| 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. Essex County Council (23 009 675)
Summary: Mrs D complained the Council failed to provide her daughter with a suitable education when she was not attending school. We find the Council was at fault for failing to deliver a suitable education. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault. Derbyshire County Council (23 011 667)
Summary: Ms X complains about the Councils delay in carrying out an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment on her child Y who was receiving a part time education causing distress, uncertainty, and loss of education. The Council has accepted it was at fault and we have found there was service failure by the Council due to the delay in carrying out the needs assessment. The Council has already apologised to Ms X for the delay. It has offered her a payment for her time and trouble and distress caused. It has also offered a payment for the loss of education to Y during a term in 2022. We consider the Councils offer is a suitable remedy in this case and so have completed our investigation. Devon County Council (23 012 303)
Summary: Ms 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 and delayed Ms Xs right of appeal to the SEND tribunal. The Council agreed to make a payment to Ms X to acknowledge the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused to her. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (23 017 715)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xs complaint about the Councils handling of her childs special educational needs and education, health, and care plan between 2017 and 2023. This is because her complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint. Derbyshire County Council (23 017 911)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about the Councils failure to properly assess risks to his child. This is because the reports prepared were for court hearings, and the Ombudsman cannot investigate matters considered by a court of law. Oxfordshire County Council (23 008 228)
Summary: Mrs G and Mr Y complained about the Councils investigation under the statutory childrens complaints procedure into child protection matters regarding their granddaughter/daughter, F which resulted in contact restrictions. Although delayed, the Council properly investigated their complaints but failed to provide an adequate remedy for the injustice caused by the faults it identified. The Council agreed to make payments to Mrs G and Mr Y to acknowledge the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused. South Gloucestershire Council (23 017 640)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr Xs complaint about a social workers court reports. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is about matters that have been considered in court proceedings. The law prevents us from considering complaints about such matters. London Borough of Wandsworth (23 018 911)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the circumstances in which the Council took the complainants children into its care. This is because the complaint concerns matters which were considered in court, or are closely related to those matters. Suffolk County Council (23 019 479)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council allegedly breaching the complainants confidentiality. This is because the Information Commissioners Office is the appropriate body to consider the complaint. North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (23 019 726)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Bs complaint about a social workers conduct and the information they provided as part of court proceedings. This is because the complaint concerns matters which have been considered in court or are closely related to those matters. We will also not investigate Miss Bs complaint the care planning for her children is not following the courts orders. This is because she needs to complete the Councils complaints procedure before we can consider it. North Northamptonshire Council (23 003 369)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint about the Council failing to provide an education between March 2021 and February 2022. There are no good reasons the late complaint rule should not apply. Wokingham Borough Council (23 008 039)
Summary: There was no fault the Council did not allocate a school place to Mr and Mrs Xs child at National Offer Day. Nor was there fault in how it decided Mr and Mrs Xs child was not eligible for school transport assistance. The Council followed its policy and gave reasons which are in line with the evidence I have seen. Devon County Council (23 009 856)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed issuing her son, Fs Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and failed to ensure he received a suitable full-time education between 2021 and 2023 when he spent periods of time on a part time timetable. 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. It then further delayed issuing Fs final Plan. It also failed to maintain proper oversight of Fs time spent on a part time timetable between January and July 2023. The Council agreed to make payments to Ms X to recognise the injustice caused and carry out a service improvement. Coventry City Council (23 009 940)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide education for her child who was medically unfit to attend school. Ms X also complained the Council delayed in finalising her childs Education and Health Care (EHC) Plan and failed to provide provision from the previous EHC Plan. We found fault with the Council failing to provide education for Ms Xs child for slightly over one and a half terms. We also found fault with the Council failing to provide provision from the EHC Plan for the same time. We also found the Council at fault for delays in finalising the EHC Plan. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X, pay her 2,625 for the missed educational provision and 300 for the uncertainty and stress caused through the EHC Plan delays. The Council also agreed to provide training and guidance to its staff. Kent County Council (23 010 490)
Summary: Ms D complained the Council has failed to provide her son with an education after the SEND Tribunals decision in June 2022. She also says the Council delayed responding to her complaint about the matter. We find the Council was at fault for failing to deliver the education and provision in Ms Ds sons Education, Health and Care Plan. It also significantly delayed responding to Ms Ds complaint. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault. Buckinghamshire Council (23 012 192)
Summary: The complainant (Mrs X) said the Council failed to ensure her son (Y) received the speech and language therapy provision identified in his Education Health and Care Plan. She also complained about the lack of occupational therapy support for Y and the Councils poor communication. The Council has accepted its fault and offered some remedies. We cannot look at the occupational therapy issues as Mrs X appealed the content of Ys Education Health and Care Plan in June 2022. The Council has agreed to make a higher payment to Mrs X to recognise Y's and Mrs X's injustice caused by the lack of the speech and language therapy provision for a whole year. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (23 013 228)
Summary: Miss X complained about the content of her daughter Ys Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan, about how the Council reviewed the Plan, provided education and refused her request for a reassessment of Ys needs. We found the Council delayed in completing the annual review of Ys EHC Plan, and did not tell Miss X of her appeal rights against its decision not to reassess Ys needs. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss X and pay her 400 to recognise the frustration this caused her. London Borough of Haringey (23 018 306)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xs complaint about children services actions. It is unlikely we would find fault in the Councils decision to refuse to accept a late request for a Children Act complaints procedure stage three. Coventry City Council (23 018 482)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils involvement in Miss Xs childrens case. The matter has been considered in court, and the law says we cannot investigate it too. London Borough of Lewisham (23 020 345)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xs complaint about children services actions. We have upheld Miss Xs complaint as the Council has now agreed to follow the Children Act statutory complaints procedure. Liverpool City Council (23 018 949)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils refusal to change the social worker assigned to the complainants family. This is because investigation would not achieve the outcome the complainant wants. West Northamptonshire Council (23 004 841)
Summary: The Council failed to provide education for Y when she was unable to attend school, and it delayed issuing an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. The Council has agreed to make payments to Y and Mrs X and to take action to prevent similar failings in future. Surrey County Council (22 013 838)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to name a suitable school in her daughters Education, Health and Care Plan. We have ended our investigation as Mrs Xs complaint is outside our jurisdiction. Surrey County Council (23 003 786)
Summary: Mr M and his mother complain the Council left him without education from 2019. It delayed reviewing his Education, Health and Care Plan, did not respond to their request to explore a personal budget and delayed referring them to the Councils Adult Social Care service for an assessment. We will not investigate some parts of Mr Ms complaint. But we have found fault with the parts we have investigated. The Council has agreed to our recommendation of an improved remedy to that which it had offered. Leicestershire County Council (23 004 123)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council caused delays in its Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment, failed to agree a necessary EOTAS provision budget and failed to provide provision under section 19. I have found fault with the Councils actions. There were significant delays in the assessment, a failure to review provision while C was out of school and fault in how it decided the EOTAS budget. The Council will apologise, act to remedy the loss of education and delayed appeal rights and review its policy to prevent the reoccurrence of fault. Norfolk County Council (23 005 064)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xs complaint about a cut in her childs therapies. We cannot investigate issues which have been part of a Tribunal appeal. West Sussex County Council (23 005 741)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her child with alternative education when she was unable to attend school due to ill health. The Council was at fault for failing to consider its duty under Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 from April 2022 to February 2023. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her 3250 to acknowledge the frustration, uncertainty and the loss of provision. Derbyshire County Council (23 007 209)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to secure the special educational needs provision in her child Ds Education, Health, and Care plan. The Council was at fault because it failed to ensure the plan was in place, which caused D to miss special educational needs provision. The Councils fault also caused avoidable time and trouble for Mrs X in pursuing her complaint. The Council agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy. It will also share a copy of our decision with, and issue reminders to, relevant staff. Dorset Council (23 009 049)
Summary: Miss X complained about the Councils failure to issue her sons Education, Health and Care Plan within statutory timescales. The Council was at fault because it took too long to issue the plan following an annual review. We have also found the Council at fault for not communicating with Miss X effectively. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and make a payment of 850 to acknowledge the loss of provision and the distress it caused. London Borough of Hillingdon (23 009 405)
Summary: X complained the Council failed to provide the OT provision specified in their childs EHC plan or reimburse the transport costs for their child attending school between September 2022 and July 2023. X also complained the Council has failed to properly assess their childs care needs or their own needs as a carer and has not provided adequate support. The Councils failure to ensure Y received the full OT provision set out in their EHC Plan is fault. As is the Councils delay and error in completing the annual review in 2023 and in issuing a final EHC Plan. This fault has caused X and Y an injustice. Oxfordshire County Council (23 009 808)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide her son, Y, who has an Education, Health and Care Plan, with a suitable, full-time education for a whole academic year. The law does not allow the Ombudsman to investigate the matters Miss X complains of because they were subject to a tribunal appeal. Therefore, we have ended our investigation of this complaint. Hertfordshire County Council (23 009 810)
Summary: Miss C complained about delays by the Council in taking action to support her child, who has special educational needs. We uphold the complaint. We find the Council delayed in consulting a specialist school, in obtaining advice about the childs speech and language needs and in completing a review of their Education, Health and Care Plan. These delays caused Miss C distress. The Council has accepted our findings and at the end of this statement we set out the action it has agreed to remedy this injustice and improve its service. Shropshire Council (23 011 046)
Summary: Mr F complains his son, B, has been out of school for two and a half years and the Council has refused to make alternative arrangements for his education. I have discontinued my investigation as the Council has now begun legal proceedings against Mr F in respect of Bs non-attendance. Hampshire County Council (23 011 362)
Summary: Miss X complained that the Council failed to issue an appropriate Education Health and Care Plan in time for her daughters transfer to post 16 college. Miss X had a right of appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal, and this prevents us investigating the complaint. We have therefore closed the complaint. London Borough of Ealing (23 014 480)
Summary: Ms M complained about the Councils decision not to provide home to school transport for her son, B. Ms Ms son has since moved to a new school and the Council now provides transport. Ms M does not wish to pursue her complaint, so I have ended my investigation. North Yorkshire Council (23 017 966)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint about the Councils home to school transport for her child, Y. This is because the Council has since agreed to change the provider and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. Liverpool City Council (23 018 093)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of an independent review panel that considered a schools decision to exclude Miss Xs child. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the panel reached its decision to warrant further investigation by us. Essex County Council (23 018 850)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs Xs complaint about the Councils refusal to assess her daughter for an Education Health and Care Plan. This is because Mrs X has used her right of appeal against the Councils decision. Norfolk County Council (23 019 894)
Summary: Mrs Y complained the Council implemented an unlawful policy to temporarily provide 50% of the speech and language provision in Education Health and Care Plans. We found fault by the Council because it implemented an unlawful policy and did not meet its statutory duties. This caused Mrs Y avoidable time and trouble in pursuing an end to the policy and complaining. The Council agreed to make Mrs Y a symbolic payment in recognition of the injustice caused to her. Derby City Council (23 005 352)
Summary: We have ended our investigation of Mr X and Mrs Ys complaint about the actions of health visitors commissioned by the Council to provide a service to families. This is because we consider: we cannot achieve the outcome they want; we cannot add to the previous investigation by the service provider and its response already represents a reasonable outcome to some of the complaint issues; there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or enough evidence any fault caused Mr X and Mrs Y injustice: and the information commissioner is better placed than us to look at some of their concerns. Cambridgeshire County Council (23 016 051)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils safeguarding officer not investigating a matter after Ms X said a school and a teaching agency had withheld information. The role of the safeguarding officer did not extend to investigating the schools own investigation of what was alleged. We cannot investigate the substantive actions of the school and the teaching agency. Cheshire West & Chester Council (23 018 704)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the circumstances in which the complainant's daughter went into the Councils care, contact with her while she was in care, and the complainants allegation that the Council breached data protection regulations. This is because the complaint concerns matters which were decided in court or are closely linked to those matters, and investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome. Suffolk County Council (23 016 952)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint about the Councils communication with her regarding an Education, Health and Care needs assessment of her child, Y. This is because Mrs X was not caused a significant injustice by the alleged fault. London Borough of Waltham Forest (23 018 488)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has declined to consult the schools of the complainants choice when considering which placement to name in her childs Education Health and Care Plan. This is because it would be reasonable for the complainant to use her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (22 005 293)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not review her childs education, health and care plan when it should have, failed to provide the provision in that plan, and failed to provide alternative education when her child could not attend school. Mrs X said there had been an impact on her child of the missed education and special provision, and a wider impact on the family. We find the Council at fault, and this caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to remedy the injustice caused. Kent County Council (22 018 130)
