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. Lancashire County Council (25 002 463) Summary: We found fault with the Council delaying outside the statutory timescales producing Mrs X’s child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. We also found fault with the Council failing to consider the suitability of Mrs X’s child’s access to education for three months. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her symbolic financial payments for the injustice the Council’s fault caused to Mrs X and her child. Dorset Council (25 006 246) Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide suitable education and special educational provision for Y, delayed reviewing and amending his EHC Plan, failed to secure a suitable school placement, and communicated poorly. We found fault causing injustice. Y lost educational opportunity and Miss X experienced distress, uncertainty, delayed appeal rights, and avoidable time and trouble. The Council has accepted our recommendations. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (25 011 447) Summary: The Council was at fault for delays issuing a child’s final Education, Health and Care Plan. This meant the child had to wait longer than they should have to receive a final Plan and Ms X had her appeal rights to challenge the content of the Plan delayed. The Council was not at fault for deciding not to provide alternative provision but it should have communicated its decision to Ms X. The Council agreed to apologise, make a payment to Ms X and carry out a service improvement. Medway Council (25 013 881) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to recover overpaid travel assistance. This is because the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. North Northamptonshire Council (25 015 470) Summary: We have ended our investigation into Miss X’s complaint about whether the Council secured the provision in her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. Miss X appealed the Plan to the Tribunal. We cannot investigate any matters linked to Miss X’s appeal. London Borough of Bromley (25 016 169) Summary: The Council was at fault because it did not have proper oversight of how Miss X’s child’s school was providing their special educational provision. The Council also communicated poorly with Miss X. The Council already apologised. It has agreed to make a payment to Miss X to remedy the injustice. Cheshire West & Chester Council (25 018 458) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed issuing her child's final amended EHC Plan and failed to provide suitable full-time education while they were out of school. We found the Council was at fault. This delayed Mrs X's right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal, caused avoidable distress and uncertainty, and resulted in missed education and special educational provision. The Council has agreed to apologise and make an increased payment to Mrs X. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 023 394) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to carry out annual reviews of an Education Health and Care plan. Part of the complaint is late, and there are no good reasons to consider it now. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice in the remaining matters to warrant investigation. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (25 024 580) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to secure the provision for her child because Mrs X has used her right to appeal to a Tribunal and the law says we cannot investigate. Lincolnshire County Council (25 025 243) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint that the school travel arrangements for her child are unsuitable. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation. Lancashire County Council (26 007 830) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s school’s admissions appeal panel refusing her appeal. It is unlikely we would find fault which caused Mrs X to lose out on a school place. North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (26 008 267) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s school admissions appeal panel refusing her appeal. It is unlikely we would find fault which caused Mrs X to lose out on a school place. Cheshire East Council (26 012 485) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the quality of an educational psychologist report. Miss X has a right of appeal to a Tribunal and it would be reasonable to expect her to use it. London Borough of Enfield (26 012 596) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a child’s eligibility for home to school travel assistance. The complaint is late, and it was reasonable for Ms X to have complained to us sooner. Kent County Council (26 012 719) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the support the Council has provided for Mr X’s sixth form aged son’s transport to education. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Lancashire County Council (25 011 169) Summary: The Council was at fault as it failed to effectively communicate important information outlined in the Child in Need Plans with Mr X and Mrs Y. The Council’s delayed complaint response was also fault. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mr X and Mrs Y to acknowledge the avoidable uncertainty and frustration caused by its faults. It will also take action to prevent the recurrence of the same faults. Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (25 028 511) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of historic safeguarding and child protection matters. The complaint is late and there is no good reason for us to investigate it now. Cornwall Council (26 011 496) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about care of Miss X’s child. The law prevents us from investigating matters which have been subject to court proceedings. There is also not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement. Buckinghamshire Council (26 012 588) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Councils actions relating to a child. This is because the main issues complained about were considered as part of court proceedings and the law does not allow us to investigate those type of complaints. West Northamptonshire Council (25 011 748) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to provide her daughter with a suitable education when she was unable to attend school. She also complained about delay in the Education, Health and Care Plan process and poor communication. We found the Council to be at fault. This caused significant distress and frustration and meant Mrs X’s daughter missed out on an education she was entitled to. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X. Nottinghamshire County Council (25 012 152) Summary: Mrs C complained the Council failed to provide her daughter (X) with a suitable education or alternative provision when she was unable to attend her school placement. We found fault by the Council for causing a short delay in arranging educational provision in June 2025 and to properly consider increasing its offer in September 2025 when X was engaging with the limited provision available. We found no fault in how the Council handled X’s education prior to June 2025. The Council will apologise and make payment to Mrs C to acknowledge to injustice it faults caused them. London Borough of Enfield (25 013 489) Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not arrange school transport for his daughter, Y. Mr X said this distressed him. There was fault in the way the Council required Mr X to transport Y to and from school without his consent, despite accepting a transport duty for Y. There was also fault in the Council’s appeal process. This frustrated and distressed Mr X. The Council agreed to apologise, make a financial payment and provide training to its staff. Surrey County Council (25 013 915) Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to secure the provision in Section H of her child’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. I find the Council failed to provide specific training as set out in the Plan. This caused significant frustration, uncertainty and distress for Miss X and her child. The Council has already apologised to Miss X and made a symbolic payment to remedy some of the injustice caused. The Council will carry out an annual review of the EHC Plan to remedy the outstanding injustice. Buckinghamshire Council (25 014 587) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council did not deal properly with her son Y’s education, causing him to miss educational provision. The Council delayed making alternative provision and did not meet statutory timescales in issuing Y’s Education Health and Care Plan. Y suffered missed educational provision. The Council should apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mrs X. London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (25 015 758) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not provide suitable school transport for her son, Y. Mrs X says this distressed her and her family and caused Y to miss education and provision in his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council was at fault for not issuing written transport decisions, not properly applying the transport appeals process and failing to deliver education and provision in Y’s EHC Plan. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Mrs X the financial remedy it offered in response to our enquiries. Cambridgeshire County Council (25 016 117) Summary: Mrs X complained about significant delays in issuing a final Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and identifying a suitable placement for her son. Mrs X also complained the Council failed to provide her son with a suitable education when he stopped attending school. We found the Council’s delays in issuing a final EHC Plan and failure to prove alternative provision are fault. These faults have caused Mrs X and her son distress and uncertainty and meant Y had a significant period of missed education. The Council will apologise and make payments to Mrs X. Cambridgeshire County Council (25 023 664) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about parental rights in relation to a Education Health and Care Plan. It is reasonable for Mr X to make a court application for a definitive ruling. London Borough of Hounslow (25 023 668) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his daughter’s application for a disabled person’s freedom pass. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement. Leeds City Council (25 024 518) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the contents of an education, health and care plan and the process followed by the Council because it was reasonable for the complainant to appeal to the First-Tier (Special Educational Needs and Disability) Tribunal. Kent County Council (26 009 545) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the outcome of a school admissions appeal panel. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Medway Council (25 013 444) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the conduct of the Council’s Children’s Social Services. This is because some of her complaint is late with no good reason to investigate now. On the parts that are not late, the law prevents us from investigating matters connected with court proceedings. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (25 023 801) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the support provided by the Council to his child who was sectioned under the Mental Health Act. The Council upheld part of the complaint and an investigation by us is unlikely to achieve more. An investigation into Mr X’s complaint that an officer fell asleep during a supervised visit is unlikely to achieve any meaningful outcome. Leicestershire County Council (25 023 913) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement in matters relating to a Family Assistance Order. This is because some parts of the complaint are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and other parts are better considered by alternative bodies. Also, further investigation is unlikely to achieve a different outcome. Bristol City Council (25 024 594) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with his child. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to seek to reestablish contact with his child through the courts. We also have no jurisdiction to make the Council take disciplinary action against the staff involved. Suffolk County Council (25 026 515) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council accessing Miss X’s social media account. Any injustice is not significant enough to warrant investigation, and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Liverpool City Council (26 005 358) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of historic child protection matters. The complaint is late and there is no good reason for us to investigate it now. Milton Keynes Council (26 009 121) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about children services’ actions. We have upheld Mr 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 Brent (26 009 916) Summary: We cannot investigate X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to make a claim against X for misuse of direct payments. This is because the matter has been subject to court proceedings. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (26 012 251) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint the Council refused to investigate her concerns about how it safeguarded her when she 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 further. Additionally, we will also not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her requests for information. The Information Commissioner is better placed to consider and decide complaints about data protection. Lancashire County Council (26 012 387) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions during child protection matters. This is because the matter is being considered by a court and the law does not allow us to investigate such complaints. Torbay Council (26 012 437) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about information the Council presented during court proceedings. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about what happened in court. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (25 003 617) Summary: The Council was not initially at fault for efforts it made to deliver education to Mrs X’s daughter after she stopped attending school. However, it was at fault for a subsequent delay in arranging tuition. This meant Mrs X’s daughter missed out on at least some education for a two-month period. The Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment to recognise her injustice. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (25 009 282) Summary: We find that the Council failed to explain its safeguarding decisions and failed to signpost Mr B to disagreement resolution services regarding his son’s special educational needs. This caused Mr B avoidable frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mr B. It has also agreed to make service improvements. Wokingham Borough Council (25 014 030) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to provide her child with suitable education or special educational provision when they stopped attending school. This caused significant frustration and distress, and her child missed out on support they were entitled to. We found the Council at fault. The Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to recognise the injustice caused. Torbay Council (25 015 126) Summary: Miss X complained her child’s nursery applied a mandatory charge for consumables linked to her child’s Free Early Education Entitlement (FEEE) hours. She complained the Council should have ensured the nursey’s charges were clear and transparent and that she received free nursery provision. We found the Council took appropriate action in response to Miss X’s concerns about the consumables charge. There is no fault by the Council. Suffolk County Council (25 021 350) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a safeguarding matter because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Bedford Borough Council (25 023 667) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s complaint handling. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. West Sussex County Council (25 024 025) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint his child did not receive appropriate education provision. This complaint is late and it would have been reasonable for Mr X to complain to us sooner. Shropshire Council (26 007 192) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about exclusion from an academy school, and the Council not providing a different school place and delaying Special Educational Needs and tribunal procedures. Part of the complaint is late without good reason and we could not achieve what the complainant wants. We cannot by law investigate the other parts because the complainant has used their right of appeal to a tribunal and we cannot investigate academy school trusts. Kent County Council (26 008 766) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s school’s admissions Appeal Panel refusing her appeal. It is unlikely we would find fault which caused Mrs X to lose out on a school place. North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (26 010 635) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s school admissions appeal panel refusing her appeal. It is unlikely we would find fault which caused Mrs X to lose out on a school place. Worcestershire County Council (26 011 290) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the handling of her school admission appeal. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating. Kent County Council (26 012 129) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a report the Council presented to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability), and the Council’s handling of her complaint about the matter. Mrs X has used her right to appeal to the Tribunal. East Sussex County Council (25 008 809) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of child protection matters. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s handling to warrant investigation. West Northamptonshire Council (25 021 183) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled his complaint and Subject Access Request. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider this complaint and we would not investigate complaint handling as a stand-alone issue. Surrey County Council (26 011 741) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council recorded inaccurate information about them and shared that information in court. This is because the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider the complaint and the law prevents us from investigating what happened in court. North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (26 012 183) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions relating to a child protection matter. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons why it could not be made sooner. London Borough of Newham (26 012 202) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to investigate Mr X’s concerns about how it supported him as a Looked after Child. The complaint relates to matters which occurred over 12 months ago, and it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s decision, not to consider it. Nor will we investigate Mr X’s complaint, because it is late and there are no good reasons why it could not have been made to us sooner. Kent County Council (25 016 939) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in the course of child protection action. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation. Kent County Council (24 019 737) Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed issuing his child Y’s final amended Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan naming a new school and failed to arrange suitable alternative education while Y was out of school. We found fault because the Council delayed completing the EHC Plan review process, failed to consider its section 19 duty once it became aware Y was out of education, and delayed responding to Mr X's complaint. These faults caused Y to miss education and special educational provision, and caused Mr X and his family distress, uncertainty and avoidable frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr X. Royal Borough of Greenwich (25 008 350) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council poorly managed the process for reviewing and amending her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan, delayed securing alternative education when her child stopped attending school, failed to ensure they received the support set out in their Plan and failed to properly carry out a Tribunal decision. We found fault due to delay in the annual review process, securing some of the provision in the Plan and following the Tribunal’s decision. For the period we have investigated, we consider the Council’s actions of an apology and symbolic payment provide a suitable remedy. Oxfordshire County Council (25 012 506) Summary: The Council failed to ensure Miss X’s child Y received consistent stop gap alternative provision between October 2024 and May 2025 during an ongoing tribunal appeal. It also delayed holding an annual review for Y by 18 months. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the injustice this caused. Other matters complained about between February 2023 and October 2024 have either been dealt with already or are outside of our jurisdiction. London Borough of Bromley (25 012 808) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to inform him about its home to school transport policy and his right to apply for travel assistance when his son, Y, moved into the area. We find the Council at fault for a delay in processing Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan paperwork once he moved into the Council’s area. This caused distress, frustration and uncertainty for Y and Mr X. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused. Dorset Council (25 022 687) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to provide an appropriate school for her child and backdated school transport costs. This is because the Council has resolved these issues since Mrs X made her complaint to us and we could achieve nothing more. Mrs X’s complaints about free school meals and holiday vouchers have not been put to the Council, so are premature. Essex County Council (26 001 512) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her £100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more. Surrey County Council (25 013 431) Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council responded to safeguarding concerns she raised about Y’s school. We do not find fault with the way the Council responded to Ms X’s allegations. City of Wolverhampton Council (25 023 076) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Miss X’s concerns about the care of her child. An investigation by us is unlikely to achieve significantly more than the Council has already done or lead to a different outcome. Staffordshire County Council (25 023 803) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council produced biased and inaccurate reports in relation to her child. The law prevents us from investigating matters that were considered, or could have been considered, in Court. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (25 024 666) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with his child. The law prevents us from investigating anything that has or is the subject of court proceedings. It would also be reasonable for Mr X to pursue the other concerns he has with the Information Commissioner’s Office and Social Work England. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (26 005 169) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about care planning for a child and the content of a social work report. This is because the law prevents us from investigating complaints about what happens in court. Nottinghamshire County Council (26 011 977) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an Education, Health, and Care Plan for a child. Part of the complaint is late and there are not sufficient good reasons to consider it. Of the part that is not late, X has an alternative legal remedy, and it would be reasonable to expect them to use that remedy, to achieve what they are looking for. West Berkshire Council (24 023 122) Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to provide alternative education to her child, Y, when they could no longer attend school from October 2024 to July 2025. Miss X said the matter has caused her distress and frustration. She also said Y’s education was significantly impacted. We have found fault in the Councils actions for failing to take action when it was aware Y was not attending school. The Council has agreed to write to Miss X to apologise and pay her and Y a symbolic payment. London Borough of Bromley (25 012 498) Summary: The Council was at fault for not reviewing the suitability of the alternative provision in place for Miss X’s child, Y. The Council was at fault for the delay in carrying out an annual review of Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and for missing the phase transfer deadline. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to remedy the injustice caused to Miss X. West Northamptonshire Council (25 013 009) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because she has used her alternative right of appeal to the Tribunal. Essex County Council (25 016 265) Summary: Mrs Y complains the Council significantly delayed completing her child's EHC (Education, Health and Care) needs assessment and issuing a final plan. She says the delay meant her child did not receive the support identified through the EHC process as early as they should have done. We find fault causing injustice which the Council has agreed to provide a remedy for. Kent County Council (25 019 095) Summary: We found there was a failure to provide Y with an education and the support required by his Education Health and Care Plan. There was also a failure to carry out statutory annual reviews in 2024 and 2025. The Council has apologised for its failings. We recommended a payment to recognise the impact on Y and the wider family. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (25 020 503) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to issue an amended Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for her son (Y), within statutory timescales following an annual review. We find the Council at fault. This caused Mrs X uncertainty over the suitability of the provision in Y’s EHC Plan and the outcome of the review. It has also delayed her right to appeal. The Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment to Mrs X and service improvements to remedy the injustice. Essex County Council (25 021 345) 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. Wakefield Metropolitan District Council (25 028 445) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of an Education, Health and Care Plan. Mrs X had the right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability), and it would have been reasonable for her to do so. London Borough of Redbridge (26 006 920) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. There is not enough evidence of fault by the school admissions appeal panel to warrant investigation. London Borough of Redbridge (26 007 128) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. There is not enough evidence of fault by the school admissions appeal panel to warrant investigation. London Borough of Waltham Forest (26 007 678) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s school’s admissions appeal panel refusing his appeal. It is unlikely we would find fault which caused Mr X to lose out on a school place. Redcar & Cleveland Council (25 012 208) Summary: The Council was at fault for not following the correct processes when it informed Mr and Mrs X of the concerns it had regarding them as foster carers. The Council was also at fault for its poor record keeping and for failing to retain key documents. It did not hold an exit interview when Mr and Mrs X stopped fostering with the Council which was also fault. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mr and Mrs X for the avoidable frustration and uncertainty caused by its faults. West Berkshire Council (25 023 971) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council completing and using an inaccurate Child and Family Assessment because there is not enough evidence of fault. Nottinghamshire County Council (25 025 331) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the content of a Section 7 report submitted as part of family court proceedings. The law prevents us investigating what happens in court. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (25 028 224) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s response to safeguarding concerns she raised about her children more than 12 months ago. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider it now. Cambridgeshire County Council (26 001 170) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement in Mr X’s child’s case. The complaint is about the content of a report written for court and related matters. The law prevents us from investigating what happens in court, and the related matters are not separable from the proceedings themselves. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (26 004 167) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement in Miss X’s child’s case. The complaint is about the content of a report written for court and related matters. The law prevents us from investigating what happens in court, and the related matters are not separable from the proceedings themselves. The Information Commissioner is the body best placed to consider complaints about data protection. London Borough of Bromley (26 004 962) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement in Ms X’s child’s case. The complaint is about the content of a report written for court. The law prevents us from investigating what happens in court. Birmingham City Council (26 010 764) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not paying child-minding invoices. This is because the complainant has an alternative legal remedy, to pursue a claim through the courts. The courts can decide whether the Council is liable and impose a direction for continued compliance, unlike us. It is therefore reasonable to expect the complainant to use their legal remedy.      Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (26 011 801) Summary: We will not investigate X’s complaint about ongoing court proceedings. The law prevents us from investigating the start of court action or what happened during proceedings. 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 Granicus Communications Cloud on behalf of: The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman ·5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT