| 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 (23 013 828)
Summary: We found fault on Mrs Dâs complaint about the Council failing to ensure her son received educational provision set out in his Education, Health and Care Plan after a school placement ended. It delayed carrying out the Annual Review and issuing the final plan. It failed to monitor whether the school sent work home and accepted communication failures. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused. Worcestershire County Council (23 013 872)
Summary: There was fault by the Council. There was delay taking Mrs Xâs request for a personal budget for her childâs education to a panel and delay in telling her of the decision. There has also been delay holding an Education, Health and Care Plan annual review. A payment and issuing a new decision to give a new right of appeal to a tribunal remedies the injustice from these faults. City of Doncaster Council (23 017 326)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to review and update his childâs Education, Health and Care Plan. Mr X also complained the Council failed to put in place 1:1 support for his child and the lack of support resulted in his childâs expulsion. We found fault with the Council failing to meet the statutory timescales to review Mr Xâs child Education, Health and Care Plan for 20 months. We did not find fault with the Council failing to provide the provision detailed in Mr Xâs childâs Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X for the distress and inconvenience caused and pay him £2,700 for the lost opportunity for his childâs to access a suitable education caused through the delays in reviewing his childâs Education, Health and Care Plan. Sheffield City Council (24 001 401)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the Councilâs failure to put in place alternative educational provision for her son while he was out of school. This is because the need for the alternative provision stems from Miss Xâs disagreement with the Councilâs decisions on her sonâs Education Health and Care (EHC) Plans and belief that the named school was not suitable. Miss X has appealed against the Councilâs decision to name her sonâs current school in his October 2023 EHC Plan and could reasonably have appealed against its decision not to amend his Plan as part of a review in May 2023. King David High School (24 002 075)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Schools Admissions Appeal Panelâs failure to provide his child with a place at this School. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused them to lose out on a school place. St Paul's School for Girls, Edgbaston (24 003 322)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. Surrey County Council (24 001 155)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about child protection and child in need action carried out by the Council in relation to the complainantâs family because investigation would achieve nothing significant. London Borough of Enfield (24 001 574)
Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about safeguarding Mr X as a child. Mr X could have complained to us much sooner and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate these matters now. London Borough of Haringey (24 002 249)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about delays in the Council considering her complaint under the statutory children complaints procedure. This is because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mrs X by the likely fault. West Northamptonshire Council (23 004 887)
Summary: Mrs C complained that the Council failed to provide the support for her daughter D, detailed in her Education, Health and Care Plan. We found fault with the Councilâs actions. The Council has already made significant payments to Mrs C to recognise the lost provision and some of the private support Mrs C has provided in the interim. The Council has agreed to apologise, to increase the payments, to consider reimbursing any costs Mrs C incurred for Speech and Language Therapy and to provide an update on progress with its service improvements. Worcestershire County Council (23 009 011)
Summary: Mrs X said the Council failed to secure the special educational provision set out in her childâs Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. She said this affected her childâs educational attainment and overall wellbeing. Mrs X also said the Council failed to effectively address her concerns about this. We have found the Council at fault for failing to ensure the special educational provision was in place, and for failing to adequately investigate Mrs Xâs concerns. We have also found the Council at fault for misadvising Mrs X about the Councilâs duties and for a lack of regard to the SEND Code of Practice in drafting Section F of the EHC Plan. We have made recommendations to remedy the injustice this caused. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (23 018 605)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not arranging provision set out in an Education Health and Care plan. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Bristol City Council (23 020 186)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint that the Council did not refer her daughter to a Sensory Integration Occupational Therapist as part of its assessment of her special educational needs. This is because the injustice Ms X claims stems from the Councilâs decisions on her daughterâs Education Health and Care Plan and if Ms X disagreed with the contents of the Plan it would have been reasonable for her to appeal. Lincolnshire County Council (23 021 248)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs actions in issuing an Education Health and Care Plan and not offering alternative educational provision for Mrs Xâs child. The matters complained of are not separable from matters subject to an appeal to a Tribunal, and a legal ruling prevents us considering whether alternative educational provision should have been made for the child. Staffordshire County Council (24 003 138)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. Essex County Council (24 003 297)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful school admission appeal. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel for us to be able to question its decision. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (22 015 861)
Summary: The Council had offered a suitable remedy to the complainant for the lack of appropriate Adult Services to her disabled son. But the Council had not considered and remedied the injustice caused by the failures of Children Services, faults which the Council had already identified. The Council has now offered a suitable remedy for this injustice. We are therefore closing the complaint. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (23 019 035)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a member of a schoolâs staff. We have no legal power to investigate the actions of a school or its staff. Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (24 000 777)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about a child protection investigation. It is unlikely we would achieve a significantly different remedy than already offered. Lancashire County Council (24 001 260)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about child protection. Miss X is not a suitable representative for a child for whom she does not have parental responsibility. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (24 002 467)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Councilâs decision not to share information with her because she does not have parental responsibility for her grandchildren. London Borough of Lambeth (23 008 169)
Summary: Ms X complains her son, Y, has been out of education since November 2021. We find fault with the Council for failing to provide alternative education for Y. We have agreed a symbolic payment for the distress and frustration caused, with service improvements to ensure this does not happen again. Cornwall Council (23 009 328)
Summary: Ms X complained that the Council delayed in completing an education, health and care needs assessment for her daughter and failed to make suitable alternative educational provision for her when she was unable to attend school. We found the Council delayed in completing the assessment. It has agreed to make a payment to Ms X in recognition of the injustice caused by this. We also found there was fault in how the Council recorded its decision that the education on offer was available and accessible. But this did not cause an injustice. Essex County Council (23 009 613)
Summary: Mr X complained that the Council delayed in arranging a place for his son at the school named by the SEND Tribunal and failed to put in place suitable alternative provision. We found the Council was at fault because there was a delay in admitting the child to his new school. As a result, he missed out on provision. In recognition of the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to make a payment to Mr X. North Northamptonshire Council (23 013 013)
Summary: Mrs G complained about the Councilâs poor handling of her free home to school transport application and appeal. She said as a result she experienced distress, uncertainty and had to transport her daughter to school. We found the Council at fault for causing delays, communicating poorly with her, and it failed to consider her appeal as set out in its policy. The Council should apologise and make payment to acknowledge the uncertainty it caused. It should also offer Mrs G for its appeal panel to consider her case. Derbyshire County Council (23 017 213)
Summary: Ms X complained about the time taken by the Council to provide her child with a school placement and put in place the special educational provision in his Education, Health and Care Plan after she moved to the Council area. This meant her child missed out on education and support he should have received. We found the Council at fault. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and make a financial payment for the loss of education to her child. West Sussex County Council (24 001 029)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education Health and Care Plan process for the complainantâs daughter. This is because the content of the plan was appealable to a tribunal. The case is therefore outside our jurisdiction. Essex County Council (24 001 206)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the delay. Northumberland County Council (24 001 479)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not amending Miss Xâs childrenâs Education Health and Care Plans as ordered by a Tribunal. The provision required for her children remained a matter for the Tribunal until it reached a final decision as Miss X appealed to the Upper-tier Tribunal after the First-tier Tribunalâs decision. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (24 003 094)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (23 018 557)
Summary: There was fault the Council told Mrs X it had created new skills banding awards, impacting on her role as a foster carer. That fault caused Mrs X an injustice because it unnecessarily raised her expectation about an increase in salary she may have benefited from. There was also fault in how the Council communicated with her about this and this caused Mrs X unnecessary inconvenience. The Council had already apologised and has agreed to take additional steps to fully remedy Mrs Xâs injustice. Suffolk County Council (23 018 747)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X and Ms Yâs complaint about the Councilâs actions in its child protection involvement with their family because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been considered in court proceedings. We cannot do so. North Northamptonshire Council (23 006 293)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide full-time education for her child since September 2021. Mrs X says the Council placed her child on a reduced timetable before they stopped attending school entirely in May 2023. We found the Council at fault for failing to provide suitable education for Mrs Xâs child for five weeks and for delays in reviewing the childâs Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X, pay her £250 for the avoidable frustration and inconvenience caused and £800 in recognition of the missed education. Somerset Council (23 014 496)
Summary: Mr D complained the Council failed to provide his son with alternative provision when he could not attend school. He also says the Council delayed issuing his sonâs final Education, Health and Care Plan and then it delayed providing the provision in the Plan. We find the Council was at fault for its delays in issuing Mr Dâs sonâs Education, Health and Care Plan. It also delayed providing the provision in the Plan. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault. Leicestershire County Council (23 014 924)
Summary: Ms B complained about the service provided by the Council to meet her childâs special educational needs. We upheld complaints the Council delayed in issuing an Education, Care and Health Plan and about its complaint handling. We consider these faults caused distress to Ms B and put her to unnecessary inconvenience. We have completed our investigation, satisfied with the actions already taken by the Council in response. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (23 015 288)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to support her during the child protection process. She said this significantly impacted her mental and physical health. We found the Council at fault for failing to properly consider Ms Xâs requests for respite care, and for failing to properly consider alternative contact arrangements with the childrenâs father. Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (24 000 444)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of the Councilâs childrenâs services prior to some of the complainantsâ children being taken into care. This is because we cannot investigation complaints about matters that either were or could have been discussed in court. London Borough of Islington (24 001 062)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the decision to deregister Ms X as a foster carer. This is because the complaint relates to events that took place more than 12 months ago and it would have been reasonable for Ms X to bring the complaint to us sooner. Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (24 001 749)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Councilâs actions in removing Ms Xâs children. The care arrangements for her children were decided by a court and we have no legal authority to investigate how they were arrived at. Staffordshire County Council (24 002 302)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Councilâs decision not to consider her complaint because she does not have parental responsibility for the children involved. London Borough of Lambeth (24 003 184)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr Xâs complaint about a report that 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 cannot do so. North Yorkshire Council (24 000 366)
Summary: We upheld Miss Xâs complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care process regarding her children, Y and Z. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Wiltshire Council (24 001 305)
Summary: We upheld Mrs Xâs complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care process regarding her child, Y. The Council agreed to resolve this complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. We did not investigate Mrs Xâs complaints about poor communication because an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve anything further. The Information Commissionerâs Office is better placed to consider Mrs Xâs other complaints. Thurrock Council (24 001 377)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not consulting with a school as asked by Mrs X. She had exercised her right to appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal and the matter of which school might best meet her childâs needs is closely linked with that. Sheffield City Council (24 001 757)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs Xâs complaint that the Council failed to consult with her preferred school of choice, or her complaint about the content of her childâs Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because Mrs X used her right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal about the content of the Plan and the law says we cannot investigate. City of Wolverhampton Council (24 003 683)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about how the Council handled her application for a school place. This is because the school concerned is an academy and we cannot investigate complaints about actions taken on behalf of academies. The Councilâs actions in relation to the appeal stem from a private arrangement with the school rather than an administrative function; they therefore fall outside our jurisdiction to investigate. Essex County Council (24 001 368)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about adopters letter box contact. It is unlikely we would find significant fault which has caused her a significant injustice. Cambridgeshire County Council (24 001 649)
Summary: We cannot investigate Dr Xâs complaint about a social workerâs court report 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. Somerset Council (23 014 928)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed amending her child Yâs Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council was at fault for the delay which has caused Mrs X and Y frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment and issue Yâs EHC Plan. Mrs X also complained the Council delayed allocating a disabled childrenâs social worker. There was no evidence of fault in the Councilâs decisions on which social worker to allocate. Bristol City Council (24 000 529)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs Xâs complaint the Council breached her Human Rights. The matters she complains of have been considered by the Court. |
