Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council managed her child’s move into post-16 education. Mrs X said this caused her distress and her child missed out on some of their special educational provision. We have found the Council at fault for not providing all the special educational needs provision after Mrs X’s child started post-16 education and for the way it dealt with other aspects of her complaint. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X, make payments for the distress caused and loss of provision to Mrs X’s child, and carry out some service improvements.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council:
1. Failed to process her request for a five-day education package (to start in September 2023) for her child in a timely manner. She also complains the Council showed poor case management and communicated with her poorly.
2. Did not carry out a post-16 phased transfer review of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan.
3. Did not provide a draft Education, Health and Care Plan before sending a final Plan on 31 March 2023.
4. Failed to carry out an Annual Review of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan in summer 2023.
5. Did not ensure funding was in place for her child’s full-time support at College and did not put in place all the Section F provision in her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan after they started College.
6. Did not arrange mediation within 30 days of Mrs X’s request.
7. Failed to provide her child’s Emotional Regulation Plan (ERP) following the SEND Tribunal 2023 order. Mrs X said it took over five months for the Council to provide this after the SEND Tribunal Order.
8. Did not handle her complaints in line with its complaints procedure.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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)
4. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have investigated whether the Council provided the special educational provision in her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan after they attended post-16 education, until March 2024. The Council issued a new Education, Health and Care Plan for her child in March 2024. Therefore any issues after this, including whether the Council has put in place the appropriate provision should be raised as a new complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. As part of this investigation I considered the information provided by Mrs X and the Council. I discussed the complaint over the telephone with Mrs X. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information received in response. I sent a draft of this decision to Ms X and the Council and considered the responses received.
8. 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

What I found

Law and guidance

EHC Plan

9. 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 the council can do this.
10. The EHC Plan is set out in sections which include: 

• Section F: The special educational provision needed by the child or the young person. 
• Section I: The name and/or type of educational placement 

11. The council has a duty to make sure the child or young person receives the special educational provision set out in section F of an EHC Plan (Section 42 Children and Families Act). The Courts have said the duty to arrange this provision is owed personally to the child and is non-delegable. This means if the council asks another organisation to make the provision and that organisation fails to do so, the council remains liable (R v London Borough of Harrow ex parte M [1997] ELR 62), (R v North Tyneside Borough Council [2010] EWCA Civ 135)  
12. We accept it is not practical for councils to keep a ‘watching brief’ on whether schools and others are providing all the special educational provision in section F for every pupil with an EHC Plan. We consider councils should be able to demonstrate appropriate oversight in gathering information to fulfil their legal duty. At a minimum we expect them to have systems in place to: 

• check the special educational provision is in place when a new or amended EHC Plan is issued or there is a change in educational placement; 
• check the provision at least annually during the EHC review process; and 
• quickly investigate and act on complaints or concerns raised that the provision is not in place at any time. 

Reviewing EHC Plans

13. The council must arrange for the EHC Plan to be reviewed at least once a year to make sure it is up to date. The council must complete the review within 12 months of the first EHC Plan and within 12 months of any later reviews. The annual review begins with consulting the child’s parents or the young person and the educational placement. A review meeting must take place. The process is only complete when the council issues a decision about the review.
14. Within four weeks of a review meeting, the council must notify the child’s parent of its decision to maintain, amend or discontinue the EHC Plan. Once the decision is issued, the review is complete. (Section 20(10) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.176) 

Post-16 – review, provision and naming placement deadline  

15. For young people moving from secondary school to a post-16 institution or apprenticeship, the council must review and amend the EHC Plan – including specifying the post-16 provision and naming the institution – by 31 March in the calendar year of the transfer.  

Mediation

16. Councils must arrange for a child’s parents or the young person to receive information about mediation as an informal way to resolve disputes about decisions that can be appealed to the tribunal. Parents need to consider mediation and get a ‘mediation certificate’ before they can appeal to the tribunal. They do not have to agree to attend mediation. Councils must arrange for mediation between it and the child's parent or young person, within 30 days from the date which it was told by the child's parent or young person that they wished to pursue mediation. (Section 36(2) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014)

Background to the complaint

17. There has been extensive communication between Mrs X and the Council. In this section and the further sections entitled ‘what happened’ I have just summarised a brief chronology of the key points. These sections do not contain all the information I considered during my investigation.
18. Mrs X’s child, Y, has special educational needs. Y has had an EHC Plan for several years. In December 2021, the Council issued a new EHC Plan for Y. Mrs X initially asked the Council to assess Y’s needs in March 2022 and then appealed the content of this EHC Plan to the SEND Tribunal in June 2022. While the SEND Tribunal was waiting to consider Mrs X’s appeal, the Council reassessed Y’s needs. The Council completed the reassessment and issued a final EHC Plan in late August 2022.
19. The SEND Tribunal considered Mrs X’s appeal in January 2023. Following this the Council issued a new EHC Plan in March 2023 and then April 2023, where it named Y’s school placement for September 2023.
20. In September 2023, Y started their placement at a college of further education, College Z. Y attended College Z three days per week as Y’s course was only timetabled for this period with no free periods.
21. In March 2024, the Council issued Y with a new Education, Health and Care Plan following an Annual review.

Mrs X’s complaint

22. Mrs X made a formal complaint to the Council on 30 August 2023. Mrs X complained the Council:
1. Failed to process her request for a five-day education package (to start in September 2023) for her child in a timely manner.
2. Showed poor case management and communicated with her poorly about her request for a five-day education package.
3. Did not carry out a post-16 phased transfer review of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan.
4. Did not provide a draft Education, Health and Care Plan before sending a final Plan on 31 March 2023.
5. Failed to carry out an Annual Review of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan in summer 2023.
6. Did not ensure funding was in place for her child’s full-time support at College and did not put in place all the Section F provision in her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan after they started College.
7. Did not arrange mediation within 30 days of Mrs X’s request.
8. Failed to provide her child’s ERP following the SEND Tribunal 2023 order.
23. The Council provided its Stage one response on 2 October 2023. Mrs X asked the Council to consider her complaint at Stage two on 12 October 2023.
24. The Council provided its final position on Mrs X’s complaint on 24 January 2024:
• The Council considered complaints a) and b) together. The Council said it did not address what happened before September 2023 in its Stage one response and upheld Mrs X’s complaint.
• The Council considered complaints c) and d) together. The Council recognised it did not hold a post-16 transfer review. The Council did not uphold complaint d). It said it did not issue a draft EHC Plan as it only made a change to the school placement for September 2023.
• The Council upheld Mrs X’s complaint about not carrying out an annual review in the summer of 2023. It recognised it did not obtain the necessary reports which it needed to provide to parents and school before the meeting. The Council said it rescheduled the annual review after the Autumn half-term.
• The Council recognised Y did not receive the 32.5 hours of LSA support per week.
• The Council recognised it did not comply with the timescales for mediation.
• The Council apologised for the delay issuing Y’s ERP.
• The Council offered Mrs X £500 to acknowledge the time and trouble for the faults it identified. The Council offered Mrs X £450 for Y’s educational benefit. The Council said it recognised Y did not receive all the provision in their EHC Plan for the Autumn term.

Complaint a) The Council failed to process Mrs X’s request for a five-day education package (to start in September 2023) for her child in a timely manner. The Council also showed poor case management and communicated with her poorly.

What happened

25. In March 2023, the Council named College Z as the placement on Y’s EHC Plan from September 2023.
26. On 11 May 2023, Mrs X attended a meeting with College Z where it told her it could not deliver the Section F provision in Y’s EHC Plan over a five-day educational package. College Z said it could not provide Y’s LSA’s for the two days per week Y was not at College Z. College Z also said it could support Y with provision which was due to be provided in lessons but could not deliver provision which required support outside of lessons.
27. On 16 May 2023, College Z told Mrs X it could not accommodate Y on the two days per week they did not have lessons.
28. Following this meeting Mrs X made several attempts to contact the Council about Y’s package of education. Mrs X was concerned about who would fund and put in place provision on the two days per week Y was not at College Z and wanted confirmation of this.
29. In June 2023, Mrs X asked the Council for mediation following Y’s April 2023 EHC Plan. Mrs X was not unhappy with the content of the EHC Plan but was concerned College Z could only provide provision for three days per week. Mrs X wanted the Council to provide Education Otherwise than at School (EOTAS) for the other two days.
30. In September 2023, Y started their placement at College Z without confirmation about how the shortfall in the Section F provision would be put in place.

Findings

31. From May 2023, Mrs X made the Council aware that College Z could not put in place all of the Section F provision in Y’s EHC Plan. She asked for a package of EOTAS for the two days per week Y could not attend College Z.
32. It is not clear what steps the Council took to look into her concerns or respond to her and as a result she decided to pursue mediation. This was fault. I am satisfied the Council was aware Y would not be able to receive all their provision in the EHC Plan and it could have worked with Mrs X to confirm this after she raised concerns following her meeting with College Z.
33. As a result, when Y started College Z there was not confirmation about how Y would receive the remaining provision College Z said it could not provide. This is an injustice to Y. Mrs X also spent time pursuing this with the Council since May 2023, so as to avoid the situation of Y being without provision from September 2023. The fact that Y started College Z without confirmation about how all their special educational provision would be provided has caused distress and uncertainty to Mrs X.

Complaint b) The Council did not carry out a post-16 phased transfer review of Y’s EHC Plan.

What happened

34. In late October 2022 Mrs X sent the Council her form for post-16 school placements for Y. This listed College Z as Y’s preference.
35. Mrs X chased up the Council three times in December 2022 as she had not received a response about Y’s post-16 transfer annual review.
36. In early January 2023, the Council confirmed to Mrs X it was sending its consultation to College Z and would update her once it received a response after the 15 days College Z had to respond. Mrs X sent two further emails to the Council once the 15 days College Z had to respond passed.
37. The Council confirmed in late January 2023 that College Z said it could meet Y’s needs. In March 2023, the Council told Mrs X College Z were concerned about the type of course it could offer Y as it had concerns about meeting Y’s needs on a mainstream course.
38. The Council named College Z on Y’s final EHC Plan in late March 2023.

Findings

39. The Council did not carry out a review of Y’s EHC Plan as part of their post-16 phased transfer. This was fault. The Council acknowledged this fault in its complaint response to Mrs X.
40. The Council also delayed in responding to Mrs X’s correspondence about this. This was fault. The records show Mrs X sent the Council several emails chasing this matter up as she did not receive a response. Mrs X made the Council aware of Y’s College choice in October 2022, which gave it time to carry out a review of Y’s EHC Plan.
41. Had the Council reviewed Y’s EHC Plan as part of a post-16 phased transfer review, it could have looked and discussed with College Z whether the Section F provision was appropriate for this setting. This was a missed opportunity to address the issues which later occurred around arranging all the provision in Y’s EHC Plan from September 2023.

Complaint c) The Council did not provide a draft EHC Plan before sending a final Plan on 31 March 2023.

Findings

42. On 31 March 2023, the Council issued Y a final EHC Plan. Mrs X complained she did not receive a draft EHC Plan before this so lost out on the opportunity to make comments.
43. The Council said it only issued a final EHC Plan as all it was doing was updating Section I to add Y’s post-16 college from September 2023.
44. The Council issued the March 2023 EHC Plan so it could name Y’s placement for post-16 education. As discussed above at complaint b), the Council should have reviewed Y’s EHC Plan as part of Y’s post-16 phased transfer. This would have involved seeing if the Council needed to make any amendments to Y’s EHC Plan and if so issuing a draft EHC Plan for Mrs X to comment on.
45. As the Council wanted to change the school name on the EHC Plan, it should have sent a draft EHC Plan to Mrs X. However I do not consider Mrs X has suffered any injustice by not getting a draft EHC Plan. This is because the placement the Council named was Y’s preferred choice.

Complaint d) The Council failed to carry out an Annual Review of her child’s EHC Plan in summer 2023.

What happened

46. In June 2023, Y’s mainstream secondary school attempted to arrange an annual review of their EHC Plan. Y’s school arranged an annual review meeting for late June 2023.
47. Y’s school decided to cancel the annual review meeting as it had not received some of the reports needed from the Council.
48. The Council decided to arrange the annual review for mid-September 2023. Mrs X asked to postpone this until after the Autumn half-term as Y would have only just started at College Z. The annual review took place in November 2023.

Findings

49. The annual review could not take place as some of the professional reports needed were not available in time. The Council recognised it was at fault here in its complaint response.
50. While the Council said Mrs X asked to move Y’s annual review later into the Autumn term, I do not consider this mitigates the fault or any injustice. On balance I am satisfied Mrs X wanted the annual review in June 2023 to go ahead as this was an opportunity for the Council to look at Y’s Section F provision given the concerns Mrs X raised about not all of it being delivered by College Z. Had the Council carried out an annual review it could have attempted to address these concerns or looked at whether Y’s EHC Plan needed amending.

Complaint e) The Council did not ensure funding was in place for Y’s full-time support at College Z and did not put in place all the Section F provision in Y’s EHC Plan after they started College.

What happened

51. In May 2023, College Z made Mrs X and the Council aware it could not provide all the provision in Y’s EHC Plan. Specifically it could not provide Y’s key support worker/learning support assistant for the two days per week Y was not at College Z or deliver provision which required support outside of lessons.
52. Mrs X said a significant amount of provision was not in place for Y when they started at College Z. This included:
7. Relaxation techniques delivered by a teacher or learning support assistant (LSA) for 30 minutes per week.
8. Touch typing program.
9. 32.5 hours of support per week by two LSA’s.
10. 1:1 support for pre-teaching and consolidation of learning. 30 minutes three times per day.
11. Executive functioning plan 15-20 minutes daily.
12. Catch up tuition for English, Math’s and Science of six hours per week.
13. Supported technology for Y to help independence.
14. Structured reading and numeracy program.
15. 30-minute weekly sessions focused on building social understanding and set up by a Speech and Language Therapist (SALT).
16. Daily sessions of 30 minutes to implement a therapy program.
17. Staff to use naturally occurring situations to support Y interact with peers.
18. Weekly social activities with peers who have similar needs and interests.
19. A SCERTS planning grid which is reviewed termly.
20. Comic strip conversations used by staff supporting Y.
21. Social stories to help Y’s understanding of situations.
22. Home education communication book to monitor Y’s anxiety and progress.
53. The records showed Mrs X contacted the Council throughout the summer of 2023 to raise concerns about how Y would receive the provision in their EHC Plan as College Z confirmed it could not deliver all of it. Mrs X also asked for mediation on this point in June 2023, and this was arranged for September 2023, after Y had started at College Z. Y started College Z in early September 2023.
54. In response to my enquiries the Council provided a Section F checklist it sent to College Z in November 2023 to complete which details how provision was provided. The Council also provided its response to whether the above provision was delivered. I have discussed both of these documents below in the ‘Findings’ section.

Findings

55. As stated in paragraph 6 I have only investigated whether Y received the provision in their EHC Plan from when they started at College Z to March 2024, when the Council issued a new EHC Plan.
56. The Council recognised in its complaint response that Y did not receive 32.5 hours per week from two LSAs, and only received 21.5 hours per week as this was the time Y was in College Z each week. The Council apologised and offered Mrs X £450 to recognise the loss of provision to Y.
57. In relation to provision numbers 2, 6, 7 and 12 (above), I am satisfied on balance these were delivered. Y did receive a touch typing program and six hours per week of tuition in English, Mathematics and Science. I recognise Y received this at home and the EHC Plan said they should be delivered at the educational setting. However College Z said it did not have a room where Y could have this tutoring. Mrs X has said as the tutoring was at home she had to act as a LSA on the days Y had this tutoring. I have considered the Council did offer an alternative venue for Y but this offer was not taken up by Mrs X.
58. For the supported technology provision College Z said Y was supported to use the technology and this was implemented by staff when Y attended. College Z confirmed this when completing the Section F checklist in November 2023.
59. The Council said the weekly social interaction activities were delivered by College Z. College Z has supported this and confirmed in the section F checklist it provided this to Y at lunchtime clubs.
60. In relation to provision numbers 3 and 4 (above) the Council already recognised Y did not receive the full 32.5 hours per week of support from two LSA’s. Y should have received the 1:1 support for pre-teaching and consolidation daily. College Z confirmed it was providing this to Y, however Y would not have received this on the days they were not at College Z. Therefore it has only been partially delivered.
61. In relation to provision numbers 5 and 9 (above) I am satisfied on balance these were delivered late. Y’s Executive Functioning Plan was only produced in November 2023 therefore Y did not have this provision in place when they started their placement at College Z. College Z said this provision is built into Y’s lessons and Y was receiving it. Y’s EHC Plan says Y should receive this provision daily in 15-20 minute sessions. There is no evidence Y was getting this provision on the days they did not attend College Z.
62. For the weekly sessions around building social understanding, these were supposed to be set up by a SALT. The Council said it sent correspondence with the SALT showing how this would be delivered. The correspondence the Council refers to makes it clear College Z staff would run the weekly sessions. The provision checklist completed by College Z in November 2023 showed this was not being delivered at the time. College Z said it needed to hold a meeting with the relevant professional to discuss this provision. In February and March 2024, email correspondence showed Mrs X contacting College Z and the Council saying this provision had not been put in place for Y. It is not clear whether Y received some of this provision or whether the SALT set up the sessions, however I am satisfied on balance that Y did not receive the full weekly session as set out in the EHC Plan.
63. In relation to provision numbers 1, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15 and 16 (above) I have considered the Council’s response to whether these were delivered and the response provided by College Z in November 2023 when it completed a section F provision checklist. On balance I am satisfied Y did not receive this provision. The Council nor College Z have been able to evidence Y was getting this provision. This was fault. College Z confirmed to the Council when it completed the provision checklist in November 2023, Y was not receiving most of this provision. It is not clear what steps the Council took to put the provision Y was not getting in place.
64. As discussed above, College Z told the Council in May 2023 it could not provide certain parts of the provision in Y’s EHC Plan. I cannot see what the Council did to arrange to put in place this provision. As the Council was aware of these issues from May 2023, it had several months to decide what steps to take to address this. The Council could have sought to arrange the provision itself, or if it believed the provision was no longer appropriate as Y was starting post-16 education, it could have held an annual review and considered whether it was appropriate to amend Y’s EHC Plan.
65. In response to my enquiries the Council said Y confirmed they had their best year in education and the Council said Y had made progress. Even if this is the case I do not consider this mitigates the injustice caused to Y for not receiving all the provision in their EHC Plan. Y’s EHC Plan was created with the input of professionals dealing with Y and the provision listed was there for a reason. As Y did not receive all the provision listed in their EHC Plan I consider this was an injustice to Y.
66. From the correspondence, Mrs X spent time trying to clarify how the Council would ensure the provision in Y’s EHC Plan could be delivered, well before Y started at College Z. The fact Y did not receive all the provision in their EHC Plan has caused Mrs X distress and uncertainty.

Complaint f) The Council did not arrange mediation within 30 days of Mrs X’s request.

Findings

67. Mrs X asked for mediation on 20 June 2023. The records showed the mediation service chased the Council three times for a response as to when it could take part. The Council finally responded on 21 July 2023 and told the mediation service the first available date was 19 September 2023. This was fault. The Council did not arrange mediation within 30 days of Mrs X’s request.
68. This caused injustice to Mrs X and Y as it was clear Mrs X had concerns about how Y would receive parts of the provision in their EHC plan after they started College Z. This was a further missed opportunity by the Council to consider Mrs X’s concerns about Y’s EHC provision before Y started at College Z.

Complaint g) The Council failed to provide Y’s ERP following the SEND Tribunal 2023 order.

Findings

69. Following the SEND Tribunal the Council issued Y’s final EHC Plan in late March 2023. Part of the Section F provision was Y would receive an ERP written by an Educational Psychologist.
70. The Council did not provide the ERP to Mrs X until June 2023. After receiving the ERP Mrs X raised concerns to the Council about its content. I am satisfied the Council was at fault for the time taken to produce the ERP.
71. The Council apologised to Mrs X for this delay in its complaint response an upheld this part of her complaint. While this is welcomed, I do not consider it remedies the injustice caused to Mrs X and Y. Mrs X spent time chasing the Council up in August 2023. Y’s educational setting did not have an ERP to work from so staff may not have had all of the information they should have to support Y.

Complaint h) The Council’s complaint handling

Findings

72. The Council operates a two stage complaints process. At Stage one the Council should provide a complaint response within four weeks. In Mrs X’s case it took the Council nearly five weeks to respond to Mrs X’s complaint. This was fault.
73. The Council apologised for this delay in its Stage one complaint response. I consider this remedies any injustice caused to Mrs X.
74. At Stage two the Council’s complaints process says it should provide a response within five weeks. For more complex cases the Council may take up to 13 weeks to respond, however it should let a complainant know if this is the case.
75. Mrs X asked the Council to consider her complaint at Stage two on 12 October 2023. The Council should have provided its Stage two response by 16 November 2023 or 11 January 2024 if it needed more time to consider the complaint. The Council provided its stage two response by 24 January 2024. This was fault. The Council has provided no evidence that it told Mrs X it needed longer than five weeks to respond to her complaint.
76. Mrs X had to wait longer to bring her complaint to the Ombudsman as a result of the Council’s delays handling her complaint.

Back to top

Agreed action

77. Within one month of my final decision the Council agreed to carry out the following:
7. Provide Mrs X with a written apology for the faults identified in this investigation.
8. Pay Mrs X £250 to recognise the avoidable distress and uncertainty caused for the way the Council handled her request for a five-day education package for Y.
9. Pay Mrs X £250 to recognise the avoidance distress and loss of opportunity to resolve concerns around Y’s provision caused by not carrying out a post-16 transfer review.
10. Pay Mrs X £150 to recognise the loss of opportunity to resolve concerns around Y’s provision caused by not having the necessary documentation in place to hold an annual review in summer 2023.
11. Pay Mrs X £200 to recognise the distress, time and trouble she experienced because of the Council’s delays in taking part in mediation.
78. If the Council has already paid Mrs X the £500 it offered during the complaints process, it should deduct this about from the above.
7. Pay Mrs X £2,000, for the benefit of Y’s education, to recognise the loss of provision to Y from September 2023 to March 2024.
79. In coming to this figure I considered the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies which recommends a payment per term for loss of education of between £900 and £2,400. In this case Y did not get all their special educational provision for the Autumn and Spring terms of the 2023-2024 school year. I have recommended £1,000 per term which is at the low end of the scale. This was because Y attended education and received some of the provision in their EHC Plan.
80. If the Council has already paid Mrs X the £450 it offered during the complaints process, it should deduct this amount from the above figure of £2,000.
7. Remind officers of the deadlines to comply with complaint responses. The Council should also consider whether it can put in place any measures to flag up complaints where the time to provide a response at Stage one and Stage two is going to lapse.
81. Within two months of my final decision the Council agreed to carry out the following:
7. Review how it considers complaints and concerns brought by parents and young people about special educational provision not being provided or delivered. The Council should consider what improvements to its service it can make to ensure these concerns are picked up upon.
82. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

83. I have completed my investigation and found the Council was at fault and this caused injustice to Mrs X and Y. The Council agreed to the above actions to remedy the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman