| 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. North Yorkshire Council (23 006 997)
Summary: Mrs D complained how the Council handled her daughters special educational needs. She says the Council delayed amending and finalising her daughters Education, Health and Care plan after the annual review. She also says the Council failed to provide her daughter with alternative provision after she stopped attending school. We find Council was at fault for its delays in dealing with Mrs Ds daughters Education, Health and Care plan after the annual review. It was also at fault for its communication about alternative provision. The Council offered Mrs D suitable personal remedies to address her injustice. However, we also recommend service improvements which the Council has agreed to implement. Northumberland County Council (23 008 782)
Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it handled Miss Xs school transport appeal. It considered her reasons for wanting transport for her daughter, but decided they did not justify deviating from its policy. We have no power to question this decision because there was no fault in how the Council made it. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (23 013 386)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils alleged failure to adhere to statutory requirements when responding to Mr Xs complaint. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to result in a different outcome. Somerset Council (23 014 967)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils decision not to assess Mrs Xs son for an Education Health and Care Plan. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to the SEND Tribunal. An appeal can give Mrs X the outcome she wants. Lancashire County Council (23 006 176)
Summary: the Council acknowledges it should have done more to ensure G received suitable education when she was unable to attend school. The Council said it will apologise to Mrs M and offered a payment to recognise the impact on Gs education. Derby City Council (22 013 740)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xs complaint about children services actions. We cannot investigate issues involved in court proceedings. And we are unlikely to add significantly to the Councils response to her complaint. Liverpool City Council (23 003 382)
Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about how the Council treated them as foster carers. There were delays in the statutory complaints process and the Council failed to properly remedy the injustice caused by the fault it accepted. The Council agreed to fully apologise to Mr and Mrs X, pay them a financial remedy and work to restore their fostering authorisation. North Somerset Council (23 009 104)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has not dealt properly with an application for a blue badge for her daughter. The Council is at fault because it took too long to consider her appeal. Mrs X and her family suffered avoidable distress and had to chase their appeal outcome. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X, pay Mrs X 300 for avoidable distress, pay Mrs X 100 for time and trouble and provide an update about its service review. Plymouth City Council (23 013 840)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr Xs complaint about bias by a social worker in assessing his family, drawing up a court report, and giving evidence in court. A legal bar prevents us investigating matters such as these, which are not separable from court proceedings. Kent County Council (23 014 811)
Summary: We cannot investigate Miss Xs complaint about the Council removing children from her care. This is because a legal bar prevents us investigating matters where there has been court action. Leeds City Council (23 003 818)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to secure the provision set out in her sons Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. She says this has caused his education and welfare to suffer and caused him distress. The Council is at fault for delay in reviewing and amending the EHC plan. Surrey County Council (23 004 774)
Summary: MrsX complained the Council failed to complete her daughter, Ys, Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment and produce an EHC Plan in line with statutory deadlines. We find the Council at fault for missing statutory deadlines and for not keeping MrsX updated throughout the process. We recommend the Council apologise to MrsX and make a payment to recognise the injustice caused. Surrey County Council (23 006 680)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to make appropriate alternative education provision when her son was not attending school which means his education and prospects have suffered. Mrs Xs son was a school refuser and for the academic year 2021/22 a suitable education was available and accessible. However, when alternative education provision was offered in the academic year 2022/23, Mrs Xs son was placed on a waiting list and no provision provided. This is fault for which a suitable remedy is agreed. Essex County Council (23 007 358)
Summary: There was excessive delay in completing an annual review and responding to complaints. There was also fault in the way the Council handled a request for education direct payments. This caused a loss of special educational provision and unnecessary distress, time and trouble. The Council will apologise, make symbolic payments and consider how to improve the timeliness of its service. The complaint is upheld. Portsmouth City Council (23 007 556)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide education to her child since July 2022. Ms X also complained the Council failed to provide her child with special education provision detailed in their Education Health Care Plan. We found fault with the Council failing to provide suitable alternative provision of education for Ms Xs child for two full terms. We also found fault with the Council delaying production of Ms Xs child EHC Plan and failing to put in place the provision detailed in the EHC Plan for seven months. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and her child and pay Ms X 200 for the frustration and uncertainty the delays have caused. The Council also agreed to pay Ms X 4,000 for her childs missed education. Hampshire County Council (23 007 811)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xs complaint about the Councils decision to take safeguarding action. The Council has started care proceedings and the courts are involved. We cannot consider the complaint properly until after those proceedings have finished. Surrey County Council (23 014 869)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the education provision for Mr Xs child and the Councils decision not to investigate his complaint. This is because the complaint is about the internal management of a school which falls outside our jurisdiction. The law also says we cannot consider complaints about the actions of councils in relation to matters that are outside our jurisdiction. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (23 015 948)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about The Council not making the provision specified in Mr Xs Education Health and Care Plan required by a Tribunal. The Council ended the Plan in February 2022, giving a right of appeal to a Tribunal it would have been reasonable for Mr X to use. Even if this were not so, the complaint is also late, and there would be no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate it now. Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (22 005 150)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not properly follow the childrens statutory complaint procedure when it considered complaints she made, and its remedies did not reflect the injustice she was caused by the complaints it did uphold. There was no fault in how the Council considered Miss Xs complaint. The Council has taken appropriate action to remedy the injustice caused by faults it found during the childrens statutory complaint procedure. Cumberland Council (23 001 475)
Summary: We found fault with the way the Council carried out stage three of the statutory childrens complaint procedure for the complainants (Mr and Mrs X). The Council delayed completing stage three and sending review panel papers. The review panel excluded some issues from the investigation. Some of the Councils failings caused Mr and Mrs X injustice. The Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment to recognise Mr and Mrs Xs distress, send them the Children Looked After review minutes and invitations to any future meetings and explore the best way to communicate with them about their children. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (23 013 392)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about children services actions. The Council has now agreed to follow the Children Act statutory complaints procedure. Medway Council (23 013 628)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xs complaint about matters relating to the Councils child protection involvement with her family and about a data breach. The child protection matter lies outside our jurisdiction because it is being considered in court proceedings and the data matter is best considered by the Information Commissioners Office. West Sussex County Council (23 013 742)
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. It will also apologise and offer to make a payment to the complainant to remedy the time and trouble they have been too. Hertfordshire County Council (23 013 751)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about an assessment of his family carried out by the Council. The matters complained of are not separable from the issue of the contact and residence arrangements for Mr Xs child. These have been subject to a court order, and the assessment was carried out to consider new arrangements. Mr X has a right to go to court it would be reasonable to use if he disputes the Councils views about contact. Where court action has already commenced, we have no power to investigate related matters. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (23 013 944)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the alleged unlawful removal of two children from Ms Xs care by the Council. The matter complained of is not separable from matters subject to court action. Buckinghamshire Council (23 014 272)
Summary: We cannot investigate Ms Xs complaint about information a social worker provided to the court in ongoing proceedings 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. We have no discretion to do so. Cumberland Council (23 004 233)
Summary: Mrs X complained that although her son has been too unwell to attend school since January 2023 the Council has failed to provide him with any alternative educational provision. The Councils failure to provide alternative educational provision and the delay in the EHC plan process are fault. These faults have caused B and Mrs X an injustice. City of Doncaster Council (23 006 403)
Summary: We have found fault with the Council for delays finding Mrs Xs son a specialist school placement and issuing his Education Health Care Plan. This meant that her son missed out on education and Mrs Xs appeal rights were delayed. The Council has agreed to remedy Mrs Xs familys injustice. Cornwall Council (23 006 828)
Summary: The Council was at fault because of a significant delay in issuing an education, health and care plan for the complainants son. This caused uncertainty, for which the Council has agreed to offer a small financial remedy. It has also committed to issuing the plan within one month. However, we are not persuaded there is evidence of significant fault in how the Council made arrangements for alternative provision for the child. We have therefore completed our investigation. North Northamptonshire Council (23 013 521)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint about the charging structure at a private nursery. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council exercised its monitoring function for the free early education entitlement to warrant investigation. Whether the nursery offers term-time only fees is not a function of the Council and we cannot investigate the actions of the nursery. Oxfordshire County Council (23 013 664)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X complaint about information passed to the Police and HMRC. The Information Commisioners Office is better placed to consider this potential data protection breach. Leeds City Council (23 013 712)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Education Health and Care Plan process for Ms Xs son. This is because Ms X appealed to a tribunal and so the case is outside our jurisdiction. Milton Keynes Council (23 013 724)
Summary: We cannot investigate Miss Xs complaint about the Council placing her son in the wrong school. She has used her right of appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. Leicestershire County Council (23 013 862)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council social workers alleged misconduct. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to result in a worthwhile outcome. Wakefield City Council (23 016 219)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs Xs complaint concerning the conduct of a Council officer. This is because of legal action in which the officer has been involved. Therefore, any matters arising to the court action lie outside our jurisdiction. Cornwall Council (23 000 941)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to ensure her son, C, received the provision outlined in his education, health and care plan and received full-time education. The Council failed to check whether C was receiving the provision outlined in his plan and failed to ensure he received full-time equivalent education when he was placed at an alternative provision school. The Council will apologise, make payment for the loss of education and take action to prevent reoccurrence. Surrey County Council (23 003 593)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to deliver all the special educational provision in his childs Education, Health and Care plan, and about its communication failures. We have found fault by the Council in failing to deliver the Occupational Therapy (OT) provision, a delay in arranging some other parts of the provision, and failing to communicate properly, causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising, making payments to reflect the distress caused and the impact of the missed provision, taking action to put the OT provision in place and update Mr X, and making service improvements. Brighton & Hove City Council (23 006 942)
Summary: The Council was at fault for delaying putting in place suitable education for Mr Xs son. The Council was also at fault for not putting in place the special educational provision in Mr Xs sons Education, Health and Care plan while he could not take up his school placement. This caused injustice as Mr Xs son has missed out on education and special educational provision he should have received. The Council agreed to apologise, make a payment to recognise the loss of education and agree a plan with the childs school to establish what measures can be put in place while a teaching assistant is recruited. London Borough of Haringey (23 011 306)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils refusal to refund Ms X a deposit she paid to a fee-paying school to secure a place for her child. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and we could not achieve the outcome Ms X wants. Peterborough City Council (23 003 640)
Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council considered her complaint about its change in policy for adoption allowance and special guardianship allowance through the childrens statutory complaint procedure. The Council was at fault for delays in the statutory childrens complaints process. It was also at fault for failing to complete some of the recommendations made during the statutory complaints process. The Council agreed to write to Mrs X, apologise, and pay her 150 in recognition of the injustice caused by the faults. Norfolk County Council (23 007 519)
Summary: Mr X complains the Council did not properly manage the investigation into his complaint and were not transparent with him about the statutory complaints process. Mr X says this meant he could not engage with the complaints process. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for its handling of the statutory complaints process. This meant Mr X could not make a fully informed decision. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and offer him the opportunity to have his complaint considered at stage three. Central Bedfordshire Council (23 013 719)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint that the Council has wrongly refused to assess her child via its children with disabilities team rather than its children in need team. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement. Warwickshire County Council (23 013 858)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about his childrens care while the Council cared for them and whether an Adoption Order should be revoked. We cannot investigate issues and events which could have been or were part of Court proceedings. Hertfordshire County Council (22 013 252)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide an education for her daughter when she was unable to attend school. She also expressed concerns about the way the council responded to her complaint. We found there was fault by the Council. It failed to ensure Y received an education and there was fault in the way it responded to the complaint. We recommended an apology and a payment to recognise the missed education. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (22 017 078)
Summary: The Council was at fault for not putting in place adequate provision for a child when they were out of school. The Council was also at fault for the time taken to find the child a school placement. This caused injustice as the child has fallen behind in their development. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise, make a payment to acknowledge loss of education to the child and secure the child suitable alternative provision while it finds a school placement. Devon County Council (23 005 653)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed considering alternative provision referrals for her daughter, F between January and May 2023. The Council delayed considering alternative provision requests on two occasions. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to Miss X to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty the delays caused. London Borough of Bexley (23 013 466)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xs complaint about the Councils policy related to early years funding. This is because in its response to her complaint, the Council has accepted there is contradiction between clauses in the funding agreement. It has apologised to Ms X and agreed to review the agreement. Further investigation by us would achieve nothing more. Lancashire County Council (23 013 684)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils alleged failure to properly conduct an independent review panel. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Councils actions. North Yorkshire Council (23 014 160)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. Norfolk County Council (23 010 638)
Summary: There was no fault in how the Council managed allegations of poor safeguarding practices relating to Mr X, in his role as a person who worked with children. It followed its process and oversaw an investigation carried out by the body who commissioned Mr X. At the end of the investigation, it decided to substantiate the allegations and there is no fault in how it made this decision. Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (23 013 068)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xs complaint about children services actions. The Council has now agreed to follow the Children Act statutory complaints procedure. Herefordshire Council (23 013 342)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xs complaint about the Councils response to a child protection complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the substantive matters or the complaint handling to warrant our involvement, and matters concerning disputed contact with children are for a court to decide. A data breach is a matter the Information Commissioners Office is better placed to consider. Recent matters involving alleged delay in arranging a test are ones we could only consider after the Council has had an opportunity to deal with a complaint. London Borough of Islington (23 013 361)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils child protection involvement in Ms Xs familys case. The Council has offered a symbolic financial remedy in line with our Guidance on Remedies. The courts are best placed to consider claims for compensation. Essex County Council (23 014 001)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils alleged failure to follow the correct process in relation to a child protection hearing. This is because an investigation would not lead to a worthwhile outcome. |
