| 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. Devon County Council (23 000 973)
Summary: Miss B complained that the Council had wrongly deducted child benefit from her Special Guardianship Allowance (SGA) since January 2022, failed to provide a copy of her grandchilds (C) support plan and failed to share information with MissB. She also complained the Council had delayed significantly investigating her complaint through the statutory complaints process, taking just over a year to complete stage two of the process. These issues caused Miss B significant distress, frustration and financial hardship. Torbay Council (23 013 034)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a social worker seeking to restrict contact between Miss X and her child. The matter complained of is one where it would be reasonable for Miss X to use her right to go to court to seek the contact arrangements she desires. Buckinghamshire Council (23 013 081)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint about children services actions nearly 30 years ago. It is unlikely our investigation could reach a fair and robust decision. Suffolk County Council (23 013 978)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Councils decision not to consider his complaint whilst there are ongoing court proceedings. Kent County Council (22 016 843)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has not dealt properly with her son Ys Special Educational Needs. The Council delayed producing Ys EHCP and didnt respond to Mrs X. Y was left with no provision and Mrs X had to pay fees. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X, pay Mrs X 14,104 in respect of costs incurred for Ys education placement, 2532 for her legal fees, pay Mrs X and Y 250 each in respect of avoidable distress, pay Mrs X 100 in respect of time and trouble as well as produce an action plan to show how it will meet statutory timescales for EHCP annual reviews. Suffolk County Council (23 005 964)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to properly review her child Ps Education, Health, and Care plan, or ensure they received a suitable education and support for their special educational needs. There was fault by the Council which meant P did not receive suitable education or support for their special educational needs. It also caused avoidable distress and uncertainty to P and Ms X, and lost opportunity for P. The Council agreed to apologise, re-assess Ps Education, Health, and Care needs, consider whether suitable education is in place for P, and pay a financial remedy. It will also review relevant procedures, issue reminders to its staff, and ensure our findings are considered as part of its SEND Improvement Strategy. Surrey County Council (23 006 245)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide education for her child since October 2022. We found fault with the Council failing to provide education for half a term since October 2022. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her 1,000 to address her childs missed education. Oxfordshire County Council (23 006 665)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to ensure her daughter, F received an education in line with her Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan between February and June 2023. The Council was at fault. It named a school in Fs EHC plan which she could not attend and therefore she received no education during this period. The Council agreed to make payments to Ms X to recognise Fs loss of education and the distress, uncertainty and time and trouble caused. Leeds City Council (23 012 960)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in refusing the complainants application and appeal for free school transport for her daughter. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Councils part. Oxfordshire County Council (23 013 098)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a visit to the complainants home by two officers from the Councils Elective Home Education Team. There is not enough evidence the complainant has been caused a significant personal injustice. East Sussex County Council (23 013 113)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about matters relating to a childs Education Health and Care plan. This is because the complainant has appealed to a tribunal, and the issues raised are not separable from that appeal. It is unlikely we would find fault in how the Council dealt with other matters. London Borough of Lambeth (23 004 285)
Summary: Mr C complained on behalf of Miss B that the Council had failed to consider her complaint about childrens services through the statutory complaints procedure, delayed in communicating with her, been unclear about which process it was using and agreed to a remedy which it did not implement. We found significant fault by the Council. It has agreed to complete a proper stage two investigation, apologise to Miss B and pay her 500. It has also agreed to review its complaints procedure for the future. London Borough of Camden (23 007 502)
Summary: Mr B complained that the Council in respect of his statutory complaint about childrens services, had failed to recognise the injustice caused by the identified fault and failed to offer a sufficient payment to put matters right. We concluded the Council should increase the payment from 280 to 480. Staffordshire County Council (23 010 940)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the content of a court report submitted by the Council as part of court proceedings. We cannot investigate court reports and the Information Commissioners Office is better placed to consider a complaint about the accuracy of Council records. Leicester City Council (23 010 983)
Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council had failed to consider her complaint properly through the statutory complaints procedure and had failed to offer her a carers assessment. We found fault with the Council initially considering the complaint through its corporate complaints process. It has now agreed to put the complaint through the statutory procedure at stage two and consider all the issues Mrs B has raised including the carers assessment, which is a satisfactory resolution. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (23 011 391)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about matters relating to the Councils involvement with child protection matters. This is because the matter is subject to court proceedings. Derby City Council (23 012 197)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xs complaint about the information used in a child protection risk assessment. It is unlikely we would achieve more than the reassessment already offered. And the Information Commissioners Office is better placed to consider if the Council holds inaccurate records. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (23 013 061)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xs complaint the Council has breached a court order because it is reasonable for Ms X to take the matter to court. Cornwall Council (22 014 988)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her child D with suitable education and support for their special educational needs. There was fault by the Council which caused D to miss education and special educational needs support. It also caused avoidable distress for D, and avoidable distress, time, and trouble for Mrs X. The Council agreed to apologise, agree reasonable adjustments it will make for Mrs X, and pay a financial remedy. It will also review processes and issue reminders to its staff. Kent County Council (23 012 623)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the delay was not significant enough to justify an investigation. Nottinghamshire County Council (23 013 142)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xs complaint about the Councils decision her child is not eligible for free school transport. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council. London Borough of Croydon (23 013 103)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint about the Councils refusal to investigate her safeguarding concerns about her sons school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault affecting the Councils decision. We cannot investigate any complaint about the schools handling of the matter or the actions of school staff as we are barred by law from doing so. The Council acknowledges it delayed in notifying Mrs X of its decision to refuse her application for a personal budget and in responding to her Stage 1 complaint but its offer to pay her 400 provides a suitable remedy for the issue. Leicestershire County Council (23 013 234)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils response to the actions of a third party. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Councils part. Hertfordshire County Council (23 013 536)
Summary: Ms X and Ms Z complain about the support Ms X has received from Council childrens services, in meeting the needs of her disabled child. We have decided not to investigate the substance of the complaint at this time. But we have found fault in the Councils investigation to date, as it has not put the complaint through all stages of the statutory complaint procedure for complaints about childrens services. We consider this has caused Ms X injustice, putting her to unnecessary time and trouble. The Council has accepted these findings and at the end of this statement we set out the action it has agreed to remedy that injustice. West Northamptonshire Council (23 013 597)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Councils actions related to removing Miss Xs child. The matters complained of either were or could reasonably have been raised during court action. Miss Xs desired outcomes include the revocation of a special guardianship order and an out of court settlement for damages. These are also matters where it would be reasonable for Miss X to use her right to go to court. Kent County Council (22 014 158)
Summary: the Council did not arrange transport in time to take Ms Ms son C to his tuition and Ms M provided transport herself for eight days. Ms M complained about the payment the Council offered. There were significant delays in the Councils complaint response. The Council has refunded the costs Ms M incurred and made a payment to acknowledge the delays. We recommended the Council makes a symbolic payment to acknowledge the time Ms M spent providing transport. The Council agreed. London Borough of Wandsworth (22 014 965)
Summary: Miss X complained about the Councils failure to refund costs she incurred taking her daughter to school. We have not found the Council to be at fault because it honoured its agreement to pay for a taxi for two weeks only. There was no obligation to refund ongoing taxi fares. Kent County Council (23 002 021)
Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council handled her son, Bs change in school placement process. The Council was at fault for causing significant delays resulting in uncertainty and distress for B and his family. Devon County Council (23 003 333)
Summary: There was no fault by the Council. The decision not to provide alternative educational provision was made after considering all the relevant facts. The parental application for an in year transfer was transferred to the correct team in the Council as the child already had a school named in an Education, Health and Care plan. The Council consulted on a new placement, which started after the current schools notice period ended. Suffolk County Council (23 005 204)
Summary: Mrs M complains about her son Bs education. There were problems with planning for Bs transfer to post-16 education in September 2022, and the Council failed to arrange suitable provision between September 2022 and April 2023. The Council has offered a suitable remedy. Surrey County Council (23 006 091)
Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council handled his son, Ys Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan reviews and school placement. The Council delayed in amending Ys EHC plan following the annual review, delayed in identifying an appropriate placement to meet Ys needs and did not provide Y with all the provision in his plan. The Council agreed to pay Mr X 2,600 to recognise the injustice caused to Y and Mr X, and take action to improve its service. Coventry City Council (23 014 337)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the school admission appeal panels refusal of an appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel. North Somerset Council (23 002 984)
Summary: Miss X complains the Council wrongly declined to investigate her complaints about its failure to safeguard her as a young person when she reported being sexually abused by a family member and emotionally abused in her parents care. There was fault in the way the Council reached its decision not to investigate Miss Xs complaints. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and review its decision, applying the criteria from the relevant guidance. It will also provide guidance on the criteria to relevant staff. Hertfordshire County Council (23 003 047)
