| 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. Oxfordshire County Council (23 016 722)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to meet the statutory timescales in reviewing and producing his childâs Education, Health and Care Plan. Mr X also complained about the way in which the Council handled his complaint. We found fault with the Councilâs delays in handling both the Education, Health and Care Plan review and Mr Xâs complaint. The Council offered £200 for itâs poor complaint handling and £300 for the delays in reviewing the Education, Health and Care Plan. This was a suitable symbolic gesture with an apology for the injustice caused by the Councilâs fault. Somerset Council (23 018 970)
Summary: We found the Council was at fault when it failed to secure the provision set out in an Education, Health and Care Plan it issued following a Tribunal hearing. This led to S missing the support she needed and caused her mother, Mrs X, distress, and frustration. The Council agreed to our recommendations set out to remedy the injustice its actions caused to Mrs X and S. Cambridgeshire County Council (24 003 043)
Summary: There was fault by the Council. The Council delayed issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan and did not provide alternative educational provision for a child for the final year of primary school. Apologising and making a symbolic payment remedies the injustice. The child is now attending a specialist secondary school. Lancashire County Council (24 004 112)
Summary: Ms X complained about the decision of the Councilâs Independent Appeal Panel to refuse her child a place at a grammar school. There was no fault in the way the Panel considered the appeal. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions made without fault. Worcestershire County Council (24 004 520)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council refused to provide Direct Payments to pay for wrap around care for her son who could not attend after school provision in the community due to his complex needs. As a result Mrs X has had to privately employ a personal assistant to care for her son. We have ended our investigation as we would not add anything significant to the investigation which has already been carried out under the statutory procedure for complaints about childrenâs services. Staffordshire County Council (24 006 099)
Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, about the way the Council considered the educational placement for a child with an education, health and care plan. This is because the matter was subject to an ongoing appeal at the time, and therefore falls outside of our jurisdiction. Manchester City Council (24 010 478)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision not to provide her child with free transport to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Westmorland and Furness Council (24 010 517)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the conduct of a Council social worker because it is late. Essex County Council (24 011 328)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision to refuse his request for free 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. Essex County Council (24 013 863)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the Councilâs refusal to provide free school transport for her child. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating. Hampshire County Council (23 010 059)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged failings of safeguarding and educational provision when the Council was providing Mrs Xâs child with home tuition. Investigation would be unlikely to lead to any robust conclusions or achieve a worthwhile outcome. Wakefield City Council (24 010 744)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about children servicesâ actions as the Information Commissionerâs Office and Social Work England are better placed. Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (24 011 008)
Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed considering a complaint at stage two of the childrenâs statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint by issuing its stage two response without further delay. It will also apologise and offer to make a payment to the complainant to remedy the time and trouble they have been too. Wiltshire Council (24 011 239)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council is at fault in refusing to accept that is has placed a looked after child with the complainant. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Councilâs part. Lincolnshire County Council (24 013 613)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about a social worker allocated to her granddaughterâs case. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Councilâs decision not to consider her complaint because she does not have parental responsibility for her granddaughter. Gloucestershire County Council (23 015 591)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about delays in producing an Education Health and Care Plan as the Council has agreed to a proportionate way to resolve the complaint. Buckinghamshire Council (24 001 992)
Summary: Mrs B says the Council failed to act when she raised safeguarding concerns about her son being bullied at school and failed to put in place full-time education when he stopped attending school. There is no fault in how the Council dealt with the safeguarding concerns. The Council delayed issuing an education, health and care plan which affected Mrs Bâs appeal rights about the school named and failed to put in place an added subject when Mrs B asked for it. An apology, payment to Mrs B and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy. Cambridgeshire County Council (24 006 196)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed telling her it was going to amend her childâs Education, Health and Care Plan following an annual review and has still not sent her a final amended Education, Health and Care Plan. Mrs X said her child is not getting the support they need because of these delays. We found the Council at fault for not telling Mrs X the outcome of the annual review or issuing a final Education, Health and Care Plan within the statutory timescales. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mrs X for the distress caused and issue her child with a final Education, Health and Care Plan. London Borough of Redbridge (24 007 765)
Summary: Ms X complains the Council wrongly decided not to provide her child with transport to school. She says the Councilâs decision caused unnecessary distress and impacted her physical health. We find no fault with the Councilâs decision-making. Surrey County Council (24 010 492)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the adequacy of education and related matters. There are no good reasons the late complaint rule should not apply for part of it. We cannot investigate issues before a Tribunal. And it is unlikely we would achieve significantly more than the Council has offered for her complaint. Devon County Council (24 010 826)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in the Education, Health and Care Plan process for the complainantâs daughter. The injustice caused is not significant enough to warrant us investigating. Derbyshire County Council (24 010 859)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council delayed carrying out a review of Mrs Xâs childâs Education Health and Care Plan. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. East Sussex County Council (24 013 205)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision not to complete an Education, Health and Care needs assessment of his child, Y. This is because Mr X used his right to appeal to a Tribunal. Essex County Council (24 013 397)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a reported data breach. There is not enough evidence of fault and the Information Commissionerâs Office is better placed to investigate such matters. Telford & Wrekin Council (24 002 458)
Summary: We have not investigated Miss Yâs complaint about events which happened between 2003 and 2005 when she was subject to a child protection plan. This is because there is no realistic prospect of reaching a sound decision with a meaningful outcome for Miss Y. Herefordshire Council (24 003 232)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with the care arrangements of Mrs Xâs children. This is because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council, or achieve the outcome she seeks. Swindon Borough Council (24 010 356)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council declining to conduct a viability assessment for Ms X to care for a child. She has confirmed a judge has since ordered the Council to assess which means the matters she complains of either were or could reasonably have been raised in court. A legal bar now prevents us investigating the matters Ms X complains of. London Borough of Haringey (24 010 833)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Mr Xâs complaint about its child protection actions concerning his family, which involved court proceedings. The resort to court proceedings means we are legally prevented from investigating the Councilâs child protection actions, and a court judgement prevents us investigating the Councilâs complaint handling where we are unable to consider the substantive matters complained of. London Borough of Brent (24 013 496)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs historic complaint about his children being placed in foster care in 1990. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider it now. Norfolk County Council (24 015 351)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr Xâs complaint about a report the Council wrote for court proceedings. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We are prohibited from considering matters that have been to court. North Yorkshire Council (24 011 220)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council is at fault in refusing to make alternative educational provision for the complainantâs son who is out of school. This is because investigation would not find fault on the Councilâs part. Kent County Council (24 011 046)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Councilâs social worker acted outside her role while advising the police. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Councilâs part. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (24 011 079)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in its response to safeguarding concerns raised by the complainant and in its consideration of her subsequent complaint. This is because investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Warwickshire County Council (23 005 311)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide Y with the special educational provision in his Education, Health and Care Plan and to provide him with a suitable full-time education. We found fault with the Council in how it recorded its decision it had no section 19 duty to make alternative provision between February 2022 and March 2022. We also found fault because it failed to provide Y with the agreed provision between February and April 2023. The Council agreed to apologise and make payments to Y and Mrs X in recognition of the injustice caused to them. Surrey County Council (23 017 616)
Summary: Miss X complained about delays in her son, Yâs, Education, Health and Care Plan annual review process. She also complained the Council did not ensure Y received any education and EHC Plan provision. Miss X said this distressed her and Y missed education and provision. There was fault in the way the Council did not ensure Y received education and plan provision, delayed the annual review process and record keeping was poor. This fault frustrated Ms Xâs appeal rights and distressed her. Y missed education and plan provision. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment, provide guidance to staff and review its policy. Surrey County Council (23 018 630)
Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council considers school transport applications for children in his village. We find the Council at fault for providing Mr X with incorrect information and failing to invite him to an appeal hearing or provide a written outcome to this. We do not find fault with how the Council assessed Mr Xâs application or appeal. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and make a payment to recognise the uncertainty caused. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (23 018 886)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to secure suitable alternative education provision for her child, Y, for around 12 months. We have found the Council at fault for failing to consider its section 19 duty at the correct time and for failing to secure suitable education provision. We have also found the Council at fault for its communication and complaint handling. We have made recommendations to remedy the injustice this caused. We have found the Council at fault for procedural delays when completing an annual review of Yâs EHC Plan. However, this fault did not cause an injustice. We recommend the Council act to improve its services. Surrey County Council (23 021 046)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to arrange suitable education for her child, G, and failed to secure the special educational provision in Gâs Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council was at fault over two terms. This caused Mrs X frustration and meant G missed out on provision they should have had. To remedy their injustice, the Council will apologise to Mrs X, pay her a symbolic amount and arrange funding for G to attend enriching activities. It will also issue a staff reminder. Surrey County Council (24 000 404)
Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council considers school transport applications for children in her village. We do not find fault with how the Council assesses these applications. We find the Council at fault for delays in considering Miss Xâs appeal. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the uncertainty caused. Worcestershire County Council (24 002 995)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed reviewing his son, Yâs, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan, and failed to provide an appropriate education since it decided he needed a special school placement in summer 2023. Mr X also complained the Council did not provide the special educational provision specified in Yâs EHC Plan. The Council was at fault. It will make a payment to Mr X to recognise the loss of educational provision to Y and the distress caused to himself. The Council will also review how it ensures provision is in place for children with EHC Plans where there is no suitable school place identified. Worcestershire County Council (24 004 532)
Summary: Ms X complained about the Councilâs handling of her son, Wâs, Education, Health and Care Plan after she and W moved into its area. The Council was at fault. This caused Ms X frustration and upset and meant W missed out on education and special educational provision. To remedy their injustice, the Council will pay Ms X £2000. Cheshire East Council (24 005 228)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide suitable full-time alternative provision for her son G when he was unable to attend school from July 2023 until May 2024. The Council was at fault for failing to consider if it should provide, and then failing to provide, alternative provision from February to April 2024. The Council was also at fault for failing to consider if the alternative provision it offered met Gâs needs. The Council will apologise and pay Ms X £1,100 to recognise the alternative provision G missed and the uncertainty and frustration caused to Ms X by the Councilâs actions. The Council will also review its policy for commissioning alternative provision. Nottingham City Council (24 010 122)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision on school transport. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the application and appeal. West Northamptonshire Council (24 010 545)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs Zâs complaint that the Council named an unsuitable school in her childâs Education, Health and Care Plan. Mrs Z has already appealed to the SEND Tribunal about this. We will not consider other issues raised by Mrs Z as we have already considered them in a previous complaint to the Ombudsman. Somerset Council (24 012 537)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision not to issue his son with an Education, Health and Care Plan. Mr X appealed to a tribunal and so the case is outside our jurisdiction with no discretion to investigate. Essex County Council (24 012 608)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her £100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more. Essex County Council (24 013 281)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more. East Sussex County Council (24 010 297)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a failure by the Council to pay an amount in compensation which had been recommended during an independent complaint process. This is because the Council has since decided to pay the complainant what has been recommended. Further investigation is therefore not necessary as it would not lead to a different outcome. Southend-on-Sea City Council (24 010 571)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint that the Council failed to communicate with her during its Supporting Families involvement with her children in early 2023. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider it now. Lancashire County Council (24 011 746)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs response to a serious incident that caused significant harm to her child while attending an activity. Doing so would not be likely to lead to a substantially different outcome from that already achieved. Lincolnshire County Council (24 011 780)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alledged failure by the Council to take action in response to the complainantâs concerns about her children being a risk of harm. This is because the issues raised relate to matters which occurred nearly three years ago. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons why she should exercise discretion and investigate. Salford City Council (24 013 604)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs Xâs complaint because it is about matters that have been subject to court proceedings. Hertfordshire County Council (23 014 628)
Summary: Mrs Y complains about the Councilâs failure to arrange provision for her child, D, after they were permanently excluded from school. Mrs Y also complains the Council delayed when issuing Dâs EHC plan. We find there was some delay in arranging full-time suitable provision for D and some minor delay in finalising the EHC plan. The Council has agreed to complete the remedial actions listed at the end of this statement. Suffolk County Council (23 018 668)
Summary: Mrs X complained of the Councilâs delay in completing the assessment for and issuing her sonâs Education, Health and Care Plan. We found fault because there was a significant delay in issuing the plan. This caused avoidable distress and uncertainty for Mrs X. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X. Essex County Council (24 000 974)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council has failed to provide the therapies outlined in her childâs education, health and care plan and it failed to provide her with her right to appeal. The Council has acknowledged it is at fault and it has agreed to provide Mrs X with a remedy payment to acknowledge the avoidable distress caused. Warwickshire County Council (24 003 162)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council has failed to offer a suitable alternative education for her son. She said her son has been unable to attend school due to the school not meeting his needs. We find the Council was at fault for failing to properly explain its decision to Miss X. This caused her significant distress. To remedy this injustice caused by fault, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment. Whitley Bay High School (24 004 175)
Summary: there is no fault which calls the independent appeal panelâs decision not to admit Ms Mâs daughter to the school into question. West Sussex County Council (24 004 954)
Summary: Mrs 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 agreed to make a payment to Mrs X to acknowledge the distress, frustration and uncertainty this caused her. Wiltshire Council (24 009 603)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about Special Educational Needs provision and the content of an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. There is insufficient evidence of fault and Ms X has a right of appeal to a tribunal if she is unhappy with the content of the EHC Plan. Sunderland City Council (24 010 781)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in the process of amending the complainantâs daughtersâ Education Health and Care Plan. The aspect of the complaint relating to delay has been upheld and the Ombudsmanâs intervention would not lead to a different outcome. The complainantâs appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) places the remaining substantive matters outside our jurisdiction. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (24 013 049)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the how the Council consulted with schools as part of her childâs Education, Health and Care Plan because she has appealed to a Tribunal. We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Councilâs complaint handling because an investigation is unlikely to achieve any additional outcome. Essex County Council (24 013 565)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (24 014 233)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel for us to be able to question its decision. Suffolk County Council (23 015 464)
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 Bâs son qualified for a level 5 Activities Unlimited award, delayed dealing with Mrs Bâs complaint and failed to keep her up-to-date. The remedy the Council has already offered, alongside some procedural recommendations, is satisfactory. Hertfordshire County Council (23 019 653)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council making Miss Xâs children subject to child protection plans. Investigation by us would not lead to the outcome Miss X is seeking. London Borough of Redbridge (24 006 477)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs actions in its child protection involvement with his children. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Councilâs decision not to consider his complaint whilst the matter is subject to ongoing court proceedings. Wokingham Borough Council (24 009 577)
Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed implementing actions it agreed after considering a complaint from Mr X under the statutory childrenâs complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to implement the actions within one month and apologise to Mr X for not doing so sooner. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (24 011 709)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council sharing Miss Xâs personal information. The Information Commissionerâs Office is best placed to deal with complaints about data protection. If we considered the complaint, we could not achieve a higher financial remedy than the Council has already offered, and the courts are best placed to consider compensation claims. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (23 021 056)
Summary: Miss Q complained the Council failed to provide occupational therapy to help meet her child Râs special education needs from September 2023 which caused ongoing uncertainty and distress. The Council accepted fault which caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make symbolic payments to Miss Q to reflect the injustice caused. Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (23 021 105)
Summary: Miss X complains the Council deliberately delayed arranging contact with her children. We find fault with the Council for delay in arranging extra contact days. We have agreed a symbolic payment for the frustration and distress caused to Miss X as a result. Surrey County Council (23 021 496)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Councilâs delay in finalising her childâs education, health and care plan within the required statutory timescales and failing to provide her child with a suitable education when they were unable to attend school due to health needs. The Council is at fault and it has agreed to remedy the injustice caused by apologising to Mrs X and providing her with a symbolic remedy payment for the delay. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (24 009 760)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the Council contacting external agencies without her consent because we could not add to the Councilâs own investigation. We cannot investigate complaints about reports written for court action, nor complaints about schools. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 010 449)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education, Health and Care Plan process for the complainantâs child. This is because it was reasonable for Miss X to use her right of appeal. Given the availability of an early review an investigation by the Ombudsman would be unlikely to achieve a worthwhile outcome. Lancashire County Council (24 010 758)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and pay her £100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (24 013 764)
Summary: Ms X complains the Council has failed to consider her complaints concerning the safeguarding of a child. We will not investigate. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We cannot investigate any matters in connection with court proceedings or matters that are currently being considered by the Council. And we will not investigate the remaining aspect of the complaint about the previous social workerâs behaviour as we are unlikely to find evidence of a significant injustice. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (24 013 842)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel for us to be able to question its decision. London Borough of Haringey (23 013 309)
Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council considered his complaint about his care during his childhood. Mr X said he suffered a significant impact on his mental health which affected his ability to work and left him with substantial debts. We have found fault by the Council in terms of delay and not properly considering an appropriate remedy but consider the agreed action of an apology and symbolic payment provides a suitable remedy. Gloucestershire County Council (23 018 672)
Summary: The Council took too long to assess a childâs needs; it was not clear with the family what support it would offer; and it did not provide all the support it agreed. The Council did not always communicate clearly, and did not always give clear reasons for its decisions. The Council took too long to deal with the motherâs complaints about this. This caused the family distress and uncertainty and means the child has missed out on support she is entitled to. The Council has agreed take action to remedy the injustice. Staffordshire County Council (24 010 196)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Miss Xâs complaint about how it dealt with her complaint about a childrenâs services matter. We will not entertain complaints about complaints processes where we are not investigating the substantive matter. Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (24 010 681)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the outcome of the statutory procedure for complaints about childrenâs services. This is because there is insufficient evidence that the outcome is so flawed as to warrant our intervention. Dorset Council (24 011 544)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the accuracy of the Councilâs childrenâs services report because he has a right to take the matter complained about to the Information Commissionerâs Office. Medway Council (24 013 240)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about matters related to the conduct of a social worker and the Councilâs handling of his complaints. This is because his complaint could reasonably be, or has been raised as part of court proceedings on a closely related matter. Birmingham City Council (24 010 865)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about delay in her sonâs Education Health and Care Plan annual review. This is because we cannot investigate delay by her sonâs school in arranging the annual review meeting and I have seen nothing to show any fault by the Council caused Miss X or her son significant injustice. Devon County Council (24 010 273)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the content of a report the Council produced. This is because investigation would be unlikely to add anything to the Councilâs response or achieve a different outcome. Devon County Council (23 020 402)
Summary: Mrs Y complains about the Councilâs communication with her during the time she fostered two children. She said the Council undervalued and discredited her and as a result the placement ended. The Council acknowledged it could have communicated better with Mrs Y and apologised. This is an appropriate remedy and we have not proposed any further remedial action. |
