frustrated Mr X and his family and frustrated their appeal right to the Tribunal. The Council agreed apologise and make a financial payment.
-
Isle of Wight Council (25 004 537)
Summary: Mr Y complains about delays by the Council in assessing his child's special educational needs and issuing an Education, Health and Care plan. He says the delays resulted in his child missing educational provision. We find there were significant delays in both the assessment process and the issue of the final plan. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused with a symbolic payment and evidence of service improvements it has made to prevent similar delays in future.
-
Oxfordshire County Council (25 005 279)
Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to arrange suitable alternative education for Mrs X's child, when they did not go to school. This caused Mrs X frustration and meant her child missed out on provision. To remedy their injustice, the Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment.
-
Kingsland C Of E Primary School (25 005 520)
Summary: Mrs B complained that the School considered the wrong test in deciding to refuse her application for delayed entry for her daughter, C to start school in reception in September 2026. Based on current evidence we have found fault and have asked the School to reconsider the application using the correct test.
-
North Northamptonshire Council (25 007 308)
Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint. This is because it concerns matters which are either too late, or premature, for investigation.
-
Southampton City Council (25 009 647)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's handling of his child's Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council has agreed to an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the delay in issuing the final plan. Mr X's appeal to a tribunal means we have no powers to consider much of his complaint. We will not look at the Council's complaint handling in isolation.
-
Warwickshire County Council (25 011 752)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the amount of funding the Council gives a school. This is because Ms X is complaining on behalf of the school and we cannot investigate complaints from public bodies.
-
Central Bedfordshire Council (25 011 937)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's delay in consulting with a placement for Ms X's child's post-16 education. This is because there is not enough evidence of injustice to warrant investigation.
-
Cornwall Council (25 012 547)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's complaint response to Mrs X. The Council has now responded at stage two, in line with an earlier recommendation by us, and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by us investigating.
-
Warwickshire County Council (25 014 227)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms M complaint about school transport because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation by us.
-
Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (25 015 569)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms M's complaint about school transport because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation, and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
-
North Northamptonshire Council (25 012 920)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's handling of her child's Education, Health and Care Plan. Part of the complaint is late, and it was reasonable for Ms X to complain sooner. Ms X used her right of appeal and that places the rest of the complaint outside our jurisdiction.
-
Derbyshire County Council (25 013 276)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a head teacher and Chair of Governors for a school. This is because the law prevents us from investigating most complaints about what happens in schools.
-
Buckinghamshire Council (25 013 520)
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.
-
Essex County Council (25 018 115)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council refusing to provide her child with free transport to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
-
Essex County Council (25 018 539)
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.
-
Hampshire County Council (24 019 604)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council considered her request for school transport assistance, delay in making an agreed back payment, and communication issues. We find the Council at fault for delay, causing uncertainty and frustration for Mrs X. However, we find the Council has already taken suitable action to address the injustice.
-
East Sussex County Council (25 016 676)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about how the Council handled an Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment for her child. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs X to use her right of appeal to a tribunal.
-
Cornwall Council (25 001 290)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council delayed issuing her child's EHC Plan and failed to provide suitable education for her child. She says this impacted her child's education and emotional wellbeing and caused her avoidable uncertainty. We find fault with the Council which caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and her child.
-
Central Bedfordshire Council (25 004 032)
Summary: The Council delayed issuing an amended Education Health and Care Plan for Mr X's child, Y. It also failed to make direct payments to Mr X for Y's Special Educational Needs provision. This meant Mr X had to pay for the provision himself and caused Mr X uncertainty and time and trouble pursuing the matter. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr X and review what went wrong in this instance.
-
London Borough of Bromley (25 004 321)
Summary: The Council failed to ensure Miss X's daughter, Miss Z received Maths tuition and Speech and Language provision in line with her Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan between 2024 and 2025. It also delayed amending Miss Z's EHC Plan following an annual review in December 2024 by 23 weeks. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss X and Miss Z and make a payment to acknowledge the injustice caused.
-
London Borough of Lewisham (25 006 077)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the education the Council provided because it has offered a suitable remedy and it is reasonable for the complainant to use her right to appeal to the Tribunal.
-
Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (25 008 357)
Summary: There was delay and fault in implementing provision in an Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused distress and led a child missing out on therapies. The Council has agreed to apologise, reimburse costs, make a symbolic payment for missed provision, and carry out service improvements.
-
Oxfordshire County Council (25 009 109)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's handling of her child's Education, Health and Care Plan. Some of the complaint is late but there is also not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Mrs X's appeals to the Tribunal places much of the complaint outside our jurisdiction with no discretion. We will not look at concerns about complaint handling in isolation.
-
North Northamptonshire Council (25 012 435)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council refusing to provide her child with free transport to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
-
Kent County Council (25 012 792)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the placement named in an education health and care plan because it was reasonable for the complainant to have used her right of appeal to a Tribunal.
-
Hertfordshire County Council (25 012 918)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Council's handling of an Education, Health and Care Plan annual review. The Council has offered a proportionate remedy and there is insufficient remaining injustice to justify our involvement. We will not investigate matters relating to the content of the Education, Health and Care Plan as it would have been reasonable for the complainant use her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability).
-
Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (24 022 412)
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's failure to provide his daughter, Y, with a suitable education, support for her special educational needs and its complaint handling. We found the Council to be at fault because it refused to consider his complaint. This caused distress and uncertainty to Mr X. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise. We did not find fault with the Council's approach to Y's education at home for the limited period of time we were able to investigate.
-
Devon County Council (25 011 379)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council failing to provide suitable education for Miss X's child. This is because she has used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability).
-
Central Bedfordshire Council (25 013 152)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the content of an education, health and care plan because it is reasonable for the complainant to use her right to appeal to the Tribunal.
-
Kent County Council (25 013 674)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's refusal to carry out an Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment for her child. This is because Mrs X has used her right of appeal to the Tribunal about the matter.
-
North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 020 290)
Summary: We found the Council delayed for 13 months in arranging alternative educational provision from February 2024 after Mrs X's child, Y, was unable to attend school. This is the second time we have found the Council at fault for failing to provide education to Y. This caused Y to miss out on a suitable education and caused Mrs X distress, frustration and uncertainty.
-
Shropshire Council (24 016 027)
Summary: There was fault by the Council. The Council failed to monitor a child who was on a personalized learning plan to return to school. This meant the Council did not consider whether the provisions in Section F of the Education, Health and Care plan were in place and caused distress and uncertainty to Miss X. There was also a failure to consider whether the provisions were put in place for two terms while the Council consulted with specialist schools. An apology, symbolic payment and review of procedures remedies the injustice to Miss X and her child, Y.
-
Kingston Upon Hull City Council (24 023 192)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the unsuitable transport the Council provided for her child which led to harmful incidents and inappropriate restraint. We found the Council at fault for not offering Mrs X formal escalation or an appeal with its decision, not properly recording evidence to support its decisions, and failing to carry out a risk assessment. This caused significant frustration, uncertainty and distress to the family. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment, and review its policy to ensure parents can formally challenge decisions about transport arrangements.
-
Lincolnshire County Council (24 023 231)
Summary: Miss X complained about the Council's failure to provide her son Y with a place in a special school after she moved to the Council's area. We found no fault with the Council in the period we investigated.
-
Somerset Council (25 001 087)
Summary: We have found the Council at fault for not considering its Section 19 duty when it became aware that Mrs X's son, Y was not attending school. This caused Y to miss out on education and SEN provision. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice.
-
Somerset Council (25 003 081)
Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to properly consider whether it had a duty to arrange alternative provision for Mrs X's child Y between December 2024 and February 2025. It has agreed to apologise and make a payment to acknowledge the uncertainty and frustration this caused. We cannot investigate the accuracy of the Education, Health and Care Plan or the school named in the Plan as Mrs X had a right of appeal to the Tribunal and used that right.
-
Lancashire County Council (25 005 187)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to secure the type of placement specified in her child's Education, Health and Care Plan. We find the Council at fault for delays, misapplying the law, failing to secure special educational provision, and failing to arrange alternative provision once they became of compulsory school age. As a result, her child missed education and specialist support, and caused Miss X avoidable distress, uncertainty and time and trouble pursuing complaints. The Council has agreed to apologise, and make a payment to Miss X.
-
Milton Keynes Council (25 011 975)
Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to properly consider Mrs X's request for a school admission outside of chronological age group for her two summer born children in line with the relevant law and guidance. This caused Mrs X distress, frustration and uncertainty about her children's education. The Council has agreed to apologise and review its decision.
