Summary: the Council failed to explain the reasons for the delay completing a section 17 assessment, failed to carry out that assessment properly, failed to explain why it did not consider Mrs B’s son qualified for a level 5 Activities Unlimited award, delayed dealing with Mrs B’s complaint and failed to keep her up-to-date. The remedy the Council has already offered, alongside some procedural recommendations, is satisfactory.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs B, complained the Council:
• failed to explain the reasons for a delay completing a section 17 assessment following tribunal;
• failed to properly assess her son’s social care needs when carrying out the section 17 assessment;
• failed to explain why it did not give Mrs B’s son a level 5 Activities Unlimited award when she had explained why she considered he qualified for it;
• includes in its Activities Unlimited criteria parts which are not relevant and are likely to result in a child receiving a lower award;
• unreasonably refused to accept her son for the disabled children’s service when he has autism, which amounts to discrimination/autism plus;
• failed to provide her son with access to A-levels with a specialist education provider;
• failed to explain that although it had provided her with a copy of a draft policy it was a policy which was operational;
• failed to provide her with updates on when the outcome of the complaint investigation was expected;
• delayed completing the stage two;
• was unclear about whether she had to wait for stage three or could complain to the Ombudsman;
• delayed completing stage three; and
• failed to publish its statutory complaints policy.
2. Mrs B says she has experienced significant stress and her son could not access enough support or A-levels.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
6. A child or young person with special educational needs may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC Plan). This document sets out the child’s needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them. The EHC Plan is set out in sections. We cannot direct changes to the sections about their needs, education, or the name of the educational placement. Only the tribunal or Council can do this.
7. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mrs B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
9. Mrs B and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

10. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 (section 17) covers the provision of services for children in need, their families and others. It says it is the general duty of every local authority:
• (a)to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need; and
• (b)so far as is consistent with that duty, to promote the upbringing of such children by their families,
11. The local authority does that by providing a range and level of services appropriate to those children’s needs.
12. Section 17 says before deciding what (if any) services to provide for a child a local authority shall:
• (a)ascertain the child’s wishes and feelings regarding the provision of those services; and
• (b)give due consideration to such wishes and feelings of the child as they have been able to ascertain.
13. The Council has a short breaks personal budget called Activities Unlimited. Parents and carers can apply for funding and the information they provide results in a financial award dependent on the level the child qualifies for. The funding is in 6 bands for those who are over 16. Amounts start at £100 per year and go up to £1,200 per year. For each band there is a guide outlining the type of requirements to qualify for the band. One of those relates to the type of education placement the child or young person attends.
14. The Council’s eligibility criteria for the disabled children and young people social work team (the team) says the team will respond to those with complex and critical needs. It then lists what those categories encompass.
15. For complex needs it says this is children and young people:
• who require intensive help and support to meet their needs;
• with autistic spectrum disorder who have severe learning disabilities and behaviour which is very challenging where the local offer is not meeting need and impacting day-to-day functioning of the family;
• where behaviour is associated with other impairment such as global development delay or health condition;
• with challenging behaviour and/or self-harm;
• with complex health conditions which are likely to be life limiting;
• with sensory loss.
16. For those with critical needs it says this includes complex, prolonged and critical needs such as children who may meet continuing healthcare criteria and require jointly commissioned packages of support via the continuing care panel.
17. The Ombudsman’s guidance on statutory complaints which include non-statutory elements is for councils to consider whether to incorporate them into a single investigation. Our expectation is a single investigation would be carried out under the statutory procedure. If councils decide not to carry out a single investigation, they should ensure they still respond to the non-statutory elements.
18. The Council’s statutory children’s complaints policy (the complaints policy) says a stage two investigation is carried out by an investigating officer and independent person. Stage 2 should normally be completed in 25 working days. This may be extended to a maximum of 65 working days. If resolution is not achieved at stage two, the complainant has 20 working days from the completion of stage two to request a review panel.
19. The complaints policy says the Council has 30 working days to arrange and hold the review panel. Following the review panel hearing, the review panel members have five working days to produce its findings and recommendations. The Council then has 15 working days to respond in writing to the findings and recommendations of the review panel.
20. The Government has issued guidance on the operation of the statutory children’s complaints procedure - Getting the Best from Complaints: Social Care Complaints and Representations for Children, Young People and Others ((the guidance). The guidance says:
• on completion of consideration of the complaint at stage two, the investigating officer should write a report on the investigation.
• once the investigating officer has finished the report, a senior manager should act as adjudicating officer and consider the complaints, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations, any report from the independent person and the complainant’s desired outcomes.
• the adjudicating officer will prepare a response to the reports, with a decision on the complaint and actions to be taken, with timescales for implementation.
• the local authority should then write to the complainant with its response containing:
1. a complete copy of the investigation report;
2. any report from the independent person; and
3. the adjudication.
• this response must contain details of the complainant’s right to have the complaint submitted to a review panel if they are dissatisfied.
• as a general rule, the review panel should not reinvestigate the complaints, nor should it be able to consider any substantively new complaints that have not been first considered at stage two.

What happened

Children’s services

21. Mrs B’s son has autistic spectrum disorder.
22. On 23 March 2022 the Council agreed an Activities Unlimited level 2 payment of £500 for Mrs B’s son for 2021/22. Mrs B appealed that decision. The Council later increased the award to level 3 and has now increased it to level 4.
23. The Council completed a section 17 assessment in August 2022. Mrs B was dissatisfied with that assessment and a tribunal considered the case in November 2022. The tribunal recommended the Council classify Mrs B’s son as a child in need and carry out a child in need assessment.
24. Mrs B’s son began A-levels at a mainstream school in September 2022. That school is named in his EHC Plan.
25. A Council social worker visited Mrs B on 9 June 2023 to carry out the section 17 assessment recommended by tribunal. Mrs B’s son did not want to meet face-to-face but the social worker met with Mrs B. Following that meeting the social worker emailed Mrs B’s son to seek his views on his future needs and suggested a mentor. Mrs B’s son responded to say he was happy with his current support but would consider a mentor.
26. The Council completed the section 17 assessment on 3 July which recommended no further role for children’s services.
27. On 28 June 2024 Mrs B contacted the Council to tell it her son no longer wanted to continue with A-levels and was considering apprenticeships.

The complaints process

28. Mrs B put in a complaint on 5 April 2023. The investigating officer and independent person met with Mrs B on 25 May. Mrs B agreed to the terms of reference for the stage two investigation on 6 June. The investigating officer told Mrs B 6 June would mark the start of the investigation. She said she would update Mrs B on progress when nearing the 25 working day target of 11 July.
29. Mrs B chased the investigating officer on 13 July. The investigating officer apologised for not telling Mrs B the investigation would require more than 25 days. The investigating officer said she did not expect to need the full 65 days which was the maximum time period.
30. Mrs B raised further complaints later in July and the Council agreed to incorporate those complaints into the existing stage two investigation. The investigating officer and independent person met with Mrs B again on 4 August and Mrs B agreed the amended terms of reference for the complaint on 29 August.
31. Mrs B asked for an update on what was happening with her complaint on 20 September. The investigating officer told Mrs B as she had added more complaints the 25 working day target expired on 3 October and the 65 working day target expired on 28 November. The investigating officer said she could not say whether she would complete the report within 25 days.
32. The investigating officer produced her report for the stage two complaint in October. The Council wrote to Mrs B on 7 November to apologise for the delay completing the adjudication. The Council wrote to Mrs B on 15 November to respond to the stage two complaint.
33. On 13 December Mrs B asked the Council to take the complaint to stage three. A stage three panel took place on 31 January 2024. The Council wrote to Mrs B to tell her its findings on 5 February. To reflect the areas where the Council had found fault it offered the following remedy:
• apology;
• payment of £750;
• for the practice manager to review the section 17 assessment to correct any factual inaccuracies. Where the issues related to a difference of opinion the Council agreed to put Mrs B’s comments alongside the report to give it balance;
• future coproduction consultation/planning groups for Activities Unlimited services will include participants who are representative of service users and the Council will invite Mrs B to future coproduction events;
• review the information on the Activities Unlimited portal to make sure the information is appropriately accessible to service users;
• to revisit the reason for the delay completing the section 17 assessment;
• act to ensure the operational status of information published on the Council’s website is made available and the information is accessible to children and their families;
• offer Mrs B a point of contact in Activities Unlimited to discuss any queries she has with the application process for short breaks funding;
• for the customer rights team to review the issues around the operation of the complaints procedure, the need to offer timely advocacy services and the requirement to keep people updated.

