| 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. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (23 008 352)
Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of Mr Y. She complained the Council failed to provide Mr Y with education and the provision specified in his Education, Health and Care Plan since the SEND Tribunal decision in December 2021. She said Mr Y as missed education, provision and he was not prepared for moving to college. There was fault in the way the Council did not ensure Mr Y received the provision set out in his plan. Mr Y missed out on this provision for one year. The Council should apologise and make a financial payment to Mr Y. Coventry City Council (23 008 649)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not put in place suitable education for her child when she was out of school and delayed in issuing a final Education, Health and Care plan after an annual review. Ms X said her child has missed out on education she should have received and has had to wait longer than she should have for an updated Education, Health and Care plan. We have found the Council at fault for not putting in place appropriate education for Ms Xs child and for delaying in providing a final Education, Health and Care plan. The Council agreed to apologise, make a payment to recognise the loss of education and distress caused, and carry out some service improvements. Cumberland Council (23 009 481)
Summary: The Council took too long to issue a final Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan, following a review. During this time, the child has not been able to attend school due to the risk of harm. The Council failed to ensure that the child received the provision set out in the Plan or properly considered whether the Council has met its legal duty to make sure it provides a suitable education. Essex County Council (23 010 177)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed carrying out an Education, Health and Care needs assessment for her daughter and did not put in place education when she stopped attending school. Ms X said this has caused her daughter to fall behind in her education. We have found the Council at fault. The Council agreed to apologise, make a payment to recognise the loss of education and distress caused and carry out a service improvement. Lancashire County Council (23 011 766)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide an appropriate transition to secondary school for her son, Child Y, and failed to provide special educational provision set out in his Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council was at fault and caused Mrs X distress, uncertainty and time and trouble. It meant Child Y did not receive the specialist provision he was entitled to. The Council will pay Mrs X 2,500 to remedy the faults identified. Kent County Council (23 013 073)
Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council arranged alternative provision and special educational provision for her son, Z. The Council was at fault. The fault caused Miss X avoidable frustration and upset and meant Z missed out on educational and special educational provision they needed. To remedy their injustice, the Council will apologise and pay Miss X 4200. The Council recently carried out Ombudsman recommendations to improve its practice so no further actions are needed. London Borough of Hillingdon (23 014 974)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council significantly delayed reviewing her child, Zs, Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council was at fault, which caused Mrs X avoidable frustration and uncertainty and delayed her right of appeal. The Council will apologise and pay Mrs X 400 in recognition of that injustice. Gloucestershire County Council (23 017 507)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education Health and Care Plan process for the complainants son. This is because if we were to investigate it is unlikely we would achieve a different outcome. East Sussex County Council (23 019 158)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint about the Councils decision not to conduct an Education, Health and Care needs assessment of her child, Y. This is because Mrs X has a right of appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal, and it is reasonable for her to use that right. Gloucestershire County Council (23 017 870)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xs complaint about Children Services actions. The Council has agreed to follow the Children Act statutory complaints procedure. It will also provide a financial remedy for the delay in accepting the complaint. Plymouth City Council (23 019 406)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about data processing and data retention. This is because some of the information complained about is being considered by the courts. In addition, Mr X has taken the matter to the Information Commissioners Office which is best placed to consider this type of complaint. Kent County Council (23 007 102)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to progress her son, Cs, Education, Health and Care plan review and ensure it issued a final plan before 31 March 2023. The Council is at fault as it has delayed issuing a final Education, Health and Care plan for C. The Council will apologise and pay for the loss of educational provision. London Borough of Bromley (23 009 159)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to meet the statutory timescale when issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan and failed to provide her son with a suitable education for over a year causing distress. The Council accepts it did not issue the final plan within the statutory timescales. We have seen no evidence that it provided a suitable education that was available and accessible from January 2023 to September 2023. A suitable remedy is agreed. Buckinghamshire Council (23 009 957)
Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council handled her sons Education, Health and Care Plan annual review process. We have found fault with the Council for failing to consider Mrs Xs comments, causing delays and poor communication during this process. This caused Mrs X and her family avoidable distress. London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (23 010 342)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has declined to reimburse her for the cost of therapies she sourced privately to ensure the delivery of the provision set out in her son, Ys, Education and Health Care Plan. We have found fault by the Council with the annual review process, review of therapies provision and handling of Mrs Xs complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a financial payment to remedy the injustice caused to Mrs X. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (23 011 638)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to identify a suitable school placement or provide suitable alternative provision for her foster daughter, Y. The Councils failure to identify an alternative school placement and the delay in arranging suitable educational provision amounts to fault. This fault has caused Mrs X and Y an injustice. London Borough of Ealing (23 013 270)
Summary: Ms A complained that in March 2023 the Council wrongly stopped her son, Bs, school transport. She also said the Council took a long time to overturn its decision and it did not accept her complaints about the appeals process she made in November 2023. The Council was at fault for deciding to end Bs school transport. We also found the Councils appeals policy and corporate complaints policy were misleading. The Council has already agreed to provide school transport for B and to our further recommendations at the end of this decision on how to remedy the injustice its actions caused to Ms A and B. Hertfordshire County Council (23 013 633)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council has continued to fail to provide a suitable education for her daughter Y and has allowed further delay in the annual review process for Ys Education Health and Care Plan. The Councils failure to provide alternative education provision is fault. As are the delays in the annual review process and in considering Mrs Xs request for an Education Other Than At School package and personal budget. This fault has caused Mrs X and Y an injustice. Derbyshire County Council (23 017 300)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xs complaint about delays in producing an Education Health and Care Plan. Derby City Council (23 017 544)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils actions during the re-assessment of Miss Xs childs special educational needs. This is because the matters complained of are not separable from the decision about the nature of the childs needs and the educational setting needed to meet them. Miss X has used her right of appeal to a Tribunal regarding the content of the Education Health and Care Plan the Council issued and we cannot investigate how it arrived at that content without trespassing on matters subject to the Tribunal appeal. How the Council dealt with Miss Xs complaint about these actions is also closely connected to the matters themselves. Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (23 018 590)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils dealings with a local charity. Some of the complaint is late and there is no reason the complaint could not have been brought to us sooner. It is also unlikely we could add anything to the Councils responses and there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Leeds City Council (23 019 994)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Mrs Xs application for a school place. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs X to use her right of appeal. We also have no powers to consider complaints about academy schools. Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (23 014 642)
Summary: Ms X says the Councils Local Authority Designated Officer failed to conduct the multi-agency meetings according to the Statutory Disclosure Guidelines. Ms X says this led to an incorrect disclosure to the Disclosure Barring Service. Ms X also says the Council failed to deal with her complaint. We have found fault in the Councils complaint handling and recommend the Council apologise and carry out service improvements. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (23 018 514)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr Xs complaint about the contents of a court ordered report which has been considered in court proceedings because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from considering complaints about matters that have been considered in court, we have no discretion to do so. Cheshire East Council (23 018 918)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Councils childrens services. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. London Borough of Enfield (23 018 990)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about the conduct of the Council in a child protection matter. The matters complained of are not separable from decisions about who should care for his children. Where this has already been decided by a court, we are legally prevented from investigating. And only a court could order the return of Mr Xs children that he has said he desires. Therefore, it would be reasonable for Mr X to go to court to seek the outcome he desires. Birmingham City Council (23 019 135)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about the Councils decision not to consider his complaint about a social worker until ongoing court proceedings have concluded. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Councils decision. London Borough of Lewisham (24 000 388)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint about children services actions as she has taken Court proceedings against the Council. North Yorkshire Council (23 003 248)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her daughter, Y, with a suitable education and provision set out in her Education, Health and Care Plan. We have found fault because the Council failed to fully consider how it could deliver alternative education to Y and failed to deliver some of the provision she was due. Mrs X and Y suffered avoidable distress and frustration and Y missed out on the opportunity to access education she was due. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mrs X and share guidance with relevant officers. Gloucestershire County Council (23 017 697)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xs complaint about delays in her childs Education, Health and Care (EHC) annual review process and her disagreement with the content of her childs EHC Plan. This is because she has a right of appeal to a tribunal about the content of the plan. The Council has apologised for the delays in the annual review process. If Ms X considers the delays mean her child has missed out on provisions, the tribunal can consider this as part of an appeal. London Borough of Southwark (23 018 863)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to make appropriate educational provision for the complainants daughter. This is because investigation would not lead to a different outcome. London Borough of Islington (23 018 901)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils delay in conducting an annual review of Mr Xs sons Education, Health and Care plan. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint. Surrey County Council (23 018 969)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs Xs complaint about the Education Health and Care Plan process for her son. This is because Mrs X has appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). The case is therefore outside our jurisdiction. Buckinghamshire Council (23 019 393)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an in-year application for a school place. One of the schools Mrs X applied to is an academy. The Council was acting on the schools behalf and we have no powers to consider complaints about academy schools. Mrs X has the right to appeal the decision not to offer her son a place at the school for which the Council is the admission authority. It is reasonable for Mrs X to use her appeal rights and so we will not investigate. We will not investigate the Councils handling of Mrs Xs complaint as a standalone issue. Cambridgeshire County Council (22 013 419)
Summary: Mr S complained about the way the Council prepared a child and family assessment report and the information it included. He said the Council had been biased against him. Mr S also complained the Council sent its response to his complaint to the wrong person. The Council has accepted some failings and offered to add an addendum to its report, asked Mr S to participate in a further assessment, and offered 300 for delays in its complaints handling. We have discontinued our investigation on the basis that any further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome and we cannot achieve what Mr S wants. We will not investigate any data breach issues as the Information Commissioners Office is better placed to address them. Luton Borough Council (23 017 538)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about matters relating to his employment. This is because the Council is not Mr Xs employer and an investigation by this office would not be able to add to the response the Council has already provided on this matter. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (23 008 896)
Summary: We found fault with the Council for its failure to secure alternative provision for the complainants (Miss X) son (Y) for a few weeks after his permanent exclusion. This caused him and Miss X injustice. We also found fault with the Councils delay in amending Ys Education Health and Care Plan before his move to a secondary placement but the Councils fault did not cause significant injustice to Y and Miss X. We did not find fault with the Councils delay in reviewing Ys Education Health and Care Plan and the way it carried out the Personal Budget process for Y. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment for the injustice caused to Y and Miss X by missed educational provision. London Borough of Bromley (23 009 518)
Summary: Mr X complained about the Councils delay when reviewing his Education, Health and Care Plan. We found the Council to be at fault. It did not circulate information before the scheduled review meeting and took too long to tell Mr X his Plan would be amended. This caused Mr X avoidable distress and anxiety. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and take action to improve its timeliness. London Borough of Redbridge (23 011 273)
Summary: Ms F complains the Council delayed issuing her sons education, health and care plan following an annual review. We found fault which frustrated her appeal rights and caused time and trouble to Ms F. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy this. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (23 011 394)
Summary: Miss X complains the Council has not dealt properly with her daughter Ys special educational needs (SEN). The Council did not comply with statutory guidance. Miss X did not suffer injustice as a result. The Council should review its policy. Surrey County Council (23 011 828)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the delays in the education, health and care plan process. She also complained about the Councils communication and said her son had been out of education. We find the Council was at fault. This caused significant distress to Mrs X and her son was out of education. The Council has agreed to several recommendations to address this injustice caused by fault. Leeds City Council (23 012 715)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide suitable alternative provision of education for her child since April 2023. We found fault with the Council for delays in production of Ms Xs childs Education and Health Care Plan and for failing to provide suitable education. The Council offered to pay Ms X 6,000 for the missed education and 250 for the avoidable time and trouble Ms X experienced. We are satisfied this offer suitability reflects the fault in this matter and have ended our investigation because the Council agreed a suitable remedy. North Yorkshire Council (23 014 777)
Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mrs Bs complaint about the alternative educational provision her son received after he was permanently excluded from school. It is unlikely that, if we investigated further, we would either find fault with the Council or find that any fault caused a significant injustice to Mrs B and her family. Brighton & Hove City Council (23 017 555)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xs complaint about the process followed by the Council to close a local school. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (23 020 478)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils decision to decline Miss Xs request for a change in her child Ys home to school transport arrangements. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Councils actions. Lancashire County Council (23 018 479)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker leading up to an Initial Child Protection Conference. This is because there are other bodies better placed to consider this complaint. Dorset Council (23 018 620)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils Child Protection assessment. This is because there is not enough evidence of injustice to warrant an investigation and we could not achieve the outcomes Mr X seeks. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (23 005 486)
Summary: MissX complained the Council failed to secure the provision set out in her son, Ys Education, Health and Care Plan, and failed to make alternative provision available for him once he was excluded from school. We find the Council at fault for failing to secure Ys Education, Health and Care Plan provision, for failing to consider alternative provision for him, and for failing to keep complete contact notes. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to recognise the injustice caused by the fault, review Ys Education, Health and Care Plan and act to prevent recurrence. Somerset Council (23 011 497)
Summary: Ms J complained the Council caused delay in the Education, Health, and Care Plan process for her son, failed to provide him with an education for four academic terms when he was unable to attend school, and communicated poorly with her. The Council agreed it was at fault and apologised. We found the Councils apology was not enough. The Council should make payment to acknowledge the injustice its fault caused Ms J and the loss of education X experienced. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (23 011 936)
Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council wrongly declined an appeal against its decision not to provide their child with travel support to school. They say the Councils actions have negatively impacted their child and the family. We found fault by the Council and the Council has agreed to provide an apology and a financial remedy to Mr and Mrs X. It has also agreed to reconsider their application again via a new appeal. East Sussex County Council (23 018 512)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xs complaint about a failure to provide alternative education and failures in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because parts of the complaint are late and other parts were addressed by a Tribunal appeal. Derbyshire County Council (23 018 533)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint about the Councils actions regarding her child, Ys, Education, Health and Care Plan and the Councils communication. This is because the Council has already offered a suitable remedy in line with our guidance, and further investigation is unlikely to achieve a different outcome. Liverpool City Council (23 018 803)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xs complaint about the Education Health and Care Plan process for her son. This is because Miss X appealed to a tribunal and so the case is outside our jurisdiction. We will not look at complaint handling in isolation. Nottinghamshire County Council (23 019 031)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint that the Council sent him a letter in error telling him his child, Y, did not have a school placement from September 2024. This is because the Council has already apologised, and further investigation is unlikely to achieve a different outcome. Mr X could also take his complaint to the Information Commissioners Office if he is concerned about unlawful data processing. North Somerset Council (22 014 116)
Summary: There was a failure to provide suitable fulltime alternative education when a child was unable to attend school due to high levels of anxiety. This led the child to miss out on education, including special educational provision. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment and service improvements. Telford & Wrekin Council (23 002 758)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide alternative education for her son Y when he could not attend school. We find fault with the Council for failing to provide appropriate full-time education for Y, causing frustration and distress to Mrs X. We have agreed financial remedies and service improvements to ensure this does not happen again. Suffolk County Council (23 018 587)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about data matters. This is because this complaint is best considered by the Information Commissioners Office. Oxfordshire County Council (23 020 288)
Summary: We uphold this complaint that the Council delayed its response under 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. Norfolk County Council (23 005 064)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council implemented an unlawful policy to temporarily provide 50% of the speech and language therapy needed in Education Health and Care Plans. We found fault by the Council because it implemented an unlawful policy and did not meet its statutory duty to provide the required provision. This caused Ms Xs child, Y, an injustice because they missed provision. It also caused Ms X avoidable frustration, distress and time and trouble in pursuing an end to the policy and complaining. The Council agreed to make Ms X payments in recognition of Ys missed provision and the injustice caused to her. Middlesbrough Borough Council (22 004 103)
Summary: Mr B complained that the Council gave incorrect and misleading information about child welfare records relating to his time at a school in the area where he says he was abused. The Council also delayed in dealing with his complaint about the matter and failed to respond adequately to it. We found fault with the Councils actions. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B, pay him 250 and give him a written response to one outstanding issue. |