Summary: Miss B complained about matters connected to the Councils management of a personal budget she receives to meet some of her childs special educational needs. We upheld the complaint, mainly because the Council delayed too long in responding to Miss Bs complaints. We consider this caused her an injustice, as distress. The Council has accepted our findings and at the end of this statement, we set out the action it has agreed to remedy this injustice. Staffordshire County Council (23 000 151)
Summary: There was delay in completing an EHC needs assessment and a failure to ensure Ms Xs child was able to access suitable fulltime education on the same basis as their non-disabled peers. This caused distress and loss of education. There was also a failure to consider social care needs. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment and service improvements. The complaint is upheld. Birmingham City Council (23 005 051)
Summary: Miss X complains the Council has not properly dealt with Ys special educational needs. The Council has not completed annual reviews properly, has not communicated with Miss X and did not respond to her complaint. Y has lost special educational provision, missed educational opportunities and suffered avoidable distress. The Council has agreed to, in addition to its proposed remedy, pay Y 2,400 for the loss of educational provision. Leeds City Council (23 005 083)
Summary: Mrs X complained about delays in assessing her daughter, Zs, special educational needs. The Council accepted there was fault in delays issuing Zs Education Health and Care plan and how it failed to consider whether it needed to arrange alternative education for her when she was unable to attend school. The Council agreed to further apologise to Mrs X and Z, and to pay Mrs X a financial remedy. East Sussex County Council (23 005 967)
Summary: The complainant said that the Council failed to provide suitable education to her son, who has special educational needs. We find that there has been some fault causing injustice. We have recommended ways to remedy the injustice, which the Council has accepted. We are therefore closing the complaint. North Yorkshire Council (23 007 194)
Summary: The Council failed to ensure that Y received the special educational provision set out in their EHC Plan. The Council has agreed to apologise and make payments to Y and to Ms X and to take action to prevent similar failings in future. Buckinghamshire Council (23 012 413)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide a suitable education for her son, Y, who could not cope with attending a mainstream school due to anxiety and stopped attending in Summer 2021. We found there was fault by the Council and recommended a payment to reflect the loss of education. Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (23 012 818)
Summary: Ms Y complained the Council decided Placement H was a suitable setting for her child, X, despite concerns from Ms Y and Placement H. Ms Y said this led to X losing education and therapy provision. Ms Y also complained the Council delayed agreeing to her proposed education arrangements for X and delayed securing therapy provision. We have found the Council at fault for failing to secure the therapy provision in Xs Education, Health and Care Plan for the first term of the 2023/24 academic year. We have also found the Council at fault for some of its communication with Ms Y and for delay in responding to Xs emergency review. We have made recommendations to remedy the injustice this caused. Parts of Ms Ys complaint concerns matters which were part of, connected to, or could have been part of, an appeal to the SEND Tribunal. We cannot consider these matters. St Damian's RC Science College, Ashton-under-Lyne (23 013 446)
Summary: We found fault on Mr Ps complaint about the appeal panel rejecting his appeal against the admission authoritys decision to refuse his son a Year 7 place at the preferred school. There was no record of the panel considering and deciding to continue without a presenting officer, and whether this put him at a disadvantage. It also failed to address how it dealt with the questions it would have asked the officer when reaching a decision. The fault did not cause Mr P an injustice. Staffordshire County Council (23 003 076)
Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed considering a complaint at stage three of the childrens statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint by offering to make a payment to the complainant to remedy the time and trouble they have been to. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (23 010 123)
Summary: The Council has recognised that there were faults in its child protection procedures when deciding whether to place the complainants son on a child protection plan. We have recommended a way to remedy the injustice caused which the Council has accepted. We are therefore closing the complaint. Kent County Council (23 016 999)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint about children services actions. We have upheld Mrs Xs complaint as the Council has now agreed to follow the Children Act statutory complaints procedure. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (23 018 078)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils response to Mrs Xs report of safeguarding concerns at her sons nursery in 2018 and the accuracy of its more recent assessment of her family. Part of the complaint is late and we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X is seeking. Cambridgeshire County Council (23 018 815)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils actions relating to a court process. The law prevents us from investigating what happens as part of court proceedings. Nottinghamshire County Council (23 020 787)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council released confidential data during a meeting. This is because this is best dealt with by the Information Commissioner's Office. Surrey County Council (23 000 778)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide her daughter, Ms Y, with the provision set out in her Education, Health and Care Plan. We found fault because the Council failed to deliver some of Ms Ys provision, for a lack of timely and effective communication with Ms X and a delay in completing a statutory review. Ms X and Ms Y suffered avoidable distress and frustration in getting the issues resolved and Ms Y missed out on education she should have received. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Ms X and share guidance with relevant officers. |