Analysis

34. Mrs B’s complaint has been through stages two and three of the statutory children’s complaints procedure. The Ombudsman will not normally investigate the substantive issues because Mrs B has already had an independent investigation. In this case though Mrs B raises concerns about the investigator rewording her complaints, the investigation failing to reach a conclusion on some complaints and other complaints where, although the Council had reached a conclusion, it did not address the concerns she raised. Because of that I have investigated the substantive issues rather than just considering the remedy the Council agreed.
35. Mrs B says the Council failed to explain the reasons for a delay completing the section 17 assessment following tribunal in November 2022. The evidence I have seen satisfies me tribunal made its recommendation in November 2022 but there is no evidence the Council began the assessment until June 2023. The Council accepts it delayed completing the assessment and that the stage two investigation failed to identify the reasons for that delay. Failing to complete the tribunal’s recommendation within the five week time period is fault as is the failure to identify the reasons for that delay.
36. I am satisfied though following the stage three investigation the Council agreed to investigate further the reasons for the delay and report those back to Mrs B. If the Council has not yet completed that I recommended it do so as a matter of priority. I also recommended the Council consider putting in place a procedure to ensure tribunal recommendations are followed up on so similar problems do not occur in future. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.
37. Mrs B says the Council failed to properly assess her son’s social care needs when carrying out the section 17 assessment. Mrs B says the assessment did not make clear what her son’s social care needs were or what provision was required to meet them. Mrs B also raised concerns the Council failed to consider the things her son wanted to do such as joining a gym and having more days out visiting museums.
38. The stage two investigator has already upheld this part of the complaint. In particular the stage two investigator noted the report for the assessment failed to offer any clear recommendations or actions around funding for gym membership. The stage two investigator also raised concerns about the quality of the assessment report. As the Council has already upheld this complaint there is no need for me to comment on that further.
39. I agree with the stage two investigator though that there is little point recommending a further assessment. That is partly because Mrs B’s son has now been assessed by adult services as he is 18 and partly because he said during the section 17 assessment he did not want any services. I make no further recommendation for remedy for this part of the complaint given the actions the Council has agreed.
40. Mrs B says the Council failed to explain why it had not given her son a level 5 Activities Unlimited award. Mrs B says she had provided evidence to the Council to show her son qualified for level 5.
41. It is clear this part of the complaint became more complicated because the investigator changed the wording of the complaint. I will come onto the rewording of complaints later in this statement. The way in which the complaint was reworded meant because the Council increased the award from level 2 to level 3 the complaint was not upheld. It is clear throughout though that Mrs B’s concern is that she believes her son qualifies for level 5. I have seen no evidence to suggest the Council properly considered her representations about that or explained why her son did not qualify for level 5, taking into account the points she made. Failure to do that is fault. As remedy for that I recommended the Council write to Mrs B and explain why it considers her son qualifies for a level 4 award but not a level 5 award.
42. Mrs B says the Council’s criteria for each level in the Activities Unlimited award is vague as it says it is a guide rather than criteria. Mrs B says this means it is difficult for parents to identify which category the child falls into. While I understand Mrs B’s concern, I also recognise when carrying out these types of assessments councils will normally provide some guidance about the types of need that might qualify for support under the various categories. That is not fault. Instead, I consider that a helpful guide for parents provided it is clear the information is guidance only rather than setting out criteria. As I am satisfied the information is clearly provided as guidance I have no grounds to criticise the Council.
43. Mrs B says the Council includes in its Activities Unlimited criteria parts which are not relevant and are likely to result in a child receiving a lower score. Mrs B is referring here to the parts of the criteria which concern the type of school a child attends. Mrs B points out because children with special educational needs can choose to attend a mainstream school, irrespective of how severe their special educational needs are, it is not appropriate for the criteria to include the type of school a child attends.
44. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to tell the Council what it should and should not include when carrying out an assessment. That is a matter for the Council to decide. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to comment on the merits of the Council’s decision making unless there is evidence of fault in how those decisions have been reached. In this case I am satisfied the document Mrs B is referring to is a co-produced document which has involved the input of the parent/carer network. In those circumstances I could not say the Council failed to properly consider how to frame the published guidance. I therefore have no grounds to criticise it. I welcome the fact though the Council will invite Mrs B to take part in any future consultations on changes to the guidance.
45. Mrs B says the Council does not offer, as part of Activities Unlimited, a bespoke package of support to include 1:1 support or mentoring. The Council accepts that is the case. The Council says though it is possible to purchase additional support from some of its providers and the disabled children’s and young people’s social work team can carry out an assessment where a more bespoke package is required.
46. In line with what I said earlier, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to tell the Council what types of services it should provide. That is a matter for the Council to decide. While the Activities Unlimited provision does not include a bespoke package of support I am satisfied this does not mean the Council cannot put such support in place where it identifies a need following an assessment. I am satisfied the Council has in place the appropriate assessment processes to ensure a child’s needs are assessed and appropriate services identified. I would expect those processes to identify where there is a need for a bespoke service, irrespective of the team that carries out the assessment. I therefore have no grounds to criticise the Council.
47. Mrs B says the Council unreasonably refused to accept her son for the disabled children’s and young people’s team when he has autism. Mrs B says the way access to that team is set up amounts to autism plus, which she believes is discriminatory.
48. In my experience it is not unusual for councils to have eligibility criteria for its disabled children’s and young people’s team. That means not all children with a disability will qualify for an assessment from that team. The fact this is the case for other councils means it is not an approach I could criticise. I am satisfied though the Council’s criteria for the team is clear. I am also satisfied those children who do not qualify for an assessment from that team can still access an assessment and services which, in many cases, are the same. So, the fact an assessment is carried out by a social worker rather than a disabled children and young people’s social worker does not, in my view, constitute discrimination. There were issues with the assessment carried out for Mrs B’s son, which I refer to earlier. However, I could not speculate about whether that would have been the case if a social worker from the disabled children and young people’s social work team undertook the assessment.
49. Mrs B says the Council failed to provide her son with access to A-levels with a specialist education provider. The evidence I have seen suggests Mrs B’s son began attending a mainstream provision in September 2022 to study his A-levels. As far as I can see there were no issues reported to the Council about that provision until Mrs B told the Council her son did not want to continue with A levels in June 2024. The evidence I have seen also satisfies me the mainstream provision Mrs B’s son was attending was the provision named in his EHC Plan. As that was the case Mrs B would have needed to appeal to tribunal had she believed the provision was not suitable for her son. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to comment on what type of school was suitable for Mrs B’s son given she had a right of appeal.
50. I recognise though part of Mrs B’s concern is there is no provision in a specialist school for a child with special educational needs to pursue A-levels in the Council’s area. There has clearly been some confusing information given about the availability of A level provision in specialist schools. I say that because I note the stage two investigator referred to what she described as various options for A-levels in specialist schools while Mrs B says none of those options are available in specialist schools and are only available as specialist provision within a mainstream setting.
51. As part of the stage two investigation the Council confirmed there was ongoing work to review further education provision. That will include a gap analysis to look at the current provision in mainstream and specialist settings in the Council’s area, which I welcome. I would hope this will address the lack of provision in specialist schools long term.
52. I appreciate though this will not provide any benefit to Mrs B’s son. As I said earlier though, Mrs B’s son was attending the school named in his EHC Plan and the way to challenge that was through an appeal. The documentary evidence also shows there was some discussion with Mrs B about alternative options and I therefore could not say the Council failed to suggest alternatives, albeit those alternatives may not have been what Mrs B was seeking for her son. In those circumstances I see no reason to pursue the matter further, particularly as Mrs B’s son has decided to pursue a different route for his post-16 education.
53. Mrs B says the Council failed to explain although it had provided her with a copy of the draft policy for the disabled children’s and young people’s team that policy was operational.
54. I recognise Mrs B only received a copy of the draft policy after approaching the Information Commissioner. That is because the Council was reviewing the policy it previously used following a legal challenge. I understand as part of that the Council had drawn up a draft policy, which it was using, but had not formally adopted. In those circumstances I would have expected the Council to explain to Mrs B that although the policy was in draft it was a policy the Council was using. I have seen no evidence the Council told Mrs B that. That is fault. I consider an apology satisfactory remedy.
55. Mrs B says the Council failed to provide her with updates about when the outcome of the complaint investigation was due. I am satisfied once Mrs B had agreed the terms of reference for the complaint the investigating officer gave her an idea of timescales. I can see though Mrs B had to chase the investigating officer at the end of the first 25 day period and again in September 2023 when the revised 25 day period was due to expire. The investigating officer apologised for those delays. I consider that satisfactory remedy.
56. Mrs B says the Council delayed completing the stage two complaint process. I can see there was a considerable delay reaching a conclusion on the stage two complaint given Mrs B put in the complaint in April 2023 and the Council did not issue its stage two adjudication until November 2023. I am satisfied though part of the reason for that delay was because Mrs B raised further complaints and agreed for those to be included in the stage two complaint. That inevitably meant the process was delayed. That is not fault.
57. Mrs B says the independent investigator changed the wording of some of her complaints before completing the investigation. Mrs B says that meant some of her complaints were not properly investigated.
58. Having considered the documentary evidence I am satisfied the wording of the complaints was agreed with Mrs B before the investigating officer began the investigation. I recognise though in agreeing to change the wording of some of those complaints Mrs B did not understand the implications that would have for what the investigation would cover. That is particularly important for the issue of the Activities Unlimited award. I can see the change wording of the complaint in that case meant the original complaint Mrs B put in was not investigated or responded to. That is fault. As remedy for that I recommended the Council remind those investigating complaints at stage two of the need to ensure the complainant is happy with any complaints which have been reworded and that they understand how that will affect the investigation. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.
59. Mrs B says the Council treated all elements of her complaint as a statutory children’s services complaint when some of the issues raised should have been dealt with under the Council’s corporate complaints procedure. The Council accepts that but says it deliberately included all the complaints in the children’s services complaint to provide a more robust procedure and to prevent Mrs B having to manage multiple areas of complaint. That approach is also in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance. I therefore do not consider that fault.
60. Mrs B says the Council failed to address her concerns about why the short breaks award it provides is significantly lower than other counties. I can see from the stage two and three complaint investigations the Council felt it could not reach a safe conclusion on that matter. I understand Mrs B’s frustration with that. However, I agree with the Council that addressing this part of the complaint within the complaints procedure would have been almost impossible for the stage two investigator. That is because to make a proper comparison between various different schemes the investigator would have had to know how those schemes had been drawn up and the criteria for each in order to determine whether they were like for like schemes. That is not information available to the Council without significant investigation and nor is it information available to me. The Council should, however, have explained to Mrs B the difficulty in investigating this part of her complaint at the outset and I have seen no evidence it did so. That is fault. I recommended the Council apologise to Mrs B for that. I also recommended the Council ensure in future it is clear with complainants where parts of the complaint are matters the Council is not going to be able to reach a firm conclusion on. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.
61. Mrs B says as stage three could not reach a finding on many areas of the complaint this suggests the stage two investigation was inadequate. Mrs B says because there were so many where no finding was reached the Council should have carried out further investigation.
62. The evidence I have seen satisfies me there were five complaints out of the 13 Mrs B submitted where stage three did not feel it could reach a finding. One of those was also a complaint where stage two had not reached a finding and I refer to that complaint, which concerns the comparison with other local authorities, earlier in this statement. As I made clear, I am satisfied the issue is whether the Council should have accepted it as a complaint the Council could consider, rather than an issue of failure to properly investigate.
63. Two of the remaining four areas relate to the availability of post-16 education in a specialist environment. As I said earlier, for both of those complaints stage three considered there was conflicting information about the availability of a specialist placement which is why the findings were changed to no finding. I understand why that would be frustrating for Mrs B. However, it is not the role of stage three to carry out any further investigation. I therefore cannot criticise it for deciding to change the findings to no finding.
64. I also recognise part of Mrs B’s concern is she was not given an opportunity to comment on the stage two report and therefore could not correct the inaccuracies. I appreciate if Mrs B had seen a copy of the report in draft she could have pointed out the concerns about the post 16 providers referred to in the report. That might have led to a reconsideration of that point before it got to stage three.
65. I set out the process for stage three in paragraph 20. There is no requirement in that process for the Council to provide the stage two report in draft for Mrs B’s comments. I therefore cannot criticise the Council for not doing that. In those circumstances I am satisfied the only option stage three had was to record no finding for those elements of the complaint.
66. For the remaining two complaints, I am satisfied stage three reached no finding for one of those complaints as it was uncertain about the use of the term criteria. I do not consider that relates to the adequacy of the stage two investigation and I do not criticise the Council for its finding.
67. I am satisfied the other complaint the stage three panel reached no finding on concerns Mrs B’s complaint about the Council using an autism plus policy. I am satisfied the panel reached no finding because it did not have sufficient information about the reasons for the disabled children and young people’s policy being removed from the website. While I understand Mrs B’s frustration about that, the complaint point investigated at stage two was not about the reasons why the policy had been removed. I therefore do not consider this relates to the adequacy of the stage two investigation.
68. Mrs B says the Council was unclear about whether she had to wait for the stage three investigation or could complain to the Ombudsman. I have seen no documentary evidence relating to any discussion about that point. In those circumstances I could not criticise the Council.
69. Mrs B says the Council delayed completing the stage three complaint process. The Council’s complaints procedure says it should arrange and hold a stage three review panel within 30 working days of the request. I am satisfied Mrs B requested stage three investigation on 13 December 2023. As the Council did not hold the panel until 31 January 2024 that is outside the 30 working days and is therefore fault. I consider an apology satisfactory remedy for that.
70. Mrs B says the Council failed to publish its statutory complaints policy. I am satisfied though the Council statutory children’s complaints policy is available on its website. I therefore have no grounds to criticise it
71. So, I have set out in this statement the various areas on which I have found fault by the Council. I am satisfied those faults have led to Mrs B having to go to time and trouble to pursue her complaint and have caused her frustration. I now have to consider an appropriate remedy to reflect the impact this has had on Mrs B and her son. I note the Council has offered Mrs B an apology and a payment of £750. I consider that satisfactory, alongside the other measures the Council has agreed and to include the additional areas I have recommended in this statement.

Back to top

Recommended action

72. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Mrs B for the distress and frustration she experienced due to the faults identified in this decision. The Council may want to refer to the Ombudsman’s updated guidance on remedies, which sets out the standards we expect apologies to meet;
• if it has not already done so, investigate further the reasons for the delay completing the section 17 assessment and report those back to Mrs B;
• consider putting in place a procedure to ensure tribunal recommendations are followed up on so similar problems do not occur in future;
• consider the points Mrs B has raised about her son qualifying for a level 5 Activities Unlimited award and, if it remains of the view he only qualifies for a level 4 award, the Council should write to Mrs B to explain why;
• remind those investigating complaints at stage two of:
1. the need to ensure the person complaining is happy with any complaints which have been reworded and understand how that will affect the investigation;
2. the need to ensure investigating officers are clear with complainants where parts of the complaint are matters the Council cannot reach a firm conclusion on.

Back to top

Final decision

73. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council in part of the complaint which caused Mrs B an injustice. I am satisfied the action the Council will take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman