| 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. Hertfordshire County Council (23 005 426)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Councilâs handling of her child, Yâs education since March 2023. I cannot investigate matters between March and November 2023 because they are outside of our jurisdiction as Mrs X had appealed to the SEND tribunal. Mrs X should first complain to the Council about matters after November 2023. Warwickshire County Council (23 007 138)
Summary: Mrs X complains about the Councilâs handling of her childâs (Child Y) special educational needs (SEN). There was fault in the Councilâs handling of Child Yâs Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan annual review, SEN provision, respite and Mrs Xâs complaints. The Council has agreed to apologise and make payments to Child Y and Mrs X for the injustice caused. Gloucestershire County Council (23 016 581)
Summary: The Council is at fault for not securing a full-time education or delivering special education need provision to Mr Xâs son when they moved to the area. The Council has acknowledged this fault and has agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy to Mr X in line with the Ombudsmanâs Guidance on Remedies. The Council also identified service improvements it has made in relation to education provision. Cornwall Council (23 019 223)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to follow the statutory time limits for dealing with her son Yâs Education, Health and Care needs assessment and issuing his Education, Health and Care Plan. We find fault with the Council for delay and have agreed a symbolic payment for lost provision for Y, and the distress and frustration caused to Mrs X. Devon County Council (23 020 183)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to secure animal provision for her daughter, Y in line with her Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council failed to secure and provide Yâs animal provision since December 2023 and this injustice continues to date. The Council agreed to reimburse Mrs X for costs she has incurred to ensure Y received that provision. It will continue to do so until it makes suitable alterative arrangements. Suffolk County Council (23 021 200)
Summary: Mrs X complains about the way the Council handled her complaint regarding her child, Yâs, education, health and care plan and its failure to provide some of the provision outlined in the Plan. The Council acknowledges it was at fault and offered to adequately remedy the injustice to Y. However, the Council has not provided Mrs X with a response to her request for information. The Council has now agreed to provide a response to her request and apologise for the delay. Lancashire County Council (24 001 405)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to complete an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment within the statutory time frame which caused him unnecessary and avoidable frustration and uncertainty. We find the Council at fault which caused injustice. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mr X. London Borough of Bromley (24 006 406)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council consulted with a college in 2023 because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Surrey County Council (24 008 321)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care needs assessment process. This is because the Council offered a remedy in line with the Ombudsmanâs Guidance, and further investigation is unlikely to achieve any additional outcome. We will not investigate some of Mr Xâs complaint because he can submit an appeal to a tribunal. Buckinghamshire Council (24 008 466)
Summary: We upheld Mrs Xâs complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care process regarding her child, Y. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. East Sussex County Council (24 008 610)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the school named in her daughterâs Education Health and Care Plan. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to a Tribunal to challenge the content of the Plan. Broughton Hall High School, Liverpool (24 009 025)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel for us to be able to question its decision. Derbyshire County Council (23 015 363)
Summary: an investigation found fault in the Councilâs May 2022 assessment of Mr Fâs son Bâs needs. The Council offered a symbolic payment of £500 and agreed to backdate an increase in support from September 2022. We consider this an appropriate remedy. Derbyshire County Council (23 016 248)
Summary: Mr F complained about the Councilâs handling of a payment for expenses he incurred. The Council made the payment into an account used for direct payments. Mr F had difficulty withdrawing the money, and when he did the audit team questioned his spending. There was fault by the Council in its handling of a payment to Mr F, but the Council has offered a suitable remedy. Cornwall Council (24 009 660)
Summary: Miss X complained that the Council failed to progress her children servicesâ complaint to stage two of the statutory Children Act 1989 complaintsâ procedure. We have found fault causing injustice. The Council has now agreed to start the stage two investigation. Therefore, we have completed our investigation and are closing the complaint. Salford City Council (23 013 570)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide the special educational provision set out in her childâs education, health and care plans, and handled her complaint poorly. Mrs X said there was an impact on her child of the missed education, and it caused unnecessary and avoidable distress and frustration. We find the Council at fault, and this caused injustice. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs X to remedy the injustice caused. Wakefield City Council (23 014 342)
Summary: the Council failed to ensure that a significant element of the special educational provision in Mr Sâs May 2022 Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan was delivered. The staff at Mr Sâs supported living did not receive training from his teacher to embed his learning throughout his waking day. The Council failed to hold an annual review in May 2023, and may have ended Mr Sâs EHC Plan 12 months earlier than necessary. Central Bedfordshire Council (23 019 428)
Summary: Mr X said the Council failed to secure the special educational provision in Wâs Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council was not at fault in how it arranged Wâs education but was at fault for delaying in carrying out an annual review of Wâs Plan. This caused Mr X avoidable frustration and uncertainty for which the Council will apologise and pay him £300. Suffolk County Council (24 001 732)
Summary: Miss B complained that the Council delayed in completing an Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment for her son, C and issuing an EHC Plan. We have found fault in the Councilâs actions. It has agreed to apologise to Miss B and pay her £500. Somerset Council (24 002 133)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not issue her childâs education, health and care plan by the statutory deadline, and it failed to provide appropriate educational provision for her child. Mrs X said this meant her child lost their place at specialist educational provision, and it caused unnecessary and avoidable distress. We find the Council at fault for the delay issuing the plan and this caused injustice. The Council will make a payment to remedy the injustice. We cannot investigate the second part of the complaint because it is premature. Leeds City Council (24 003 054)
Summary: Mrs B complains about the Councilâs delays in carrying out an Education, Health and Care needs assessment for her daughter and issuing the final Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan). There was fault by the Council. It did not meet statutory timescales during the EHC Plan process. Because of this, Mrs B suffered distress and she spent time and trouble chasing the Council for updates. The Councilâs failure to meet statutory timescales also delayed her appeal right to the Tribunal. The Council will make a symbolic payment to Mrs B, apologise to Mrs B and her daughter and issue a staff briefing. West Sussex County Council (24 004 236)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the special educational needs provision for the complainantâs son who has an Education, Health and Care Plan. Some of the complaint is late and there are insufficient grounds to consider it now. If Mrs X wants to challenge the content of her sonâs Education, Health and Care Plan, it is a matter for a tribunal. The Council has accepted its communication and complaint handling has been poor. This is not enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman. Devon County Council (24 007 291)
Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed carrying out an Education Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by offering to make a suitable payment to the complainant to remedy the injustice this cause. We cannot investigate the Councilâs previous decisions not to assess or issue a EHC Plan, because the complainant used their right of appeal to a tribunal. East Sussex County Council (24 007 498)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care (EHC) process because there is insufficient evidence of fault. We cannot investigate Mrs Xâs complaint that the Councilâs failed to deliver the content of Yâs EHC Plan because Mrs X has appealed to a Tribunal, and the matters appealed are not separable from the complaint. We will not investigate the Councilâs failure to provide full-time alternative education to her child, Y, because any injustice caused is not significant enough to warrant an investigation. Somerset Council (24 007 796)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the Council not making educational provision for her child for two years. Miss X used her right of appeal to a tribunal against the Education Health and care Plan the Council issued in September 2023 and we cannot investigate the educational provision made after that date. Matters in the school year 2022-23 are late and Miss X could have approached us sooner about them, even if she did not receive the Councilâs reply to her complaint. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (24 008 476)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care needs assessment of her child, Y. The complaint is late, and there are no good reasons for the Ombudsman to investigate now. Central Bedfordshire Council (24 008 658)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint regarding home to school transport. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council for us to be able to question its decision. Wiltshire Council (24 008 935)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X complaint about the content of her childâs Education, Health, and Care Plan. This is because Mrs X had a right of appeal about the Councilâs decision here and it would have been reasonable for her to appeal to the SEND Tribunal. Hertfordshire County Council (24 009 113)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision not to issue refunds for two transport SaverCards the complainant no longer needs. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or significant personal injustice to the complainant. All Saints Catholic High School (24 011 945)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. Derbyshire County Council (23 013 403)
Summary: Ms X complains about the handling of child protection issues relating to her children. The Council took longer than it should to complete stages two and three of the statutory complaint process in Ms Xâs case. There is no evidence of fault in its overall handling of child protection matters relating to Ms Xâs children. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X for the injustice caused by the complaint handling delay. Liverpool City Council (23 019 465)
Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Local Authority Designated Officer considered an allegation against him. We will not investigate this complaint because there are ongoing investigations into Mr Xâs conduct. Luton Borough Council (24 003 870)
Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mrs Xâs complaint about the Councilâs post adoption support for her daughters. This is because, since we received the complaint, the Council has provided Mrs X with a right to review at stage three if she is still dissatisfied. Therefore, we will not investigate further. Torbay Council (24 008 527)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a decision to substantiate a safeguarding concern involving Mr X. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation because the decision was within the range open to the Council given the evidence before it. London Borough of Barnet (24 010 397)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs involvement in Mr Xâs childâs case. The matter is subject to ongoing court proceedings. Reading Borough Council (23 009 873)
Summary: Ms C complained about the Councilâs handling of her daughterâs (X) Education, Health, and Care needs assessment and the provision she received when she was unable to attend her school placement. The Council apologised to Ms C for its failure to provide X with alternative provision for a five-month period and made payment to remedy the injustice it caused. We found the Councilâs remedy was appropriate, and there was either no fault on other matters complained about, or we could not consider these as Ms C exercised her appeal rights to a tribunal about the same or linked matters. Manchester City Council (23 021 484)
Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council decided it should not arrange alternative educational provision for a child who was not attending school. We have therefore completed our investigation. Hampshire County Council (24 000 271)
Summary: Mrs X's appeal to the tribunal about her child Y's Education Health and Care Plan means we cannot investigate related matters from June 2023 onwards. The Council made its decision that Y could go to the special school named in Y's EHC plan without fault. It did not, therefore, have a duty to provide alternative education for Y. The Council did not have a duty to provide transport for Y to specialist provision arranged by Y's school at a different location. Devon County Council (24 000 810)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed completing her son, Yâs Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment in line with statutory timescales. The Council was at fault. It delayed deciding whether to issue Y with an EHC Plan within the statutory timescales, caused by a 15 week delay in obtaining Educational Psychologist (EP) advice. It then further delayed issuing Yâs final EHC Plan by 18 weeks after it received the EP advice and failed to respond to Miss Xâs request for mediation. This caused Miss X distress, uncertainty and delayed her right of appeal to the SEND tribunal. It agreed to make payments to acknowledge this injustice. Lancashire County Council (24 003 310)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed completing her child Yâs Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment in line with statutory timescales. The Council was at fault because it failed to decide whether to issue Y with an EHC Plan within the statutory timescales, caused by a delay in obtaining Educational Psychologist advice. This caused a further delay in issuing Yâs final EHC Plan. The Council should make a payment to Miss X to acknowledge the distress, frustration and uncertainty this caused her. West Northamptonshire Council (24 007 348)
Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed carrying gout an Education Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by offering to make a suitable payment to the complainant to remedy the injustice this cause. We will not investigate the Councilâs decision not to issue an EHC Plan because it is reasonable for the complainant to use their right of appeal to a tribunal. Surrey County Council (24 007 450)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs failure to provide an alternative education for his son, Y, when he stopped attending school. The Council has made a payment for missed education and its is unlikely we could add to the Councilâs investigation. We cannot investigate the Councilâs initial decision not to carry out an assessment because Mr X appealed. We will not investigate complaints about the content of the Education Health and Care plan the Council later issued because it was reasonable for Mr X to use his right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal. Worcestershire County Council (24 008 003)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision not to backdate a payment for home to school transport. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or significant personal injustice. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (24 008 587)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council allegedly breaching a contract by unlawfully taking and using confidential information and employing a former employee of Mr Xâs organisation. The matters complained of are ones where it would be reasonable for Mr X to use his right to go to court. West Northamptonshire Council (24 008 976)
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. Moor Park High School and Sixth Form (24 011 340)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. St Edmund's Catholic School, Portsmouth (24 011 556)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. Essex County Council (24 011 829)
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. Surrey County Council (23 003 137)
Summary: The Council was at fault for not putting in place all the provision listed in a childâs Education, Health and Care Plan following a decision from the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. This caused injustice as the child missed out on provision they should have received. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise, make financial payments and put in place the remaining provision. London Borough of Newham (23 020 004)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused to her and her son, Y, after it upheld her complaint that it had not properly assessed Yâs needs and had delayed responding to her complaint. The remedy the Council proposed for the upheld complaint was appropriate. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (23 020 284)
Summary: Mr D says the Council failed to investigate and act on concerns he raised about the actions of his ex-partner and, in so doing, showed bias and failed to consider his complaint properly. I have found no evidence of fault. London Borough of Lambeth (24 005 401)
Summary: We have discontinued our investigation because the Council is still considering Ms Xâs complaint. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (24 008 485)
Summary: We cannot not investigate this complaint about the actions of social workers. This is because the actions and opinions of social workers, and what they wrote, are closely related to the conduct of court proceedings about access to Mr Xâs child. They either were or could reasonably have been raised in court. Legal costs are also a matter for a court to determine. Coventry City Council (24 008 843)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker because the complaint concerns information the social worker has submitted to court. The matters are therefore not separable from the matters that have formed part of court proceedings. Social Work England are better placed to consider complaints about the conduct of social workers and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking. Swindon Borough Council (24 011 017)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the Councilâs delay in responding to her subject access request. This is because this is a complaint about a data matter which is best considered by the Information Commissionerâs Office. Maidstone Grammar School For Girls (24 011 789)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful school admission appeal. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault for us to question the panelâs decision. Wakefield City Council (24 008 045)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has unreasonably declined to provide the complainant with details of how his reports of child protection concerns have been considered. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Councilâs part. Birmingham City Council (24 008 660)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in the course of child protection action relating to the complainantâs children. This is because investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome. London Borough of Croydon (23 018 667)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide her child with alternative education when he was unable to attend school. The Council is at fault and this resulted in a loss of provision for 11 weeks. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice this caused. Somerset Council (24 005 403)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Councilâs role in issuing fixed penalty notices concerning her childâs absences from school in term-time. The authority to issue the notices belongs to the headteacher of the childâs school, and the Councilâs role is only ancillary to that. We cannot investigate the actions of the school. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (24 007 777)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint because she has appealed to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. And the Information Commissionerâs Office is better placed to consider her data complaint. Durham County Council (24 008 170)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs involvement in Mrs and Mr Xâs grandchildrenâs case. The complaint is not separable from matters that have been considered in court. Oxfordshire County Council (24 008 478)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of social workers concerning the contact and residence arrangements of Mr Xâs child. These matters could have been raised during court action Mr X referred to. Even if there had been no court action it would be reasonable for him to go to court. This is because only a court can decide where children should live and who they should see in the case of a dispute. Lancashire County Council (24 009 380)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs involvement in child protection proceedings. Parts of the complaint are about the Councilâs representations to the court, which we have no power to investigate. All other parts of the complaint are too intertwined with the court process, and are matters that were reasonable for Miss X to raise during the proceedings. Bedford Borough Council (24 009 960)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Councilâs decision not to consider her complaint whilst there are ongoing court proceedings. Surrey County Council (24 010 299)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs involvement in Mr Xâs childrenâs case. It is not separable from matters that are being considered in court. London Borough of Hounslow (22 016 980)
Summary: The complainant (Ms X) said the Council had failed to provide her son Y with suitable education since 2018. We found fault with the Councilâs failure to consider Ms Xâs complaint under the childrenâs statutory complaint procedure and in the way the Council dealt with Ms Xâs corporate complaint. The Councilâs fault caused Ms X injustice. We could only investigate whether the Council provided suitable education to Y between January and mid-March 2023. We did not find fault in the Councilâs actions at this time. The Council has agreed to apologise, carry out the childrenâs statutory complaint procedure for Ms Xâs complaint and offer her suitable remedies for the complaint upheld at stage two of the corporate complaint process. The Council has also agreed to make a symbolic payment. City of Wolverhampton Council (23 016 916)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to secure the special educational provisions outlined in her child, Yâs Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and delayed paying an agreed personal budget. The Council was at fault. The Council will apologise and pay Miss X £200 to acknowledge the impact of the missed provision. The Council was at fault for the delay in paying Miss X the agreed personal budget but it has already apologised and paid the outstanding payments which remedied the injustice caused. It has also put in place service improvements. Hertfordshire County Council (23 017 474)
Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council provided a suitable education for daughter, Y, and how it met Miss Xâs needs as a carer. There was fault in how the Council delayed reviewing Yâs Education Health and Care plan, failed to keep her education under review when she was not attending school, failed to assess Miss Xâs needs as a carer and how it communicated with her. This caused Y to miss out on some education and caused both Miss X and Y significant, avoidable distress. The Council agreed to apologise, pay them a financial remedy and make arrangements to review their social care needs. It also agreed to review how it identifies and monitors remedial action when responding to complaints. Cheshire East Council (23 019 854)
Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council provided and reviewed her son, Yâs, special education. There was fault in how the Council failed to ensure Y received all the education set out in his Education Health and Care plan, and delayed completing both a review of Yâs plan and deciding on Miss Xâs request for direct payments. This caused Y to miss out on education and caused both Miss X and Y avoidable distress. The Council agree to make its decisions about the Yâs plan and direct payments, review Yâs current tuition, apologise to Miss X and Y, and pay them a financial remedy. It also agreed to issue reminders to its staff. West Sussex County Council (24 003 020)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Councilâs delays with issuing her childâs Education, Health and Care Plan for post-16 transition. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Y and Mrs X. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused. Essex County Council (24 008 067)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about Education Health and Care Plan delays. We have upheld Mrs Xâs complaint as the Council has now agreed to provide a reasonable remedy. All Saints Catholic High School (24 008 446)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about an unsuccessful school admission appeal. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault for us to be able to question the panelâs decision. London Borough of Newham (24 010 463)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Councilâs failure to secure a school placement for her child. This is because Mrs X appealed the matter to a tribunal. Norfolk County Council (24 010 595)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs delay in issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to consider it now. London Borough of Sutton (24 011 096)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs Education, Health and Care needs assessment process. Any injustice suffered is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Staffordshire County Council (24 011 413)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (24 011 478)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the appeal to justify an investigation. Lancashire County Council (23 019 542)
Summary: The complainant (Mr X) said the Council failed to amend the social care assessments carried out for his two children (M and N). We found fault with the Council for not considering Mr Xâs complaint through its childrenâs statutory complaint procedure. This fault did not cause Mr X injustice as the Council upheld his complaint during the corporate complaint process. The Council has already offered to carry out a reassessment of Mâs and Nâs needs but it has now agreed to complete some extra remedies. Buckinghamshire Council (24 000 956)
Summary: Mr B complains about the Councilâs refusal to consider his complaint as it found it had already been considered in a completed childrenâs statutory complaint process. We found the Council at fault. This is because Mr Bâs new complaint relates to matters which were different, a different period of time, and if upheld, may justify further remedies. Derbyshire County Council (24 008 347)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs response to a safeguarding referral in respect of the complainantâs child. The complaint has already been substantially upheld and our intervention would achieve nothing further. Sheffield City Council (24 008 407)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to act impartially following a safeguarding referral relating to the complainantâs children. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Councilâs part. Kent County Council (24 009 048)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs involvement in a child protection case. The law prevents us from investigating matters that have been considered in court. London Borough of Croydon (24 009 051)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs historic complaint about the Councilâs actions when she was a child. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now. Surrey County Council (24 006 123)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Councilâs refusal to issue an Education Health and Care Plan for Y as Mr X has appealed that decision. We will not investigate the Councilâs decision that it did not have a duty to provide alternative education because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement. |
