| 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. Surrey County Council (23 004 580)
Summary: MrsX complained the Council delayed in issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan for her son, Y, and failed to make alternative provision available for him while he was out of school. We find the Council at fault for failing to explore alternative provision options. The Council has agreed to apologise to MrsX and Y, make a payment to recognise the injustice caused by the fault, and act to prevent recurrence. London Borough of Hillingdon (23 006 468)
Summary: Ms B says the Council failed to provide education to her son, failed to keep her up-to-date with what was happening, failed to update her sons education, health and care plan and delayed responding to her complaint. The Council failed to put in place education for part of the period, did not always respond to Ms Bs queries, failed to meet with her as it agreed to do and delayed responding to her complaint. An apology, reminder to officers and payment to Ms B is satisfactory remedy. Derby City Council (23 008 579)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed agreeing funding for her son, W, after it decided he needed education outside of a school setting. The Council was not at fault in how much it agreed to pay for Ws provision, but was at fault in how it backdated the payment. This caused Ms X significant frustration and uncertainty, for which the Council should apologise and make a symbolic payment. The Council should also backdate the payment and issue reminders to staff on the correct annual review process and Education, Health and Care Plan amendment process to staff. Trafford Council (23 008 628)
Summary: Ms D complained the Council failed to provide her son with a full-time education when he stopped attending school. We find the Council was at fault for its delay in providing Ms Ds son with alternative provision. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault. Staffordshire County Council (23 008 677)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide the provision specified in her daughter, Ys Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan between October 2022 and May 2023 and failed to issue an amended Plan after the review meeting in May 2023. Mrs X also complained the Council delayed responding to her complaint and has not provided an explanation for the lack of provision. The Council failed to secure Ys specialist provision for two and a half terms and delayed in responding to Mrs Xs complaint. The Council agreed to pay Mrs X 200 for the injustice caused to her and 2000 to recognise Ys missed provision. Hertfordshire County Council (23 009 842)
Summary: There was fault by the Council. It took too long to complete a consultation of schools and to consider an EOTAS package that might meet a childs special educational needs. It also failed to follow the process to amend the Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan without a review. Ms Bs son was without proper educational provision in accordance with his EHC Plan. This impacted on him and caused the family distress. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (23 009 970)
Summary: Mrs X complains on behalf of Mrs Y, that Mrs Ys son, Z, has not received specific therapeutic provision detailed in his Education and Health Care Plan. There was fault by the Council because it did not treat the lack of therapeutic provision with the urgency it required due to a dispute with a third party. This fault along with a delay in responding to Mrs Xs complaint has caused Mrs Y frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused. Leeds City Council (23 010 041)
Summary: Miss X complained that the Council delayed her sons Education, Health and Care Plan annual review. We have found the Council at fault for the delays which caused Miss X stress and frustration and delayed her right of appeal. Wokingham Borough Council (23 014 442)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xs complaint about the home to school transport offered to her son. This is because it is reasonable for Ms X to use the Councils own appeals process to challenge its decisions. The Council has agreed to reimburse Ms X for transport she provided while her son received Education Other Than At School. An investigation at the current time would not achieve anything more. Somerset Council (23 016 274)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education Health and Care Plan process for the complainants child. This is because the complainant has appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). This places most of the complaint outside our jurisdiction. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable from considering the remainder of this complaint. Hampshire County Council (23 016 406)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the conduct of an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment. This is because the complainant has used his right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) London Borough of Bromley (23 016 470)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Councils decision not to assess Miss Xs child for and Education, Health and Care needs assessment because Miss X has already appealed to the SEND Tribunal about the same matter. London Borough of Brent (23 016 761)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils involvement with a primary school. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence the complainant has suffered a significant personal injustice from the matter complained about. We also have no powers to investigate complaints from public bodies. Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (23 016 764)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils decision not to provide Mr X with a backdated travel assistance personal budget. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Councils actions. City of York Council (23 001 150)
Summary: Miss Y complains the Council wrongly withdrew a proposed package of extended financial support for a Special Guardianship Order (SGO). The complaint was investigated through the statutory complaints procedure but did not conclude with the outcomes Miss Y hoped for. In our view, the investigation was thorough and evidence based but there is some outstanding personal injustice which the Council has agreed to remedy. Hertfordshire County Council (23 007 311)
Summary: There was no fault by the Council in the action it took following safeguarding concerns about Miss Bs children. Hampshire County Council (23 015 411)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr and Mrs Xs complaint about the Council refusing to investigate their children services complaint. We are unlikely to find fault. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (23 016 412)
Summary: We cannot investigate Miss Xs complaint about the contents of a report which has been considered in court proceedings because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been considered in court. We have no discretion to do so. Sheffield City Council (23 004 844)
Summary: The Council failed to take sufficient action to secure the speech and language therapy in Ms Xs daughters Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan). This caused Ms X frustration and caused her daughter to miss out on provision she was entitled to receive. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X 850, and carry out service improvements. It has also agreed to pay a financial remedy for ongoing missed provision. Kent County Council (23 006 773)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide the speech and language therapy in her son, Ys, Education Health and Care plan from June 2022. The Council was at fault. It should make a payment to remedy the injustice to Y caused by the missed provision. It should also pay Mrs X 500 for the avoidable time and trouble she was put to pursuing the matter and for failings in its complaints handling process. Kent County Council (23 006 845)
Summary: There was fault by the Council causing injustice to Miss B and her family. The Council took too long to issue a final Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan following a review of this. It took too long to deal with Miss Bs complaints and to consider her request for a personal budget for her daughters education. The Council also did not do enough to make sure it was providing the education set out in her daughters EHC Plan. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice to Miss B and her child. West Sussex County Council (23 007 148)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to carry out an Education, Health and Care needs assessment for his child Y and failed to provide Y with any suitable education in the meantime. The Council was at fault for failing to decide whether to issue an EHC plan within the statutory timescales, caused by a delay in obtaining Educational Psychologist advice, and for not properly considering its duty to provide alternative education provision. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Mr X 1800 to recognise the frustration and uncertainty the delays caused him and to acknowledge Ys missed education provision, to make an ongoing payment of 100 per month until it issues Ys final EHC plan, and to issue staff guidance. Central Bedfordshire Council (23 007 275)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide appropriate alternative education and special educational provision for her child when they were unable to attend school, and delayed issuing an education, health and care plan. She said the missed education had an impact on her child, and it also caused her and her family unnecessary and avoidable distress. We find the Council at fault, and this caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (23 008 901)
Summary: The Council was at fault for causing a delay to Mrs Bs sons special educational needs support. As it is unlikely that the benefit of this support can now be recovered, the Council has agreed to make symbolic payments to Mrs B to recognise the injustice she and her son experienced. Essex County Council (23 010 582)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council named an unsuitable school in his daughter, Fs Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan following an annual review, failed to respond to his request for a re-assessment of Fs needs and did not respond to his mediation request. The Council was at fault. It did not respond to Mr Xs request for an EHC needs re-assessment. It then took six months to respond to his complaint about mediation. The Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mr X to recognise the distress and uncertainty caused. It will also consider whether to carry out an EHC needs re-assessment without further delay. Nottinghamshire County Council (23 011 077)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly assess her childs Education, Health, and Care needs within statutory timescales. There were delays which caused avoidable distress for Mrs X and her child. The Council agreed to pay a financial remedy to Mrs X. It will also provide an update to the Ombudsman about the progress it has made in clearing its backlog for Education, Health, and Care needs assessments. Leeds City Council (23 011 225)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed the education, health and care needs assessment process for her child. She said this caused unnecessary distress and anxiety. We find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs X to remedy the injustice caused. London Borough of Redbridge (23 016 798)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint from a parent about the school admission appeal panels refusal of her appeal for a school place for her child. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel to justify our involvement. London Borough of Redbridge (23 018 916)
Summary: A parent complained about the school admission appeal panels decision to reject her appeal for an infant school place for her child. But we will not investigate this matter as there is insufficient evidence of fault by the panel to justify our involvement. Surrey County Council (23 019 026)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils actions following a delay in issuing an Education Health and Care Plan. This is because it is reasonable for the complainant to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). Leicestershire County Council (23 003 705)
Summary: There was no fault in the Councils decision-making in relation to allegations against Mr and Mrs X. The Council considered the information it had and there is no obvious flaw in the way it decided. Additionally, there was no fault the Council decided not to review its earlier finding on Mr X, after it was aware of flaws in the initial investigation by a fostering agency. However, there was fault in how it communicated its decision it had overturned its earlier findings about Mrs X. That fault caused Mrs X an injustice and the Council have agreed to my recommendation to remedy Mrs Xs injustice. Kent County Council (23 014 845)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about inaccurate information recorded about the complainant. This is because the matter is now subject to court proceedings. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (23 016 192)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils actions when Miss X looked after her grandchild. Investigation by us would be unlikely to add to the Councils investigation, and part of the complaint is not separable from issues of contact with the child, which is a matter for a court that we are legally prevented from investigating. Leicestershire County Council (23 016 409)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils actions following an allegation made against the complaint. This is because there is no prospect that investigation by the Ombudsman would conclude that the Councils actions caused Mr X the injustice he claims. Devon County Council (23 018 088)
Summary: We uphold this complaint because the Council declined to complete the statutory process for complaints about childrens services. The Council has agreed to resolve the matter by providing a suitable remedy for the injustice the complainant has been caused. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (23 017 848)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled Miss Xs application for a school place. This is because the Council was acting on behalf of an academy school. We have no powers to consider complaints about academies. London Borough of Brent (23 016 407)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in its involvement with the complainants daughter. This is because investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Surrey County Council (22 014 302)
Summary: Ms X complained about the Councils handling of an Education, Health and Care needs assessment for her son (Y), its conduct during her appeal to the Special Educational Needs Tribunal and failing to provide all the specialist provision in Ys Education Health and Care plan. We have not investigated all of Ms Xs complaints because she has exercised her appeal rights to the tribunal. We found the Council at fault for delay in putting in place provision in Ys plan and of its handling of Ms Xs complaints and associated matters. The Council agreed to make a payment in recognition of the injustice caused. West Sussex County Council (23 002 908)
Summary: Ms C complains the Council did not review or update her sons Education, Health and Care Plan as it should have. It delayed putting any alternative education in place and finding a new school after D stopped attending his previous school. Its communications were poor. The Ombudsman upholds the complaint and the Council has agreed to our recommendations. Staffordshire County Council (23 009 782)
Summary: Mrs D complains the Council delayed carrying out an Education, Health and Care needs assessment for her son. The Ombudsman upholds the complaint and the Council has agreed to our recommendations. Devon County Council (23 011 095)
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 was at fault. It 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 payment to Miss X to acknowledge the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused to her and F as a result of the delays. North Yorkshire Council (23 016 234)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the school the complainants child attends. We cannot consider most complaints about what happens in schools and so the complaint is outside our jurisdiction. London Borough of Lambeth (23 007 725)
Summary: We uphold complaints made on behalf of Ms D and Ms E that the Council inappropriately rejected their complaints made about children services because it said they made those complaints too late. Fault in those decisions caused Ms D and Ms E injustice as it denied them access to the complaint procedure and caused them unnecessary frustration, time and trouble. During our investigations the Council took action that we consider remedied this injustice. So, we have completed our investigations. London Borough of Lambeth (23 007 726)
Summary: We uphold complaints made on behalf of Ms D and Ms E that the Council inappropriately rejected their complaints made about children services because it said they made those complaints too late. Fault in those decisions caused Ms D and Ms E injustice as it denied them access to the complaint procedure and caused them unnecessary frustration, time and trouble. During our investigations the Council took action that we consider remedied this injustice. So, we have completed our investigations. Hertfordshire County Council (23 008 214)
Summary: Mrs F complained that the Council delayed assessing her daughter as a child in need, did not properly consider safeguarding concerns and failed to provide her with social care support. There was fault which caused uncertainty and distress to Mrs F and her daughter. The Council has agreed to . City of York Council (23 014 405)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council assessed the complainants parenting skills. This is because the assessment has been considered in court. North Yorkshire Council (23 015 839)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an acknowledged data breach in a sensitive matter by the Council. We could not deliver the outcome Mr X is seeking, which is a large financial settlement to enable him to move to another area. He has a right to go to court to seek damages it would be reasonable to use. Essex County Council (23 001 035)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not respond to her request for a Personal Budget, meaning her child did not receive tutoring and support he should have. There was some fault by the Council in the way it communicated with Ms X about her request to use additional funding as a Personal Budget, however this did not cause her significant injustice. We have not investigated Ms Xs other complaints about delays in issuing a final Education, Health and Care plan as we previously agreed a remedy for any injustice this caused. We cannot investigate Ms Xs complaint about the content of the latest Education, Health and Care plan the Council issued as Ms X has appeal rights to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) which she has exercised. Staffordshire County Council (23 006 402)
Summary: Mr F complained about his dealings with the Council in connection with his request for an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for his daughter, G. Most of Mr Fs complaints are outside the Ombudsmans jurisdiction because they concern appeals to the SEND Tribunal. There was a two-month delay by the Council making a decision following Mr Fs first appeal due to a shortage of Educational Psychologists. We recommended a remedy for this delay. Derbyshire County Council (23 008 346)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan for her daughter. Mrs X says the Councils actions caused avoidable distress and anxiety to her daughter and to the family. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to provide an apology and financial remedy to Mrs X, and to provide us with evidence of the steps it has taken to improve its special educational needs and disability assessment service. Nottinghamshire County Council (23 008 493)
Summary: Ms X complains about the Councils delay in carrying out an annual review and reassessment of her childs Education Health and Care Plan causing distress and uncertainty. We found there was service failure by the Council due to the delay in carrying out the Education Health and Care Plan reassessment. We have recommended a suitable remedy in this case and so have completed our investigation. Nottinghamshire County Council (23 010 519)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to carry out an Education, Health and Care needs assessment and to issue an Education, Health and Care Plan for her son, Y, in line with statutory timescales. The Council was at fault. It agreed to pay Miss X 575 to recognise the uncertainty and frustration caused to her. Cambridgeshire County Council (23 010 886)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint about the Councils handling of her childs Education, Health, and Care (EHC) needs assessment. She says the Council delayed in making its decision to decline to issue an EHC plan and failed to respond to her request for mediation. This is because the alleged faults have not caused any significant injustice. In addition, any complaint about the decision not to issue an EHC plan is outside the Ombudsmans jurisdiction as Mrs X had appeal rights. Nottinghamshire County Council (23 013 775)
Summary: Ms X complains about the Councils delay in carrying out an annual review and reassessment of her childs Education Health and Care Plan causing distress and uncertainty. We found there was service failure by the Council due to the delay in carrying out the Education Health and Care Plan reassessment. We have recommended a suitable remedy in this case and so have completed out investigation. Derbyshire County Council (23 017 127)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xs complaint about the Councils actions during her childs Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan annual review and the content of the final amended plan. This is because Ms X has a right of appeal to the tribunal about the content of the amended plan and it is reasonable for her to use it. A complaint about the Councils actions during the annual review process is connected to and could form part of an appeal, so we cannot investigate this. Kent County Council (23 001 026)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a social worker disclosing records to Miss Xs family. There is another agency better placed than us to consider if there has been a data breach. We will not investigate the actions of the Council leading to the removal of Miss Xs children as the matters complained of are historic. There is no good reason to exercise discretion to consider them now. It is also likely that these matters would not be separable from matters before a court, as a court order would have been required to remove Miss Xs children. As such we would be legally barred from investigating them. Torbay Council (23 014 116)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council conducting child protection enquiries in respect of Mr and Mrs Xs child. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation. Leicestershire County Council (23 016 032)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker in 2015 and 2016. The complaint is late and there is no good reason for the Ombudsman to consider it now. Hampshire County Council (23 016 563)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xs complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Councils decision not to investigate her complaint about a social worker until the ongoing private court proceedings have concluded. The Council has clearly explained the reason for its decision and there is nothing further we could add were we to investigate. Gloucestershire County Council (22 009 887)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the failure to provide a suitable education for her daughter from June 2022 onwards including failing to provide an integration plan and failure to provide special educational needs provision. She says this affected her daughters educational attainment and caused distress. The Council has provided a remedy for the lack of provision for June and July 2022. There is no evidence of further fault by the Council. West Sussex County Council (23 000 130)
Summary: Mrs Y complains about the Councils failure to provide education for her child, D, when they stopped attending school. Mrs Y also complains the Council failed to meet statutory timescales when assessing and issuing Ds Education Health and Care Plan. The Council also failed to respond to Mrs Ys complaint. In the parts of the complaint within our jurisdiction, we find fault which caused injustice to Mrs Y and D. The Council has agreed to implement the remedial actions listed at the end of this statement. Bedford Borough Council (23 009 125)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide suitable education for his child from October 2022 until October 2023. Mr X also complained the Council delayed in updating his sons Education and Health Care (EHC Plan) and placed his son at an unsuitable school. We found fault with the Council failing to provide suitable education for Mr Xs son for half a term. We also found fault with the Council completing the annual review process six-weeks outside the statutory timescales. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him 1,000 for his sons missed education. Leeds City Council (23 009 924)
Summary: Miss X complained about the Councils poor communication. She said the Council has failed to issue her sons education, health and care plan within the statutory timescale. She also said the Council has failed to make alternative provision while her son was unable to attend school. We find the Council was at fault. This caused significant stress to Miss X and her son was out of education. To address this injustice caused by fault, the Council has agreed to several recommendations. Cambridgeshire County Council (23 009 964)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide the provision in her sons EHC Plan. Mrs X also complained the Council delayed in reviewing her sons EHC Plan and, when it did complete the review, failed to complete the review process correctly. We found fault with the Council for delays in reviewing Mrs Xs sons EHC Plan. We also found fault with the failure to consider provision for preparation for adulthood at the correct time, failing to make the 2023 annual review accessible to Mrs Xs son and failing to consult with relevant professional. We also found fault with the Council failing to provide a transition plan for Mrs Xs son to access education in school and failing to provide educational support from his EHC Plan. The Council agreed to pay Mrs X 8,400 for the missed educational provision and 750 for avoidable distress. The Council also agreed to pay the 4,050 reimbursement figure it suggested for private Clinical Psychologist costs and follow through on its promised service improvements to publish information on its Local Offer Information Hub. London Borough of Barnet (23 015 770)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about procedural fault in the process of reviewing the complainants sons Education Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) and about the EHC Plans content. This is because the complainant has used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). By law, this prevents us from considering the content of the EHC Plan, and the procedural fault is not separable from the matters which are the subject of the appeal. South Gloucestershire Council (23 016 043)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the contents of an Education Health and Care plan. This is because it is made on behalf of a school which is a public body. Northumberland County Council (23 010 681)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council refused to accept her complaint about a lack of help and support in relation to her husband Mr Y and her son, F who was a Child in Need. The Council was at fault for failing to investigate her complaint under the statutory childrens complaints procedure. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and start a stage two investigation to remedy the injustice caused. Buckinghamshire Council (23 015 834)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils involvement with the complainants family. This is because we cannot consider complaints about matters that were or could be raised in court. Salford City Council (23 015 879)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council reached a flawed decision to substantiate an allegation concerning Mrs X. This is because the evidence it had would have been sufficient for it to reach the conclusion it did even if it had acted differently. Cheshire East Council (23 016 304)
Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Councils involvement in Mr Xs childrens case in 2017. There is not a good reason for the significant delay bringing the complaint to us, and the Information Commissioners Office is best placed to consider any more recent concerns relating to accessing information. |
