| 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. Slough Borough Council (22 016 351)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to secure a school placement for her son, make suitable education provision, or meet his needs as specified in his Education, Health and Care Plan for a significant period. The Council accepted several faults and put forward a number of remedies. It has agreed to carry them out to remedy the injustice caused. Bracknell Forest Council (23 007 019)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to respond to her request for an Education, Health and Care Needs reassessment for her son, and failed to respond to her complaint. We find fault with the Council for failing to properly respond to her request and complaint, and for delay in dealing with her complaint. We have agreed symbolic payments for the distress and uncertainty caused to Mrs X. Derbyshire County Council (23 011 080)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to produce a Final Education and Health Care Plan for his child in the statutory timescales. We found fault with the Council for delaying production of Mr Xâs childâs Education and Health Care Plan for seven months outside the statutory timescales. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £700 to acknowledge the avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty caused. Derbyshire County Council (23 014 038)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to produce her childâs Education and Health Care Plan in the statutory timescales. Ms X also complained the Council failed to provide her child with full-time education since January 2023. We found fault with the Council delaying production of Ms Xâs childâs Education and Health Care Plan. We did not find fault with the Council failing to provide suitable education for Ms Xâs child. The Council agreed to provide an apology to Ms X and pay her £700 for the frustration and uncertainty caused by the delays in production of her childâs EHC Plan. Hertfordshire County Council (23 015 417)
Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council assessed her child, W, for an Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council was at fault for delay in completing Wâs assessment and poor communication. This caused Miss X frustration and uncertainty and meant W missed out on four weeks of special educational provision. The Council will apologise and pay Miss X a total of £1000 in recognition of her and Wâs injustice. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (23 017 384)
Summary: Ms Xâs complaint about a failure to secure special educational provision on her child Yâs Education, Health and Care Plan is premature and she needs to raise it with the Council first. We do not uphold the second complaint. The Council did not include the recommendations of a Tribunal on Yâs Plan because the NHS decided not to commission health provision. This is not fault because there is no provision agreed by the NHS for the relevant part of the Plan. London Borough of Southwark (23 020 689)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint the Council did not provide âEducation Otherwise Than At Schoolâ. That is because the complainant has appealed to tribunal. Therefore, we have no jurisdiction to consider the complaint. London Borough of Bromley (23 021 241)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs refusal to assess his childâs special educational needs, not assessing properly, and refusing to issue an Education Health and Care Plan. These matters are not separable from those where Mr X has or had a right to appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal it would be reasonable to use. Suffolk County Council (24 001 461)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the Councilâs Schools Admissions Appeal Panelâs failure to provide her child with a place at School Y. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused them to lose out on a school place. Cambridgeshire County Council (24 001 981)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about a school admissions appeal panelâs decision as it is unlikely we would find fault. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (22 016 423)
Summary: Ms D complains for herself and on behalf of her daughter, Miss C. They complain about the Councilâs lack of work with Miss C about a risk of child sexual exploitation, the lack of support for both Miss C and Ms D, comments that Ms D was a reason one of Miss Câs placements broke down and not acting on advice. Ms D says she had to consult a solicitor. Our decision is there was some fault by the Council and its partner organisation in a delay in supporting Ms D and Miss C. The Council has agreed to our recommendations. Somerset Council (23 013 837)
Summary: We uphold this complaint that the Council delayed its response under the statutory process for complaints about childrenâs services. The Council has agreed to resolve the matter by providing a suitable remedy for the injustice the complainant has been caused. London Borough of Haringey (23 014 746)
Summary: Miss X complains the Council has failed to provide the support agreed during the Special Guardianship Order process and has unreasonably rejected her application to the housing register. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for how it managed the Special Guardianship process, for failing to provide support, and for how it considered Miss Xâs application to the housing register. The Council has agreed to pay Miss X a financial remedy, implement support and carry out service improvements. Wakefield City Council (23 021 153)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Councilâs actions in court impacted the care arrangements of the complainantsâ grandchildren. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about what happened in court. Wakefield City Council (23 021 227)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker in relation to Miss B and her child. This is because there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. Also we cannot achieve the outcome Miss B wants. Hampshire County Council (23 005 712)
Summary: There was fault the Council delayed issuing its decision after Mr Xâs sonâs Education, Health, and Care plan was reviewed in 2022 and then again in 2023. Those faults caused Mr X an injustice because of a lost opportunity to appeal to the SEND Tribunal and the avoidable inconvenience he experienced. There was also fault the Council did not do enough to ensure Mr Xâs son had suitable offers of education provision in good time, and this means Mr X is now left with avoidable uncertainty about whether his son missed out on education. Hertfordshire County Council (23 007 027)
Summary: We found fault in the Councilâs delay to issue a final Education Health and Care Plan for the complainantâs son (Y) and in its communication with the complainant (Mrs X). This fault caused injustice to Y and Mrs X. We did not find fault in the Councilâs actions to provide education to Y when out of school. The Council agreed to apologise, make the payment for Yâs and Mrs Xâs distress and share this decision with the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities team staff. North Northamptonshire Council (23 017 202)
Summary: We upheld this complaint. There was delay finding a school place for Y and in issuing his final Education Health and Care Plan. This caused avoidable distress and a loss of educational provision. The Council will apologise, make payments and review its procedures to minimise the chance of the same thing happening again. Leicester City Council (23 019 947)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about a home to school transport incident as there are no good reasons the late complaint rule should not apply. And we are unlikely to find fault or achieve a significantly different outcome on a transport dispute. Oxfordshire County Council (23 020 751)
Summary: We cannot investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the Councilâs failure to consult with her about her child, Yâs, draft Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan or its delivery of the provision. This is because Ms X has appealed the content of the EHC Plan to the SEND Tribunal, and the law says we cannot investigate. Leicestershire County Council (23 020 760)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about an incident that led to the complainant removing their child from school. This is because the law prevents us from investigating most complaints about what happens in schools. There is insufficient evidence of fault with how the Council dealt with matters after the incident occurred. London Borough of Islington (23 020 836)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision to refuse the complainantâs request for an Education Health and Care Assessment for her son, and that it has failed to ensure he has access to full time education. This is because the complainant has used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). Norfolk County Council (23 021 198)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to change a case worker. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (23 015 911)
Summary: We cannot investigate Miss Xâs complaint about a report submitted to court by the Council. An absolute bar prevents us investigating matters that have formed part of court proceedings. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (23 020 467)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a child protection assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Central Bedfordshire Council (23 021 031)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Council failing to investigate her complaint fully under the statutory childrenâs complaints procedure. This is because an investigation would not lead to any further findings or outcomes. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (22 015 347)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide a suitable education or follow proper process to review her sonâs Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan after they moved to the Councilâs area in late 2021. The Councilâs failure to follow proper process and the delay in reviewing and amending Yâs EHC plan is fault. As is the failure to provide alternative provision between September and November 2022. This fault has caused Mrs X and Y an injustice. Devon County Council (23 013 315)
Summary: Miss X complained about significant delays in the education, health and care plan process. She said the Council failed to adhere to statutory timescales and said the Councilâs communication has been poor. We find the Council was at fault. This caused significant distress to Miss X. To address this injustice caused by fault the Council has agreed to make several recommendations. Somerset Council (23 020 315)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the Council's Education, Health and Care needs assessment process and her disagreement with the final plan. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. She has appealed to a tribunal about the content of the plan and so we cannot investigate this. Surrey County Council (23 020 370)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that a child was unlawfully excluded from school. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about what happens in schools. Derbyshire County Council (23 020 563)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X complaint about the wording in the Councilâs letter being incorrect. This is because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes. In addition, the fault has not caused any significant injustice to Mrs X. Birmingham City Council (23 020 708)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision to reject Mrs Xâs application for home to school transport on behalf of her child Y. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Councilâs actions. London Borough of Bromley (23 020 828)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about Education Health and Care Plan delays as its not significant enough. And we cannot investigate the consultation process because she has appealed to the Tribunal. Hampshire County Council (23 021 129)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the Councilâs failure to provide education and the support needed to meet her childâs special educational needs. Part of the complaint is late. We cannot consider the other parts as the SEND Tribunal has considered or could have considered the matters raised as part of its proceedings. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (23 021 197)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the lack of a review and the content of an Education Health and Care Plan. It is reasonable to expect her to have appealed to the Tribunal. Essex County Council (23 012 654)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Councilâs child in need reports contained wrong or inaccurate information and did not appropriately consider the medical evidence she provided. Mrs X also complained the Council did not arrange a transition plan for her son to its adult social care team. Mrs X says the Councilâs actions meant she and her son did not receive the support they should have. We found fault regarding how the Council investigated the complaint about the child in need reports, but no fault in its consideration of a transition plan. The Council has agreed to provide a remedy to address the injustice identified. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (23 017 749)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the actions and behaviour of a social worker during child protection enquiries. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, an investigation would not lead to any worthwhile outcomes as we are not likely to make any findings on some of the matters complained about. London Borough of Camden (23 018 462)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision to refuse her child a Blue Badge. The Council has since reversed its decision and issued a Blue Badge. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Milton Keynes Council (23 020 006)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant, who was a foster carer. This is because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council or achieve a different outcome. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (23 020 605)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about his child being taken into local authority care and only allowing him supervised contact. The concerns Mr X raised have been and continue to be the subject of court action. We cannot investigate complaints about matters that are or will be the subject of court action. Surrey County Council (23 009 092)
Summary: We upheld Ms Xâs complaints about delay in issuing her child Yâs Education, Health and Care Plans, about poor communication and complaint handling and a delay in appeal rights. The Council will apologise, make a payment to reflect avoidable distress and time and trouble and loss of educational provision (specialist occupational therapy) caused by the delay in issuing a final amended plan after a tribunal order. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (23 012 233)
Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to provide her daughter with education when she was unable to attend school. She also complained about the Councilâs poor communication. We find the Council was at fault. This caused significant stress to Mrs X and her daughter was out of education. We make several recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (23 012 733)
Summary: There was fault the Council delayed finalising an Education, Health, and Care Plan, after it agreed to assess Mrs Xâs child. That delay caused Mrs X an injustice because of avoidable uncertainty she then had about her childâs placement. The Council have accepted fault and apologised for the delays, and this is an appropriate remedy for Mrs Xâs injustice here. Mrs X also complained the Council did not provide alternative provision, while her child was out of school. On the information I have seen, there is no fault in the Councilâs response. Torbay Council (23 019 151)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council managed a request for an Education Health and Care needs assessment. We could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council and investigation would not lead to a different outcome. London Borough of Merton (23 020 285)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in the process of completing the complainantâs sonâs Education Health and Care Plan and in failing to make appropriate educational provision for him. This is because the complaint concerns matters which could have been the subject of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability), or are not separable from such matters. Derbyshire County Council (23 020 960)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs failure to put in place the provision required under his sonâs Education Health and Care Plan between March 2023 and January 2024. This is because the Council has offered Mr X a suitable financial remedy for the impact its failures had on him and his son. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (23 009 433)
Summary: The Council was at fault for its childrenâs social work teamâs handling of Mr Xâs sonâs case. It did not involve Mr X in its assessment, failed to discuss or review his sonâs support plan for a long period, did not keep proper records, and did not otherwise do what it had promised Mr X. It will now take action to remedy his injustice and improve its service. Coventry City Council (23 020 645)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not sending Mrs A the recording of a meeting because the Information Commissionerâs Office is better placed to consider data disclosure matters. Leicestershire County Council (23 020 993)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about a child and family assessment. We are unlikely to achieve a significantly different outcome than the Council has already offered. Essex County Council (24 001 478)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged poor conduct displayed during a child protection meeting. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to result in a worthwhile outcome. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (24 001 668)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a report produced by the Council in 2022. This is because the complaint has been made late and there are no good reasons to investigate. East Sussex County Council (23 005 404)
Summary: Mrs M complains her daughter, G, has not received suitable education since she became unable to attend school in Year 7. There is much to commend in the Councilâs response to Gâs absence from school. The Council played an active role in coordinating efforts to try to secure Gâs reintegration to school, and later in arrangements for Gâs education out of school. The Council has kept Gâs case under regular review, and overseen increases in provision as her ability to participate has increased. However, there was a delay holding a multi-professionals meeting to decide the next steps when attempts to secure Gâs return to school proved unsuccessful. We have made recommendations. Trafford Council (23 010 143)
Summary: Mrs Y complained about failures and delays by the Council in arranging her daughter, Ms Zâs college placement and transport to and from college. as set out in her Education Health and Care Plan. We have found fault by the Council, causing delays, in the period from 5 September to 7 October. We have also found fault by the Council in the period from 10 October to 7 December in its communications about the transport requirements. We have not found this fault caused a further delay with Ms Zâs transport. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice these faults caused by apologising to Mrs Y, making a payment to reflect her distress and frustration, and a payment to recognise the impact on Ms Z of the education she missed from September to October, together with a service improvement. Kent County Council (23 010 806)
Summary: There was fault by the Council. The Council delayed issuing an amended Education, Health and Care Plan after an annual review. This meant the parents appeal rights were delayed. The Council also did not monitor the progress of a funded reintegration plan into school. An apology, payment and revised procedure remedy the injustice of loss of education. Cheshire East Council (23 020 530)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs Xâs complaint that the Councilâs Education, Health and Care needs assessment of her child, Y, was inadequate. This is because Mrs X used her right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal and the law says we cannot investigate. London Borough of Hillingdon (23 020 995)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not amending Mrs Xâs childâs Education Health and Care Plan in accordance with the ruling of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. The Council has appealed against the ruling of the first-tier Tribunal, and we cannot take any view about what provision it should make while the matter remains within the Tribunal process. Middlesbrough Borough Council (22 016 808)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has considered post adoption support payments. The Council has accepted it has underpaid the complainant. It has agreed to back pay the financial support owed. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome. London Borough of Islington (23 006 303)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council incorrectly refused to grant his son a blue badge for disabled parking which meant it was unsafe when his son was out walking or on public transport. We found fault because the Council failed to carry out an adequate review of Mr Xâs application. To remedy the injustice caused by this fault, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and request that he submits a new application. London Borough of Lambeth (23 012 784)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a data breach. Any potential injustice is speculative, and the Information Commissionerâs Office is better placed than us to consider the matter as it has power to impose penalties that we lack. Liverpool City Council (23 020 849)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about information the Council shared with the complainant and the way it dealt with her subsequent complaint about the matter. This is because we would not achieve anything significant by doing so. Manchester City Council (23 020 884)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about historical involvement with the Council and its childrenâs social care services. This is because the complaint is late, and there are no good reasons Mrs X could not have complained sooner. In addition, many of the matters complained about have been raised during court proceedings and the law says we cannot investigate those matters. Nottinghamshire County Council (23 021 005)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about children servicesâ actions. The Information Commissionerâs Office is better placed to consider his data protection complaints. We are unlikely to find fault in his complaint about customer practice and a referral to a charity. London Borough of Lewisham (23 019 284)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the Council refusing her request to take her child abroad. She has now asked the Court for its view, and we would be unlikely to find fault in the Councilâs decision not to reply to her complaint while those proceedings continue. |
