New children and education complaint decisions

View online A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions Please note: our decisions are published six weeks after they are issued to councils, care providers and the person who has made the complaint. The cases below reflect the caselaw and guidance available at the time of issue and the individual circumstances of each case. Devon County Council (25 006 898) Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not correctly amend her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan and delayed providing them with special educational provision after a tribunal order. She said the Council’s failings negatively impacted her child’s progress at school. We found fault by the Council for failing to provide Miss X’s child with support which caused them to miss provision and caused Miss X distress. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Miss X to remedy the injustice caused. Devon County Council (25 011 505) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to complete an Education, Health and Care needs assessment for her child within statutory timeframes. We found the Council at fault for significant delays, causing significant frustration, distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic to recognise the injustice caused. Kent County Council (25 012 224) Summary: We did not find fault with the Council’s decision to change home to school transport arrangements for the complainant’s son. Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 017 873) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because the Council has agreed to an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the delay. It is unlikely that we could add anything else to the Council’s response about communication issues. South Gloucestershire Council (25 018 037) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to respond to a request for reassessment, alternative educational provision and the delivery of an Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because the complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate it now. Leicester City Council (25 020 034) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about post-16 transport for her daughter because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Essex County Council (25 020 243) 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 Suffolk County Council (25 020 807) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to only include recent documents as annexes to an Education, Health and Care plan. This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice to warrant further investigation. City of Doncaster Council (25 025 524) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to meet the provision detailed in his child’s Education Health and Care (EHC) plan. This is because doing so would not add to the investigation carried out by the Council. London Borough of Havering (25 005 294) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council lied in court. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about what happened in court. London Borough of Waltham Forest (25 012 678) Summary: We cannot investigate part of Mrs X’s complaint about concerns relating to her child’s school because the issues raised relate to the internal management of a school, and the law says we cannot investigate. We will not investigate the Council’s investigation into a safeguarding concern because there is insufficient evidence of fault. We will not investigate the Council’s complaint handling because the tests in our Assessment Code are not met. Oxfordshire County Council (25 017 945) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with a child protection referral. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation by the Ombudsman. Herefordshire Council (25 019 180) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. Some of the complaint is late. For the remainder, it was reasonable for Mrs X to ask the Council to review her complaint, there is not enough evidence of fault in its decision to close her complaint, and the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider and decide complaints about data protection. Somerset Council (25 019 337) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to act appropriately to safeguard the complainant’s child. This is because the complaint has already been substantially upheld and investigation by the Ombudsman would achieve nothing significant. Hertfordshire County Council (25 019 484) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her child’s care placement. The matters were raised in Court. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s refusal of her complaint. Northumberland County Council (25 020 382) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the professional conduct of a social worker. There is another agency which can investigate his concerns about the social worker’s conduct Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (25 022 287) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of safeguarding concerns, recording of information, and complaint handling. The main issues relate to professional safeguarding judgement, where there is not enough evidence of administrative fault. Complaints about data protection are best suited for the Information Commissioner’s Office. Where limited fault was identified, the Council has already taken proportionate remedial action. Further investigation is unlikely to achieve a different outcome. Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (26 002 359) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about children services’ actions. We are unlikely to find fault on some elements. We will not reinvestigate the complaint and are unlikely to add to the Council’s reply. We would not achieve Ms X’s aims. Kent County Council (25 000 441) Summary: Mrs W complained on behalf of her son Mr X that the Council failed to follow its legal duties when his Education, Health and Care Plan was transferred to it, did not respond to requests for mediation and a new needs assessment, and gave inadequate responses to her requests for contact and complaints. We find the Council at fault for failing to follow its duties regarding the Education, Health and Care Plan and for poor communication and complaint handling. This caused significant injustice of distress, uncertainty, and missed educational provision. The Council agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment, review the plan and make service improvements to remedy the injustice. West Northamptonshire Council (25 006 577) Summary: The Council was at fault because it failed to secure the special educational provision in Y’s Education Health and Care Plan. This caused avoidable distress and a loss of educational provision. The Council will apologise, make a payment and take action to ensure all the provision in Y’s Plan is secured. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (25 008 191) Summary: Miss X complains the Council has failed to ensure her son had access to full time education and received the special educational provision in his Education Health and Care Plan causing distress and lost educational opportunity. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters. So, we have completed our investigation. Buckinghamshire Council (25 010 035) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mrs X’s child’s education, health and care (EHC) plan. This is because the complaint has been substantially upheld and investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to lead to a significantly different outcome. Central Bedfordshire Council (25 014 308) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in reviewing an Education, Health and Care plan. This is because any investigation by us could not achieve significantly more than the Council has already offered. London Borough of Lambeth (25 017 828) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to concerns he raised about a local school. It would not be a good use of our limited resources. Manchester City Council (25 018 266) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the outcome of his application and appeals for post-16 transport for his son. This is because here is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant us investigating. Sheffield City Council (25 018 451) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mrs X’s daughter’s special educational needs and the delivery of her Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because it is unlikely we could achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mrs X and because it would have been reasonable for Mrs X to appeal against the content of the Plan. Surrey County Council (25 019 088) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a child’s Education Health and Care plan. This is because we could not add anything significant to the investigation carried out by the Council. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (25 018 982) Summary: We will not investigate part of Mr X’s complaints about the Council’s response to his Subject Access Request and right to rectification because the Information Commissioner is better suited to consider the matter. We will not investigate Mr X’s concerns about how the Council considered his evidence relating to a safeguarding concern because the Council addressed the issues through its complaints handling and an investigation is unlikely to achieve anything further. We will not investigate information shared with the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service because the issue was likely considered during court proceedings. London Borough of Hackney (25 019 052) Summary: We will not investigate X’s complaints about inaccuracies in a social work report because the Information Commissioner is better suited to consider the matter. We will not investigate X’s complaints about the decision to place their children on a child protection plan or the conduct of a social worker and conference chair because an investigation is unlikely to achieve any meaningful outcome. We will not investigate the remainder because the tests in our Assessment Code are not met. Bristol City Council (25 019 828) Summary: We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint because there is nothing we could add to the Council’s response, our involvement would not lead to a different outcome, and would not, therefore, be a good use of our limited resources. Leeds City Council (25 024 495) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the contents of a report produced by the Council’s children’s services. The report was ordered by and considered in court, and the law prevents us from investigating complaints about what happened in court. Coventry City Council (25 025 906) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a data breach because she has already taken the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office, and we have seen no good reason why we should also investigate. Staffordshire County Council (25 026 810) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s call handling. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Also, we consider there would be no worthwhile outcome from further investigation. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (25 028 014) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s complaint about the conduct of a Council staff. This is because the Council has not yet completed all three stages of the statutory children’s complaint procedure, and it would be reasonable to allow it to do so. Royal Borough of Greenwich (24 015 967) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about special guardianship order financial support. This is because we could not add to any previous investigation and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (25 008 419) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s preparation of a section 7 report. The law prevents us from investigating such matters and there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s refusal of his complaint. Mr X’s other concerns about his confidentiality and subject access request are better addressed with the Information Commissioner’s Office. North Lincolnshire Council (25 017 211) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s care of her family members. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council considered her concerns and we cannot investigate matters the Court has considered. London Borough of Ealing (25 018 162) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the accuracy of a children services child and family assessment. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider this disagreement. Leeds City Council (25 018 895) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a family assessment as we are unlikely to achieve more than the Council’s complaint process. We will not investigate what might happen in two years’ time. Swindon Borough Council (25 002 041) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to secure the special educational provision detailed in her child, Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan. We find the Council at fault for failing to secure the special educational provision detailed in Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This meant Y missed out on special educational provision and it caused distress, frustration and uncertainty for Y and Mrs X. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and complete service improvements to remedy the injustice caused. Bristol City Council (25 002 524) Summary: There was delay by the Council in considering a pupil’s need for post-16 transfer, in consulting alternative settings, and in issuing a final amended Education, Health and Care Plan. There was also delay in considering the need for s.19 education when it became clear there was no accessible schooling in place for the 2024-5 academic year. This caused unnecessary uncertainty before provision was secured in Autumn 2024. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic financial payment, and make service improvements. City of York Council (25 005 786) Summary: There was fault by the Council. It took too long to issue a final Education Health and Care Plan, and it failed to secure the out -of-school social activities in line with the Plan. It also failed to deal with Mr X’s complaint about this effectively. This caused Mr X distress, frustration and uncertainty, and meant his daughter did not get all the provision she was entitled to. The Council is reviewing gaps in provision. It will also apologise to Mr X and make symbolic payments in recognition of the injustice caused to him and his daughter. London Borough of Haringey (25 008 544) Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s failures with alternative provision when her child could not attend school. We found the Council at fault for not properly considering its duties and poor complaints handling. Ms X sourced private provisions at her own expense. The Council has agreed to apologise, reimburse Ms X’s costs and make a symbolic payment to recognise the injustice caused. It also agreed to take action to prevent future recurrence of the faults. Buckinghamshire Council (25 009 467) Summary: The Council was at fault for delaying putting in place school transport for Y from September 2024. When the Council put this is place a month later, it did not transport Y consistently to and from school which was also fault. The Council delayed responding to Mrs X’s complaint about this. The Council apologised and reimbursed Mrs X for the money spent on private transport. We are satisfied with the Council’s actions to remedy the injustice caused to Mrs X. The Council has also agreed to remind complaints officers to issue complaint responses within the correct timescales. North Yorkshire Council (25 010 416) Summary: There was some fault in the way the Council publicised its new home to school transport policy. However, this did not cause Mr X a significant injustice as this would not have affected Mr X’s decision regarding the school applied for their child to attend. There was no evidence of fault in the way the appeals committee considered Mr X’s appeal against the Council’s decision not to provide free transport. South Gloucestershire Council (25 017 123) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions relating to a Child in Need plan. The Council has already investigated X’s complaint under the three-stage Children Act 1989 complaint procedure, and it is unlikely we would find fault in the way it conducted that investigation or considered the findings. Essex County Council (25 018 753) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council securing the special education provision in an Education, Health, and Care Plan. Any injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation. London Borough of Waltham Forest (25 018 814) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to secure a school placement for her child. This is because it was reasonable for Mrs X to have used her right of appeal to a tribunal. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 018 897) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in respect of Mrs X’s child’s special educational needs. Matter before early September 2024 are late, and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate them now. Matters after that date, when the Council issued an amended Education Health and Care Plan for the child, carried a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal it would have been reasonable to use. Leeds City Council (26 001 605) 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. Dorset Council (25 008 428) Summary: Mr X complained about the actions of the Council relating to child protection matters concerning his children. Mr X said this distressed and frustrated him and caused him uncertainty. There was fault in the way the Council did not invite Mr X to meetings and communication was poor. This frustrated Mr X. The Council agreed to apologise. Nottinghamshire County Council (25 014 350) Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to use the children’s statutory complaints procedure to respond to Miss X’s complaint about its treatment of her and her child. This caused Miss X avoidable frustration for which the Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment. It will also consider Miss X’s complaint again, using the statutory procedure. Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (25 016 801) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her children’s case between 2011 and 2023. The law says we cannot consider complaints about matters that have been considered in court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so. The complaint also lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late. Norfolk County Council (25 017 703) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s safeguarding process. The Council’s role here was limited, and investigation of that would be unlikely to lead to a finding of fault. We cannot investigate the actions of a school as we are legally prevented from doing so. Norfolk County Council (25 018 141) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about children services’ actions. We have upheld Mrs X’s complaint as the Council has now agreed to follow the Children Act statutory complaints’ procedure which is a proportionate way to resolve the complaint. London Borough of Bexley (25 018 551) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions relating to a Looked After Child. The Council has already investigated X’s complaint under the three-stage Children Act 1989 complaint procedure, and it is unlikely we would find fault in the way it conducted that investigation or considered the findings. Additionally, any injustice caused by delays in that procedure has already been remedied by the Council’s offer of a symbolic financial remedy. Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 018 724) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the care of his grandchildren because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation, and nothing we could add to the Council’s response. We cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants. Brighton & Hove City Council (25 018 776) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his safeguarding referral about his child’s school. We cannot investigate matters about the internal organisation and management of the school. There is also not enough evidence of fault in the Council not taking the complaint further. Cambridgeshire County Council (25 018 887) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s safeguarding actions in response to reports of child harm. The council has already examined Mr X’s complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure, and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, so it is not warranted. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (25 018 901) Summary: We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint about the Council’s decision to invite a relative to a family group conference. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable. City of Doncaster Council (25 020 575) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement in Miss X’s child’s case while care proceedings were ongoing. The law prevents us from investigating matters that have been considered in court. It was reasonable for Miss X to raise any remaining concerns as part of the proceedings. London Borough of Newham (25 022 860) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to consider her complaint about historical allegations of abuse. This is because, given the passage of time, we do not consider there is a realistic prospect of reaching a sound, fair and meaningful decision. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (25 031 139) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement with Mr X’s family. The issues raised are too closely linked to matters that have been considered in court and other bodies are better placed to consider other matters. Salford City Council (26 001 232) Summary: We have upheld Mr X’s complaint because the Council delayed considering his complaint 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 to Mr X. Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 007 076) Summary: Ms L complains about the Council’s delay in putting in place support for her daughter after it issued an Education, Health and Care Plan. She also complains the Council agreed that its social worker would help her appeal the Plan, but then did not do so. We uphold the complaint due to significant missed provision and because Ms L did not get the support from the social worker, meaning she missed an appeal deadline. The Council has agreed to our recommendations for symbolic remedies and for updates from the Council. Hampshire County Council (25 009 981) Summary: There was fault by the Council in failing to follow through with an agreement to make exam arrangements for a child receiving Education Otherwise than at School. The fault over two years caused immense distress. The Council has apologised, offered a symbolic financial payment, and enrolled the pupil in the preferred exam. The Council has agreed further corrective action to secure the exam arrangements this year, and to make service improvements. Derbyshire County Council (25 011 303) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the complainant’s child’s special educational needs and Education Health and Care (EHC) plan. This is because the complaint has been substantially upheld and investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. London Borough of Camden (25 019 318) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of an Education, Health and Care plan. This is because part of the complaint is late, the Council has offered a suitable remedy, and it is unlikely further investigation would achieve anything more for Miss X. London Borough of Havering (25 002 638) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about children services as we are unlikely to achieve a significantly different remedy than already provided. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (25 010 273) Summary: We do not find fault with the way the Council handled Mr X’s complaint about how it supported his disabled child and the wider family. Buckinghamshire Council (25 018 036) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to act to safeguard the complainant’s child. The Council substantially upheld the complaint and the Ombudsman’s intervention would not lead to a significantly different outcome. London Borough of Harrow (25 018 483) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his claim the Council failed to provide leaving care support. The events are more than six years old and there are no good reasons the late complaint rule should not apply. Wiltshire Council (25 019 173) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement with Ms X’s family. The complaint is late, and an investigation is unlikely to achieve a sound, meaningful or fair outcome. North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (25 022 197) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the arrangements made for his daughter under a court order. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been considered and decided in court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so. Birmingham City Council (25 029 532) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to end a foster placement and to no longer place children in Mrs X and her husband’s care. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants. London Borough of Havering (26 001 501) Summary: We have upheld Mrs X’s complaint because the Council delayed considering her complaint at stage three 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 to Mrs X. Somerset Council (25 008 751) Summary: There is no evidence fault by the Council affected its decision not to award free school transport to Mrs X. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (25 016 742) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the annual review of an Education, Health and Care plan. The Council has provided a reasonable remedy to address the delay and poor complaints handling. Any remaining injustice does not warrant further investigation. Portsmouth City Council (25 018 139) Summary: We have upheld Ms X’s complaint about a failure to provide a specialist school placement for her child, Y, and delay putting in place alternative provision following a SEND Tribunal order. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by paying Ms X £2400 in recognition of the distress caused by the delay and the injustice caused to Y by a term’s lost education and special educational provision. This is a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused, so we will not investigate. Leicestershire County Council (25 018 595) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council delay in finalising a school placement for Mrs X’s son Y, and Y’s loss of education. This is because investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Hertfordshire County Council (25 018 625) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council giving incorrect information to Mrs X. This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice to warrant our intervention. West Berkshire Council (25 019 299) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of and Education Health and Care plan. This is because it is late and there are no good reasons to consider it now. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (26 001 515) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mrs X’s son’s educational and special educational needs. This is because the issues she has raised are too closely related to, or a consequence of, decisions on her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan and Mrs X has used her right of appeal to challenge the content of the Plan at both the First-tier and Upper Tribunals. Mrs X’s complaint about delay in the annual review process is late and I have seen no good reasons to exercise our discretion to investigate it now. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (26 002 368) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the annual review of an Education, Health and Care plan. The Council has provided a reasonable remedy to address the delay and poor complaints handling. Any remaining injustice does not warrant further investigation. Lancashire County Council (25 015 614) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about data protection issues as the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed. We will not investigate her complaint about the Council’s reaction to child protection referrals as we are unlikely to find fault. London Borough of Sutton (25 018 272) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions relating to child protection matters. The Council has already investigated and taken action in response. Further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome for Mr X. Leicestershire County Council (25 018 414) Summary: We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint about the support she received from the Council under a child protection plan because there is not enough evidence of fault, and we cannot achieve the outcome she wants. London Borough of Enfield (25 019 894) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to make a payment to Mrs X after a previous complaint. The Council has acknowledged fault, apologised and agreed to pay an increased amount to Mrs X. I am satisfied with the action the Council intends to take. Hampshire County Council (25 020 461) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions during court proceedings, as the law prevents us from doing so. Mr X has issued proceedings against the Council which also prevent us from considering his complaint. Hampshire County Council (25 021 312) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a data protection breach; poor communication and a report by Children’s Services. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to investigate his complaint whilst there is an ongoing police investigation. London Borough of Haringey (25 029 704) Summary: We have upheld Mr X’s complaint about delay at stage 2 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. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (25 006 910) Summary: Ms X complained that the Council, in respect of her daughter Y’s special educational needs, failed to complete an Annual Review and produce an amended Education, Health and Care Plan within the statutory timescales. We found fault with the Council’s actions. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and make a symbolic payment. Cantell School (25 029 785) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault Surrey County Council (24 021 087) Summary: Mr A has complained about a lack of aftercare planning by a Council, Integrated Care Board and a Mental Health Trust for his daughter, Miss B. Mr A said this led to deterioration in her mental health. We found fault with these organisations who have agreed to carry out our recommendations to remedy the injustice to Mr A and his daughter. We look at individual complaints about local public services and all registerable social care providers in England. We remedy injustice and share learning from investigations to improve services. When we find a council or care provider has done something wrong, we recommend how it should put it right. We are free to use and make our decisions independently. Find out more about us at www.lgo.org.uk Manage preferences or unsubscribe Contact us

 

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