| 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 (23 005 512)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to arrange alternative provision for her child W, when they struggled to attend school. She also complained the Council delayed amending Ws Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan when she wanted W to change schools. The Council was at fault for failing to properly consider if it needed to arrange alternative provision and for delay in amending Ws EHC plan. This caused Mrs X uncertainty, distress and frustration and meant W missed out on special educational provision. The Council should pay Miss X 1000 in recognition of her and Ws injustice and take action to prevent fault occurring again. Kent County Council (23 013 083)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint about the Councils decision her daughter does not qualify for free home to school transport. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council. Brighton & Hove City Council (23 013 399)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in the process of reviewing a young persons special educational needs and amending his Education Health and Care Plan. This is because it would have been reasonable for the complainants to use their right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). St Bede's Roman Catholic High School (23 014 318)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint from a parent about a school admission appeal panel. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel to justify our involvement. Leeds City Council (23 014 339)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint from a parent about the school admission appeal panels decision to turn down his appeal for a place for his child at his preferred primary school. This is because there is not enough sign of fault by the panel. Grays Convent High School (23 014 469)
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. Hampshire County Council (23 002 969)
Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council refused to allow her child access to its disabled childrens team, and refused proper direct payments for her childs carers. Mrs X said this caused her unnecessary stress, frustration, and cost time and trouble. We find the Council at fault for failing to deal with Mrs Xs complaint in line with the statutory complaints procedure. This caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise, take action it previously said it would take, and make improvements to its service. Cumberland Council (23 010 784)
Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed considering a complaint under the childrens statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint by considering the complaint at stage one of the procedure and responding 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. Derby City Council (23 011 229)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint about a blue badge process. It is unlikely we could achieve a significantly different outcome. North Yorkshire Council (23 013 541)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a social worker. The matters complained of concern alleged professional misconduct and Social Work England would be better placed to consider them as we cannot make recommendations about fitness to practice. Investigation by us would be unlikely to lead to a different or worthwhile outcome. Some of the matters complained of are not separable from personnel matters or matters that formed part of court action. Somerset Council (23 001 705)
Summary: Ms F complained about the Councils handling of her sons education, health and care needs assessment, support and plan. We found delay in responding to Ms Fs complaint which caused her time and trouble. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to remedy this. There was no fault in relation to the provision of interim support or securing SEN provision. Issues about whether the EHC plan contained appropriate information and advice are outside our remit. Surrey County Council (23 003 012)
Summary: Ms X complains about Council delays in completing her son (Ys) education, health, and care needs assessment and poor communication. We find the Council at fault. It should apologise to Ms X and make payments to her to reflect the uncertainty, frustration and distress caused by the delays and failure to keep her updated during the process. Suffolk County Council (23 003 819)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to ensure her daughter received the provision outlined in her Education, Health and Care plan, delayed the annual review process and made amendments to a final Education, Health and Care Plan without consultation. The Council is at fault. The Council will apologise, make payment to remedy the injustice caused and carry out a review of the provision being received. Birmingham City Council (23 005 066)
Summary: Miss X complained about the Councils failure to properly consider all the professional reports about her childs, Y, health condition and educational needs. Miss X said as a result, the Council failed to provide Y, who cannot attend school due to medical reasons, with alternative provision. There were faults by the Council for its failure to properly consider Ys case and for its failure to provide him with alternative provision. This has led to ongoing loss of education and support to Y, and it caused Miss X distress, frustration and worry. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused. Surrey County Council (23 008 177)
Summary: There was fault by the Council. The Council failed to provide literacy and numeracy intervention specified in an Education, Health and Care Plan. Ensuring the tuition is provided, an apology and a financial payment remedies the injustice. London Borough of Southwark (23 008 833)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council has not rehoused the complainant. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Derbyshire County Council (23 012 602)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to provide provision detailed in an Education Health and Care plan. This is because the Council has upheld the complaint and provided a suitable remedy. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would unlikely add to the one carried out by the Council. Warwickshire County Council (23 012 986)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint about whether an Education Health and Care Plan is suitable for her childs needs. She has appealed to the Tribunal. Buckinghamshire Council (23 013 348)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils actions between 2021 and 2023 in deciding the nature of Mrs Xs childs special educational needs. The Councils assessment of those needs is not separable from matters where Mrs X exercised her right to appeal to the Special Educational Need and Disability Tribunal. Matters relating to possible delay by the Council in the assessment process before June 2022 are late and there is no good reason to use the discretion available to us to investigate them now. Hertfordshire County Council (23 013 420)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the complainants daughters Education Health and Care Plan and educational provision. This is because she has used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (23 013 459)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about personal information the Council disclosed. That is because the Information Commissioners Office deals with complaints around data protection. East Sussex County Council (23 013 876)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xs complaint about the time taken to arrange home to school transport and the Councils decision not to reimburse her costs. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. West Northamptonshire Council (23 013 879)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xs complaint about the Council refusing to provide her daughter with free transport to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (23 015 926)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr Xs complaint about a schools decision to exclude his child from a school. This is because the matter relates to the internal management of a school, which falls outside of our jurisdiction. Milton Keynes Council (22 015 610)
Summary: The Council was at fault for how it considered Miss Bs request for social care support for her disabled son. It failed to reconsider its initial decision after Miss B said the evidence it had used was out of date and inaccurate. It has now agreed to reconsider Miss Bs request. Devon County Council (23 012 759)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a safeguarding referral concerning the complainants child. This is because investigation by the Ombudsman would not add anything significant to the investigation carried out by the Council. Dorset Council (23 013 422)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker. The matters complained of are unlikely to be separable from the matters concerning the contact and residence arrangements for his child. This is matter where Mr X has a right to go to court it would be reasonable to use to seek the restoration of contact he desires. Buckinghamshire Council (23 013 937)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils response to Mr Xs safeguarding concerns about his children. The matter is subject to private court proceedings, and it is reasonable for Mr X to raise all his concerns as part of that process. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (22 017 856)
Summary: Ms X complains the Council has not dealt properly with her son Ys Special Educational Needs. The Council is not at fault. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (23 002 103)
Summary: Miss X complains the Council have not dealt properly with her daughter Ys special educational needs. The Council is at fault because is delayed issuing Ys EHCP. It delayed Y's personal budget and did not make reasonable adjustments for Miss X. Miss X and Y suffered avoidable distress. Y suffered loss of SEN provision. The Council should pay Miss X and Y 250 each for distress, pay Miss X 1,800 for missed SEN provision, produce an action plan and review policy. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (23 002 105)
Summary: Miss X complains the Council have not dealt properly with her daughter Ys special educational needs. The Council is at fault because is delayed issuing Ys EHCP. It delayed Y's personal budget and did not make reasonable adjustments for Miss X. Miss X and Y suffered avoidable distress. Y suffered loss of SEN provision. The Council should pay Miss X and Y 250 each for distress, pay Miss X 1,800 for missed SEN provision, produce an action plan and review policy. Medway Council (23 005 932)
Summary: There was service failure and delay by the Council in failing to complete an assessment for an EHC plan within the statutory timeframe. This has delayed provision being in place in time for a childs transition into school and has caused distress, uncertainty, time and trouble. In addition to service improvements the Council has already made, it will apologise to Ms X and make a symbolic payment to acknowledge the impact of delay. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (23 012 744)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an Education Health and Care needs assessment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing the complainant a significant injustice. Surrey County Council (23 004 581)
Summary: Mr X complains about several issues concerning how the Council responded to his request for some post adoption support. He complains about several delays, the support proposed, advice given and the Councils refusal to fund some of the familys costs. The Ombudsmans decision is there was fault with some delays and with not responding to Mr Xs complaint through the statutory childrens complaint procedure. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused to Mr X and his family. But we cannot question the merits of the professional assessment, or the proposed therapy that was commissioned from that assessment. Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (23 012 534)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about child protection. The matters complained of are not separable from matters relating to the contact and residence arrangements for Mr Xs children. These have been subject to court action. Mr X also has a right to go to court to seek new arrangements or to enforce existing arrangements that it would be reasonable to use. Liverpool City Council (23 013 224)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about children services actions because we cannot investigate issues involved in court proceedings and there are other bodies better placed. Oxfordshire County Council (22 012 504)
Summary: There was no fault in how the Council decided what support to provide to Mr and Mrs Xs child. The Council considered the relevant information when it made its decision. Nor was there any fault in how it considered school transport provision for Mr and Mrs Xs child. There was fault in how it then communicated the decision on what support it would provide, however the Council has already remedied any injustice to Mr and Mrs X, before our involvement. Kent County Council (23 001 283)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Councils failure to finalise her sons Education, Health and Care Plan within statutory timescales. We found fault because the Council took too long to issue the plan. Mrs X has suffered avoidable distress and frustration and Y lost the opportunity to benefit from the services set out in the plan from the time it should have been issued to when it was. To remedy the injustice caused by these faults, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X. West Sussex County Council (23 003 340)
Summary: Mrs F complained the Council failed to secure the provision in her sons education, health and care plan from January to June 2023 and failed to provide him with a suitable education from May 2022 to June 2023. We found fault which caused injustice. The Council has agreed to make a payment to remedy the loss of education to Mrs Fs son and the distress, time and trouble caused to Mrs F. Leicestershire County Council (23 007 992)
Summary: Ms X says the Council has failed to provide education for her child for two and a half years. We did not find fault with the Council failing to provide education for Ms Xs child. This is because, the responsibility for providing education fell with a different council. West Berkshire Council (23 008 286)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not arrange alternative provision for her daughter, W, when she stopped attending school. Ms X also complained the Council delayed reviewing Ws Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan, delayed issuing Ws draft EHC Plan and took too long to reply to her complaint. We will not investigate Ms Xs complaint about alternative provision further. The Council did not delay reviewing Ws EHC Plan or delay issuing her draft amended EHC Plan. The Council was at fault for delay in responding to Ms Xs complaint, which caused her frustration. It has agreed to apologise. Hertfordshire County Council (23 009 102)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not follow the correct process for assessing her child, W, for an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. She also complained the Council took too long to issue Ws EHC Plan. The Council was at fault for failing to send Miss X the outcome of its assessment, for poor communication and delay issuing Ws EHC Plan. This caused Miss X avoidable frustration and meant W missed out on fifteen weeks of EHC Plan provision. The Council will apologise to Miss X and pay her 1500 in recognition of her frustration and Ws lost provision. Dorset Council (23 009 368)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council wrongly refused her application for home to school transport for her child Y to the school named in Ys Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council was at fault as it should have treated the parental preference school as the nearest suitable school because it was the only one named in the Plan. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X to acknowledge the frustration caused, pay Ms Xs transport costs and provide guidance to staff. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (23 013 078)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils decision not to award Mrs Xs child free home to school transport. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Councils decision. Cumberland Council (23 010 393)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about poor professional practice in Childrens Social Care. That is because further investigation will not lead to a different outcome and there is a different body best placed to consider it. Cumberland Council (23 010 394)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about poor professional practice in Childrens Social Care. That is because further investigation will not lead to a different outcome and there is a different body best placed to consider it. Cumberland Council (23 010 396)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about poor professional practice in Childrens Social Care. That is because further investigation will not lead to a different outcome and there is a different body best placed to consider it. Birmingham City Council (23 011 228)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint about Birmingham Childrens Trusts decision to carry out Section 47 enquiries following two strategy discussions. We are unlikely to achieve a different outcome for her. Dorset Council (23 012 479)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about the Councils actions following care proceedings because it is reasonable for him to take the matter to court. Salford City Council (23 013 933)
Summary: The Council failed to complete the actions agreed following an earlier Ombudsman investigation within the agreed timescales. Birmingham City Council (23 014 922)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainants personal information. This is because the complaint has been raised with the Information Commissioner and further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome. Gloucestershire County Council (22 012 968)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint about the Councils handling of her daughters Education Health and Care Plan review. This is because the main issue concerns the content of the Plan and Mrs X had a right of appeal against this which it would have been reasonable for her to use. Derby City Council (22 013 653)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Councils failure to finalise her daughters Education, Health and Care Plan within statutory timescales, that she did not receive suitable education or receive specialist services outlined in her plan when it was finalised. We found fault because the Council failed to complete the plan on time, to deliver suitable education or to deliver services specified in the plan. Mrs X suffered avoidable frustration and distress and her daughter missed some of the education she should have received. To remedy the injustice caused by these faults, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X. Suffolk County Council (23 002 669)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to properly review her child Ds 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 D did not receive suitable education or support for their special educational needs. It also caused avoidable distress and uncertainty to D and Ms X, and lost opportunity for D. The Council agreed to apologise, re-assess Ds Education, Health, and Care needs, 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. Essex County Council (23 010 650)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint about the Council refusing to provide her children with free transport to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. Milton Keynes Council (23 011 271)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council is failing to follow Government guidelines on school transport. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Councils actions. Devon County Council (23 013 009)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council is not acting according to its school transport policy. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Councils actions to justify an investigation. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (23 011 762)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about children services actions as Mr X has now applied to Court. Lincolnshire County Council (23 012 783)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a delay in the Council sending a report. The Council has now provided the report and apologised. That remedies any injustice caused. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Bath and North East Somerset Council (23 013 444)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Councils actions leading to a decision to place Miss Xs child for adoption. This matter is not separable from the question of where and with whom the child should live, which only a court can decide. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (23 012 258)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils decision to not provide school transport for Ms Xs son. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it made its decision. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (23 012 843)
Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about a lack of support from the Council when Mrs X became a family foster carer. There is not a good reason for the delay in bringing the matter to the Ombudsman. |