Summary: the Council has not explained how it decided how much support to offer Mrs Ms son, B. As a result, its decisions appear arbitrary. The Council should review its processes to ensure in future it acts rationally, follows agreed procedures which are explained to the family and gives clear and logical reasons for its decisions. It should make a symbolic payment to recognise the impact of faults on Mrs M. West Northamptonshire Council (23 009 235)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils response to a complaint about childrens social care because it is inextricably linked to matters which have been considered in court. Nottingham City Council (23 010 382)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr Xs complaint about the contents of a court report because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that are being, or have been, considered in court proceedings. Cumberland Council (23 010 395)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils Childrens Service. We have previously investigated some of the complaints about the Council and it is appropriate for new matters to complete the statutory complaints procedure before we consider them. Wider complaints about the culture at the Council are best referred to a different body. Medway Council (23 012 489)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Councils childrens services. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Councils decision not to consider the complaint until after court proceedings have concluded. Worcestershire County Council (23 012 829)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr Xs contact with his children. The matters complained of, and Mr Xs desired outcomes are ones where it would be reasonable for him to use his right to go to court. Buckinghamshire Council (23 012 836)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils alleged failure to properly follow statutory guidance when conducting a section 47 investigation and holding a child protection conference regarding Mr and Mrs Xs family. This is because the complaint concerns events that took place more than 12 months ago and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate events that took place this long ago. London Borough of Haringey (22 008 384)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about failure to provide education to meet Ms Xs childs needs in 2022. The delay before the Council first offered a school place in April 2022 would not have created sufficient injustice to warrant our involvement. We also lack the legal power to investigate what provision was made from June 2022 onwards, when the Council issued an Education Health and Care Plan against which Ms X appealed. Staffordshire County Council (23 004 414)
Summary: We uphold a complaint about delay in issuing an Education, Health and Care plan. We also find fault in complaint handling and in a failure to arrange suitable education for Y for health reasons. This caused avoidable distress, frustration and time and trouble. The Council will apologise and make payments to reflect Ms Xs avoidable distress and time and trouble. It will also make payments for Ys loss of alternative provision and issue her final plan. Cumberland Council (23 010 397)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the support provided by the Councils Childrens Services. That is because most of the complaint is late, and it was reasonable for the complainant to raise concerns as part of court proceedings. Kent County Council (23 010 675)
Summary: We cannot investigate Miss Xs complaint about the Councils actions leading to the naming of a school in her daughters Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan and dealing with her appeal against the Plan. This is because Miss X has used her right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal. We will not investigate Miss Xs complaint about the Councils involvement of numerous caseworkers in the case as the Council has provided a suitable remedy for Miss Xs time and trouble and we cannot say the issue wrongly affected the Councils decisions or the content of the EHC Plan. Hampshire County Council (23 012 138)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint about the Councils actions in respect of an Education Health and Care Plan. We cannot investigate issues which are part of a Tribunal appeal. The worry Mrs X says she was caused is not significant enough to justify an investigation. Worcestershire County Council (23 012 591)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the amount the Council pays parents who transport their children to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. Milton Keynes Council (23 006 330)
Summary: We found fault with the way the Council carried out the statutory childrens complaint procedure for the complainant (Ms X). This fault caused Ms X injustice. The Council has already apologised and agreed to complete stage three of the procedure and to make a symbolic payment to recognise Ms Xs distress. The Council also agreed to review its statutory childrens complaint procedure and provide training to its staff. London Borough of Waltham Forest (23 012 845)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about children services actions. The events are more than 12 months old and there are no good reasons the late complaint rule should not apply. Central Bedfordshire Council (23 014 670)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about matters relating to the care of the complainants children. This is because investigation would achieve nothing significant. Derbyshire County Council (23 004 892)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council delayed competing her son, Fs Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment within statutory timescales. She also complains the Council failed to put appropriate alternative provision in place for F between December 2022 and May 2023 after he stopped attending school. The Council was at fault. It issued Fs EHC plan 25 weeks late and failed to consider whether alternative provision was appropriate between January and February 2023. March to May 2023 is outside our jurisdiction so I cannot provide a remedy for that period. The Council agreed to make payments to Mrs X to acknowledge the injustice caused. London Borough of Croydon (23 008 587)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about eligibility for free school meals. This is because schools, not the Council, decide eligibility using criteria set by central government. Devon County Council (23 010 085)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed completing her son, Fs Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment in line with statutory timescales. The Council failed to decide whether to issue F with an EHC plan within the statutory timescale, caused by a delay in obtaining Educational Psychologist advice. This caused a further delay in the Council issuing Fs final EHC plan. The Council agreed to make a symbolic payment to Miss X to acknowledge the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused to her and F as a result of the delays. Blackpool Borough Council (23 010 498)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xs complaint about the Councils decision to charge her adult daughter, Ms Y, for home to college transport. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (23 013 865)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place for her son. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel for us to be able to question its decision. |