-
City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (25 013 772)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms M's complaint about her request for free bus passes for her children because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.
-
Essex County Council (25 013 795)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr F's complaint about post-16 transport because there is not enough evidence of fault, and nothing we could add to the Council's response.
-
Essex County Council (25 018 357)
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.
-
Surrey County Council (24 021 662)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to secure the provision in her son's Education, Health and Care Plan. We find the Council at fault in the delay in providing the provision. The Council had already apologised, provided a personal budget and symbolic payment to Mrs X. The Council has agreed to make a further symbolic payment to Mrs X to provide a suitable remedy.
-
Kent County Council (24 022 185)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's handling of her son's education. We found fault because the Council did not send formal documentation linked to appeal rights for his Education, Health and Care Plan when it should have done, it failed to properly consider its duties to deliver education when he could not attend school and communication and complaint handling were poor. This caused Mrs X and her son avoidable distress and uncertainty. To remedy this injustice, the Council will apologise to Mrs X and make a payment.
-
Brighton & Hove City Council (24 022 390)
Summary: Miss X complained that the Council named a school in her son's Education, Health and Care Plan, which could not meet his needs, and it failed to ensure the agreed alternative education was provided. We are discontinuing our investigation because Miss X had an available alternative remedy by means of an appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal if unhappy with the named placement. Therefore, we are closing the complaint.
-
Buckinghamshire Council (25 001 214)
Summary: We found the Council delayed in securing the therapeutic provision included in child Y's Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused Y lost provision which the Council agreed an increased payment to remedy.
-
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (25 001 464)
Summary: I have found fault in the annual review process which delayed Ms X's right of appeal. I have not found fault in the Council's decision not to provide financial support to Ms X when she was home educating. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to acknowledge the injustice caused.
-
Kent County Council (25 001 723)
Summary: Mrs F complained about the Council's handling of her son's education and special educational needs provision. The Council has accepted there was a delay in holding an annual review and responding to Mrs F's complaint. The Council should make symbolic payments to Mrs F to remedy the distress and time and trouble this caused. We have not found fault in the other parts of Mrs F's complaint.
-
Lancashire County Council (25 003 999)
Summary: The Council failed to consider its duty to provide a suitable alternative education to Mrs X's child, Y, when they stopped attending school. The Council also delayed issuing Y's EHC Plan and failed to secure the provision in the Plan. This has resulted in Y missing six terms of education and caused Mrs X frustration, distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and make a payment to recognise the impact of its failings.
-
London Borough of Newham (25 004 294)
Summary: Ms X says the Council delayed completing an education, health and care needs assessment, failed to provide her son with education, wrongly said she had decided to home educate her son, delayed consulting schools and delayed responding to her complaint. There is no fault in failing to put in place alternative provision for Ms X's son. The Council delayed completing the needs assessment, failed to follow its elective home education policy, delayed consulting schools and delayed responding to the complaint. That caused Ms X distress and uncertainty. The remedy the Council has already offered Ms X, plus guidance for officers, is satisfactory remedy.
-
Nottinghamshire County Council (25 007 554)
Summary: The Council delayed issuing Miss X's child, Y's final Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plans following an annual review in 2024 and an EHC needs reassessment during early 2025. This resulted in a loss of provision for Y between May 2025 and July 2025 causing frustration, distress and uncertainty. The Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy this injustice.
-
Lincolnshire County Council (25 008 152)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms M's complaint about her son's lack of progress at college because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. We could not add to the Council's response, and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
-
Derbyshire County Council (25 009 108)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint because the Council has acknowledged its mistakes and offered a significant symbolic payment to recognise the impact on Ms X and G. There is no outstanding injustice for us to consider, and no worthwhile outcome achievable by further investigation.
-
Wakefield City Council (25 013 396)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms M's complaint about post-16 transport for her son because it would be reasonable for her to use the Council's appeals process. There is nothing worthwhile we could achieve by investigating Ms M's complaint at this stage.
-
Rutland County Council (25 013 538)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms M's complaint about the Council's response to her questions about its new school transport policy because investigation would not lead to a different outcome. It would be reasonable for Ms M to use the Council's appeals process to challenge the impact of the new policy on her son.
-
East Sussex County Council (25 014 181)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's Education Health and Care Needs Assessment process and its decision not to assess her child, and its subsequent decision not to make alternative educational provision for the complainant's child. 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.
-
Essex County Council (25 015 391)
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.
-
Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (25 012 621)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions relating to Mr X's education and his Statement of Special Educational Needs. Mr X's concerns are historic and could have been raised earlier. It would not now be possible to carry out a robust investigation with any meaningful outcomes.
-
Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (24 020 246)
Summary: Miss X complained about delays by the Council in reviewing her child's Education, Health and Care Plan and its failure to provide a suitable education for them when they could not attend a school. We found the Council was at fault for not completing the review on time and for its complaint handling, which caused injustice to Miss X and her child. However, we found there was no fault in how the Council considered its duty to secure alternative education provision for Miss X's child. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and her child to remedy their injustice and make changes to its service to prevent the same fault happening to others.
-
Hampshire County Council (25 001 414)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not review her child's Education Health and Care Plan in line with statutory timescales. She also complained the Council did not provide her child with alternative provision. She says this impacted her child's education and impacted her emotional wellbeing. We find no fault with the Council's decision-making regarding alternative provision. We do find the Council at fault for not meeting statutory timescale which caused injustice. We are satisfied the Council's actions have remedied the injustice caused.
-
North Northamptonshire Council (25 002 888)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not provide suitable education for her child. She says this impacted their education and emotional wellbeing and caused her financial strain. We find no fault with the Council.
-
Staffordshire County Council (25 005 795)
Summary: Mrs C complained about the delay in the Council completing an Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment and issuing an EHC Plan for her daughter D. We found the Council delayed by nine months. This caused distress and inconvenience to Mrs C and D to miss out on essential educational support. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mrs C and D.
-
Derbyshire County Council (25 007 887)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of an Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council has offered a suitable remedy for the delay and its poor complaint handling. Investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.
-
Northumberland County Council (25 011 453)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of post-16 college transport. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council for us to be able to question its actions and we cannot achieve the desired outcome. It is open to Mr and Mrs X to apply for transport for the current academic year.
-
Buckinghamshire Council (25 013 565)
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 Tower Hamlets (25 015 691)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a child's education because the complainant has initiated legal proceedings against the Council.
-
Kent County Council (25 012 577)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council refusing to provide her child with free transport to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
-
London Borough of Tower Hamlets (25 012 674)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of a Headteacher of a school because we have no power to do so.
-
London Borough of Ealing (25 012 833)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of a school in relation to safeguarding, governance, and whistleblowing. This is because the complaint concerns the actions of a school, not the Council, and a legal bar prevents us investigating these matters.
-
Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (25 012 848)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about a failure to review his statement of Special Educational Needs between 2008 and 2014. It is unlikely an investigation would reach a worthwhile outcome. The Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to consider a complaint about the Council's response to his Subject Access Request.
-
Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (25 013 010)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's response to her child being unable to attend school and its delay in issuing an Education Health and Care Plan. The Council has already accepted fault and offered a suitable remedy. Investigation by us would be unlikely to add anything further.
-
Gloucestershire County Council (24 016 104)
Summary: We have upheld this complaint about the Council's failure to complete an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment and issue an Education Health and Care plan for the complainant'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 Northamptonshire Council (25 012 635)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in the process of assessing the complainant's child's education, health and care needs and has issued a flawed Education Health and Care (EHC) plan. 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.
-
Royal Borough of Greenwich (24 007 408)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to ensure Y received all the provision set out in his Education, Health and Care Plan and failed to provide holiday free school meals support. The Council was at fault, meaning Y missed out on provision he was entitled to and causing confusion for Miss X. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X, make a payment to reflect the injustice, secure the provision set out in Y's plan, and provide clarity to Miss X around holiday free school meals support.
-
Hertfordshire County Council (25 000 073)
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's failure to provide his daughter, Y, with suitable education and support for her special educational needs and related matters. We found the Council to be at fault. It failed to ensure Y had access to appropriate support when she was unable to attend school. To remedy Mr X's injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise and increase a symbolic payment already offered during its internal complaint handling that was made to acknowledge the time Y spend without an education or specialist support. There was also fault with the annual review process and there was poor communication with Mr X. The Council will make a further payment to Mr X to acknowledge his frustration time and trouble.
-
Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 000 981)
Summary: The Council was at fault in failing to provide Mrs X's child, Y, with alternative education provision during the 2024/25 school year. As a result, Y missed out on education for a full academic year. The Council was also at fault in its handling of Mrs X's complaint, which caused her frustration and time and trouble. The Council has agreed payments to remedy the injustice caused by its faults.
-
Devon County Council (25 001 244)
Summary: There was no fault in how the Council considered and put in place alternative provision for Mr X's child, Y between February 2024 and March 2025. The Council provided tuition for Y and then provided a place at its alternative provision placement in January 2025 without fault.
-
Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 001 312)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide the special educational provision detailed in her child, Y's, Education, Health and Care Plan. We find the Council at fault for a delay in providing educational provision when it was aware the named setting was unable to meet Y's needs. This caused Mrs X distress and frustration and meant Y missed out on education for approximately three months. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment.
-
Manchester City Council (25 002 009)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide Z with a suitable education when he was unable to attend school. We have found the Council acted with fault for failing to maintain oversight of Z's case and failing to ensure a timely referral to its decision panel. We also found the Council at fault for failing to have clear regard for its duties to secure suitable educational provision for Z. On the balance of probabilities, we find these faults caused Z to miss educational provision and caused Ms X avoidable distress and uncertainty. These are injustices. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic financial payment to recognise Z's missed provision.
-
Liverpool City Council (25 004 446)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to follow the correct process for completing an annual review of her child, Y's, Education, Health and Care Plan. We find the Council at fault for a delay in issuing a final amended Education, Health and Care Plan following an annual review. This delay caused distress, frustration and uncertainty for Mrs X and her child. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic financial payment to remedy the injustice caused.
-
Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (25 004 928)
Summary: The Council was not at fault in its efforts to secure an exam location for Ms X's child, Y. It tried to secure a location once it finalised Y's Education, Health and Care Plan. However, the Council was at fault for a delay securing a laptop for Y, causing Ms X frustration. The Council will apologise to Ms X.
-
Norfolk County Council (25 007 813)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to maintain an Education, Health and Care Plan for her child and how the school taught Mrs X's child when delivering the special educational needs provision. We do not have the power to investigate the complaint.
-
Essex County Council (25 016 808)
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.
-
Essex County Council (25 017 567)
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.
-
East Sussex County Council (25 021 705)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's handling of his application for a school place. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant us investigating.
-
Nottinghamshire County Council (25 012 309)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of an Education, Health and Care plan review. This is because the Complainant has appeal to the tribunal about the content of the plan and the law prevents us from also considering this issue. The Council has apologised for delays, poor communication and not consulting certain schools. The remaining injustice is insufficient to warrant further investigation, and it is unlikely that we would achieve anything more for the complainant.
-
Norfolk County Council (25 012 342)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint about how a school provides free school meals. We have no power to do so.
-
Lancashire County Council (25 012 427)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education, Health and Care plan process. This is because the Council has offered an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the delay. An investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.
-
Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (25 013 074)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a draft Education, Health and Care Plan because the complainant can appeal to the Tribunal if he remains unhappy with the content of the Plan once it has been finalised.
-
South Gloucestershire Council (24 000 456)
Summary: Mrs E and Mr E complained that the Council failed, over several years, to provide Mr E with suitable education, based on the contents of his Education, Health and Care Plan. We uphold the complaint because of delay in reviewing Mr E's Plan, a delayed complaint response and incorrect information about an education provider. These faults will have caused Mr E some distress, including uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and provide Mr E with a symbolic remedy in recognition of the faults we have identified.
-
Dorset Council (24 018 927)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about how the Council dealt with matters concerning her child's Education Health and Care Plan. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.
-
Hertfordshire County Council (25 002 175)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's failure to comply with the statutory timescales when carrying out her son Y's Education Health and Care needs assessment and issuing his plan. She also complained about the Council's delay in completing review of Y's Education Health and Care Plan, failure to arrange alternative provision when Y could not attend school and poor communication. We found fault with the Council for the delays in issuing Y's Education Health and Care plan after the review and for its failure to decide on its alternative provision duty. We also found fault with the Council's communication. The Council's fault caused injustice to Mrs X. The Council has agreed to apologise, refund costs Mrs X spent on Y's education between January and mid-June 2024 and make a symbolic payment to recognise Mrs X's distress.
-
Lincolnshire County Council (25 010 159)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the advice requested by the Council during the Education, Health and Care Plan process. This is because it is reasonable for Miss X to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) if she is unhappy with her child's plan.
-
Northumberland County Council (25 010 597)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms M's complaint about school transport because there is not enough evidence of fault.
-
West Sussex County Council (25 013 306)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms M's complaint about school transport because events before September 2024 are too old, and the Council arranged an appeal for Ms M to challenge the mileage rate she receives. This is a reasonable way to resolve the dispute.
-
Essex County Council (25 014 555)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint the Council failed to provide a suitable package of occupational therapy for her child. Mrs X has used her right of appeal to the Tribunal so we cannot investigate some elements. Other elements of the complaint are late.
-
Surrey County Council (25 022 182)
Summary: We will not investigate how the Council considered Mrs X's complaint about transport to provision agreed within an Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
-
Cornwall Council (24 015 349)
Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council misadvised her that it would provide transport for her son, C to attend a placement if she agreed to electively home educate him for a temporary period. She also complained the Council failed to provide education during this period and failed to communicate with her or deal with her complaint properly. We found fault in the actions of the Council. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B and C and make a symbolic payment of £1000.
-
Surrey County Council (25 004 311)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council dealt with her daughter, Y's education. The Council was at fault for failing to properly consider its section 19 duties, delaying in issuing Y's Education, Health and Care plan and poorly responding to Mrs X's complaints. This caused distress, frustration and uncertainty to Mrs X and Y. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to recognise the injustice caused and make service improvements.
-
City of Doncaster Council (25 006 990)
Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to offer her son a place at a specialist setting and issue his amended Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan within the statutory timescale following the annual review of the Plan. There was fault by the Council. Following the annual review meeting, it did not meet statutory timescales when issuing its notice to amend the Plan and issuing the amended final EHC Plan. Because of the fault, Mrs B suffered distress and frustration and her right to appeal to the Tribunal was delayed. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B and make a symbolic payment.
-
Kent County Council (25 011 139)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to refuse Mrs X's application for free home-to-school transport for her child. This is because Mrs X has the right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and it would be reasonable for her to do so.
-
Essex County Council (25 011 341)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of Mr X's request for school transport. We cannot consider part of Mr X's complaint because of an appeal to a tribunal. There are other parts where we could not achieve anything more. It is reasonable for Mr X to complete the Council's own appeals process if he remains unhappy with the transport offered.
-
Leicestershire County Council (25 011 487)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about production delays in an Education Health and Care Plan as there is no worthwhile outcome. We cannot investigate why a Council named a school as Miss X appealed to the Tribunal.
-
Royal Borough of Greenwich (25 011 691)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's handling of her child's education. Mrs X has used her right of appeal and that places much of the complaint outside our jurisdiction. Investigation of the rest of Mrs X's complaint would not lead to a different outcome and so is not justified. We cannot consider complaints about what happens in schools.
-
Buckinghamshire Council (25 013 279)
Summary: We have upheld this complaint about the Council's failure to complete an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment for Mr 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.
-
London Borough of Hackney (25 013 923)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaints about a Council officer's communication or a delay in the Council's complaints process because the Council already apologised and offered a symbolic payment in line with the Ombudsman's Guidance on remedies. An investigation is unlikely to achieve anything further. We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about how the Council arranged alternative education for her child because there is insufficient evidence of fault.
-
Leeds City Council (25 014 177)
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 (25 016 877)
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. We will not investigate the rest of the complaint as there is not enough evidence of fault, and if Mrs X wants to challenge the content of her child's plan, it is reasonable for her to appeal to a tribunal.
-
Milton Keynes Council (25 018 826)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to carry out an Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment for Mr X's child. Also, we will not investigate its refusal to accept Mr X's request to engage in mediation after the legal deadline had passed. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, and it was reasonable for Mr X to make a late appeal to the relevant tribunal.
-
Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (25 012 098)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to provide occupational therapy provision for the complainant's child. This is because they have a right of appeal to the tribunal about the contents of the Education, Health and Care plan and it is reasonable to expect them to use this right.
-
Kent County Council (25 012 288)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the education, health and care plan process and the suitability of a placement. Miss X had a right to appeal to the Tribunal, and it would have been reasonable to expect her to have used this right.
-
Birmingham City Council (24 021 332)
Summary: Mr B complained about the Council's handling of child protection matters regarding his children. He also complained about delays in the Council's complaint-handling through the children's statutory complaint procedure. There was fault by the Council. It did not follow statutory timescales when considering Mr B's complaint. Because of this, Mr B suffered distress and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B, make a symbolic payment, and progress stage three without further delay.
-
London Borough of Lewisham (25 002 240)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay at stage two of the children's statutory complaints procedure. It is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.
-
Lancashire County Council (25 011 123)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the lack of Children's social care support. The Council gave her a route to a Council assessment, and we are unlikely to achieve significantly more.
-
London Borough of Barnet (25 013 044)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about information the Council gave a court or his contact with a child, as the Court is deciding this. The Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to consider an information sharing complaint.
-
Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (25 000 803)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about a delay in reimbursing the cost of a holiday for a looked after child. We are unlikely to achieve more than the financial payment already paid.
-
Leeds City Council (25 006 550)
Summary: The Council was not at fault for its decision to respond to Mr X's complaint under its corporate complaints procedure, rather than the Children Act 1989 complaints procedure. And we have not investigated the substantive elements of his complaint, which are about data accuracy and are therefore better suited to the Information Commissioner's Office.
-
Brighton & Hove City Council (25 009 086)
Summary: We have upheld Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision not to consider his complaint about its actions in its child protection involvement with his family. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.
-
Kent County Council (25 012 261)
Summary: We have upheld Mrs X's complaint about the Council's delay in applying for a passport for a child she fosters. The Council have agreed to resolve the complaint by offering a suitable remedy.
-
Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (25 012 828)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's involvement with his children. The complaint is late and the law prevents us from investigating anything that is or has been the subject of court proceedings.
-
Suffolk County Council (25 013 190)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to accept a complaint about the actions of a social worker. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council's part to warrant our intervention.
-
Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (25 025 043)
Summary: We have upheld Mr X's complaint about delay at stage two of the children's statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.
-
Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 012 410)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the decision to make the complainant's child subject to a Child Protection Plan. This is because the Ombudsman's intervention would not lead to the outcome the complainant wants.
-
London Borough of Croydon (25 012 815)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's response to the complainant's requests for information. This is because it concerns information which was before a court, and the law prevents us from investigating such matters.
-
Surrey County Council (25 005 335)
Summary: The Council was at fault for the way it decided Mrs X's application and appeal for a Blue Badge for her disabled child. This caused Mrs X injustice. The Council has agreed to make a fresh decision.
-
Birmingham City Council (25 024 735)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's delay in following the statutory complaints procedure. We have upheld this complaint because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a stage three adjudication to Ms X and making a symbolic payment for the injustice caused.
-
Milton Keynes Council (24 022 016)
Summary: There was fault in complaint handling by the Council for which it has apologised and offered an appropriate symbolic payment. The Council has agreed to complete an action plan of steps to address its delay in complaint handling. Other matters Ms X raised have been considered by the court (or could reasonably have been raised by Mrs X in court) and so we ended the investigation of them.
-
Suffolk County Council (24 022 666)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about how the Council has handled safeguarding concerns relating to his child since 2014. Some of Mr X's concerns are too old for us to investigate. The law prevents us from investigating any of Mr X's concerns the court has already considered. We also will not consider the Council's refusal to consider Mr X's complaints when we are not investigating the substantive issues.
-
Surrey County Council (25 013 790)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about ongoing delays investigating her complaint about failures to protect her from abuse as a child. The Council is currently completing an independent review of Ms X's records. It is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.
-
Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 012 929)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's investigation of a historical allegation against Mr X. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate it now.
-
London Borough of Lewisham (25 025 307)
Summary: We have upheld Ms X's complaint about delay in the children's statutory complaint's procedure. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.
-
London Borough of Bromley (25 012 999)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about special guardianship order financial support. The complaint is late, and there are no good reasons for us to investigate it now.
-
Surrey County Council (25 021 971)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to fund psychotherapy for Ms X. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council's decision making to warrant an investigation.
-
Leeds City Council (25 006 880)
Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council carried out the statutory complaint procedure. The Council was at fault for a flawed investigation. This caused Mr X frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr X and complete a new stage two investigation.
-
Staffordshire County Council (25 015 824)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the conduct of three social workers allocated to her family's case between 2021 and 2024. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now.
-
Bedford Borough Council (25 018 257)
Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Council delays handling Miss X's statutory children's complaint. This is because the Council issued its complaint response and took action to remedy the injustice caused by the delay.
-
Kent County Council (25 012 607)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the conduct of a council social worker. This is mostly because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council's complaint handling, and investigation by us is unlikely to lead to a worthwhile outcome for Miss X.
-
Cornwall Council (25 006 350)
Summary: We have ended our investigation into Miss X's complaint about how Adopt South West (ASW) handled her application to access her adoption records. This is because ASW apologised to her and said it would make service improvements. Miss X has received her records and there is no further worthwhile outcome achievable by investigating further.
-
Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (25 014 131)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the contents of the Council's court ordered report and it not acting in line with a court order. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council's decision not to consider her complaint until the ongoing court proceedings have concluded.
-
Reading Borough Council (25 017 479)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council social worker failing to include Mr X in plans for a child protection visit. This is because there is insufficient injustice to warrant an investigation.
-
Lancashire County Council (25 012 609)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of matters relating to Mr X's child. This is because the law prevents us from investigating matters that have been before the courts or are closely related to such matters.
-
London Borough of Lewisham (25 004 370)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council leaving Miss X in unsuitable accommodation. This is because we could not add to the Council's investigation.
-
Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (25 005 062)
Summary: We have decided to discontinue our investigation of this complaint, about the Council's decision not to accept a stage 3 complaint under the statutory children's complaint procedure. This is because the Council has provided satisfactory reasons for making an early referral to the Ombudsman, and we do not consider it would be proportionate to carry out further investigation ourselves.
-
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (25 011 880)
Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint about contact with her children or the Council's assessment of this because this is before a Court. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council's decision to have a Child Protection Plan. And we are unlikely to significantly add to the Council's replies to Miss X's complaint about communication issues.
-
North Northamptonshire Council (25 012 242)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about inaccuracies in a children services' report. We are unlikely to achieve a further worthwhile remedy than the Council has offered.
-
Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (25 012 298)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of a Subject Access Request. The Information Commissioner is better placed to consider this part of Mr X's complaint. We will also not investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council refused to investigate his concerns about how it safeguarded him when he was a Looked After Child. The complaint relates to events which occurred over 12 months ago, and it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council's decision not to investigate it.
-
Lancashire County Council (25 010 658)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint on behalf of Miss Y about how the Council considered safeguarding concerns. This is because the substantive issues are outside of our jurisdiction.
-
London Borough of Southwark (25 011 616)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's handling of contact arrangements with his child. Part of his complaint is late and there are no good reasons why it could not have been raised with us sooner. Of the part that is not late, the Council has investigated his concerns and further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome for Mr X. Nor will we investigate the procedure the Council used to investigate Mr X's complaint. It is unlikely we would find fault.
-
London Borough of Croydon (25 011 907)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's actions following it starting a Child Protection Plan. It is not in our jurisdiction because Mr X pursued an alternative legal remedy and it would be reasonable to expect him to raise his complaints as part of ongoing court proceedings.
-
Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (25 013 573)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's response to serious safeguarding concerns about his daughter. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council's decision not to investigate his complaint whilst there are ongoing court proceedings.
-
Lancashire County Council (25 013 639)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's decision to follow a child protection conference recommendation or not to investigate her complaint within the Children Act statutory complaints' procedure. We are unlikely to find fault.
-
Cheshire East Council (25 013 858)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint that a social worker threatened his son into making false abuse allegations against him. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council's decision not to consider his complaint whilst the case is subject to ongoing court proceedings.
-
Derby City Council (25 012 095)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint about court and legal costs. There are no sufficient reasons to investigate her complaint about events known to her for more than 12 months. And there is no worthwhile outcome achievable in investigating her complaint about failures to provide financial support for caring for a child in the last 12 months.
-
Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (25 012 277)
Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint about child protection. The issues raised are subject to court action. We have no power to investigate a complaint where the issues raised are subject to court proceedings.
-
Telford & Wrekin Council (25 012 285)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about his anonymous referral to Children's Services because there is nothing we could add to the Council's investigation, and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable.
-
London Borough of Southwark (25 012 434)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about how the Council cared for her when she was a young mother in care during the 1990s. This is because the complaint is late.
-
Coventry City Council (24 015 135)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about her deregistration as a foster carer. The Independent Review Mechanism panel is better placed than the Ombudsman to do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment