| 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. North Lincolnshire Council (23 006 779)
Summary: Miss C complained about the Councilâs handling of her request for her daughter (X) not to attend school due to her risk of becoming seriously ill from COVID-19. We found no fault in how the Council considered and responded to her request. It was at fault for causing delays in finalising Xâs final amended Education, Health, and Care Plan, but this did not cause Miss C or X an injustice. The Council should issue Xâs final Plan and provide Miss C with her appeal rights. Devon County Council (23 013 827)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to ensure her son, F received a suitable education or the specialist provision set out in his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan since it was issued in March 2023. The Council failed to have sufficient oversight of Fâs placement at an alternative provision between March 2023 and January 2024. It also delayed issuing an amended EHC Plan following an annual review. The Council agreed to pay Mrs X £900 to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty this caused. Plymouth City Council (24 001 247)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a school that the complainantâs child attends. This is because the law prevents us from investigating complaints about what happens in schools. Hertfordshire County Council (24 001 740)
Summary: We will not investigate these complaints that the Council failed to provide full-time education for the complainantâs children. The complaints about the period before the Education Health and Care Plans were issued are late and there are no grounds to consider them now. We cannot consider the complaints about matters after the Education Health and Care Plans were issued because the complainant has used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). Hertfordshire County Council (24 001 742)
Summary: We will not investigate these complaints that the Council failed to provide full-time education for the complainantâs children. The complaints about the period before the Education Health and Care Plans were issued are late and there are no grounds to consider them now. We cannot consider the complaints about matters after the Education Health and Care Plans were issued because the complainant has used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). Derbyshire County Council (24 003 613)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the Councilâs School Admissions Appeal Panelâs handling of her appeal against the refusal to offer her child a place at her preferred school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant further investigation. Archbishop Blanch School (24 003 765)
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 by the panel for us to be able to question the merits of its decision. Medway Council (24 001 845)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Councilâs decision not to consider his complaint whilst there are ongoing court proceedings. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (24 002 563)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the alleged inaccuracy of information about Mr X on Council records. The Information Commissioner's Office is better placed than us to consider alleged data inaccuracy, and it would be reasonable for Mr X to go to court to seek compensation for the direct effect he claims this had on his health. Rutland County Council (24 002 615)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council taking Miss Xâs child into care and having them put up for adoption. The law prevents us from investigating matters subject to court proceedings. Cheshire East Council (24 003 397)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with matters relating to a child in foster care. This is because doing so would not lead to a different outcome and because we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant seeks. Surrey County Council (23 009 094)
Summary: There was fault and delay in completing an annual review and a failure to provide suitable fulltime alternative education and special educational provision in an EHC plan for 5.5 terms. This continued after the Council admitted the fault. The fault has caused significant injustice to the whole family and loss of education to the child. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment to acknowledge the injustice caused and make service improvements. Hampshire County Council (23 012 242)
Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to provide her child, C, with a suitable education and she also complains about Câs final Education, Health and Care Plan issued by the Council. There is no evidence of fault and the law does not allow the Ombudsman to investigate matters from November 2023 because they were subject to a tribunal appeal. Rutland County Council (23 013 016)
Summary: Mrs D complains the Council failed to provide education or special educational provision to her son, J, for over a year. The Council has accepted there was fault. To remedy this it has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs D for Jâs educational benefit. We found fault in complaint handling which has caused Mrs D some time and trouble. The Council has agreed to review its complaint policy. Liverpool City Council (23 016 730)
Summary: Ms X complained that the Council placed her son in unsuitable educational provision and delayed in issuing his education, health and care plan. We have not investigated these complaints because they are late. Ms X also complained that the Council failed to make suitable alternative provision for her son after his educational placement broke down and failed to deliver the provision in his education, health and care plan. We found fault on the Councilâs part. In recognition of the injustice caused, it has agreed to make a payment to Mrs X. Essex County Council (24 000 952)
Summary: We upheld Mrs Xâs complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care process regarding her child, Y. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. London Borough of Bromley (24 001 927)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the assessment of Miss Xâs special educational needs and the provision she requires. These are closely linked to matters in respect of which Miss X has exercised her right to appeal to a Tribunal. North Yorkshire Council (24 001 940)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council managed the annual review of a childâs Education Health and Care plan. This is because the decision to name a school has been appealed to the SEND Tribunal and other matters either have not caused a significant enough injustice or we could not add to the Councilâs investigation. London Borough of Haringey (24 001 959)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the contents of an Education Health and Care plan. This is because it is reasonable for the complainant to use their right of appeal to a tribunal. Nottinghamshire County Council (23 013 989)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council refused to properly consider his complaint about how it handled a referral relating to the welfare of his children. The Council was at fault for not considering Mr Xâs complaint through the childrenâs statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr X for the frustration this caused and consider his complaint further. Buckinghamshire Council (23 017 251)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to properly explain Section 20 of the Children Act and ignored her request to cease accommodating the children under Section 20 of the Act. We found there was no fault by the Council. North Northamptonshire Council (24 002 140)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs failure to amend and correct information held about the complainant. This is because we would not achieve anything significant by doing so. London Borough of Haringey (24 002 819)
Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed considering a complaint at stages two and three of the childrenâs statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint apologising and offering to make a payment to the complainant to remedy the time and trouble they have been too. Thurrock Council (22 016 333)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to meet her childâs special educational needs and to issue her final Education, Health and Care Plan. Miss X also complained the Council failed to provide her with an advocate and it failed to conduct a carerâs assessment for her. Miss X said this affected her and her childâs mental health, and she suffered financial loss. There were some faults by the Council which caused injustice to C and Miss X. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused. Hampshire County Council (23 007 264)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide a suitable education for her child, Y. There was fault with how the Council responded when it knew Y was not attending school in 2023, delayed its decision after a review of Yâs Education Health and Care plan and delayed transferring Yâs plan after Mrs X moved areas. This caused some frustration to Miss X but did not cause any further injustice. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X, review its policy and procedures and issue reminders to its staff. Lancashire County Council (23 010 313)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council has delayed issuing her daughter, Fâs Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan following an annual review in May 2023. She also complained F has not received education in line with her Plan since she stopped attending school in March 2023. The Council was at fault. It has to date not issued Fâs amended final EHC Plan which is delay of 43 weeks. It also failed to ensure F received a suitable education between May 2023 and May 2024. The Council agreed to issue Fâs Plan without further delay and make payments to recognise the missed education. It will also carry out service improvements. Surrey County Council (23 012 934)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to ensure the provision in his child's Education, Health and Care Plan was provided and delayed providing suitable education following his child's permanent exclusion from school. Mr X said his child suffered significant distress and he suffered uncertainty about whether the exclusion was avoidable and if suitable alternative provision could have been provided sooner. We have found fault but consider the agreed action of an apology and symbolic payment provides a suitable remedy. Bracknell Forest Council (23 014 814)
Summary: There was no fault the Council did not make alternative education provision available when Mrs Xâs daughter first stopped going to school. The evidence shows the school were initially successful in returning her to school gradually. However, when this arrangement broke down and Mrs Xâs daughter stopped attending, there was fault the Council did not consider and decide whether it owed a duty to make alternative education provision available. That fault caused Mrs X an injustice because she now has uncertainty about whether her daughter missed out on education. Reading Borough Council (23 016 190)
Summary: Mrs B complained about the Councilâs refusal to provide suitable school transport for her daughter since September 2023. We have not found fault with the actions of the Council. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (24 001 205)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the education provided to the complainantâs daughter. The complaint is late and Miss X could have complained sooner. It would now be difficult to carry out a meaningful investigation. Essex County Council (24 001 514)
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. Essex County Council (24 001 760)
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. Leicester City Council (24 001 852)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the assessment of Mrs Xâs childâs special educational needs. Mrs X used her right of appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal, which has decided what the provision for the child should be. She has the right to request fresh assessment by the Council in line with the timescale set out in law. East Sussex County Council (24 001 890)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about educational psychologistsâ assessments. It is reasonable to expect her to appeal to the Tribunal the injustice caused by the assessments - the Councilâs decisions on her Education Health and Care Plan request for her child. West Sussex County Council (24 003 480)
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. Liverpool City Council (24 004 190)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Miss Xâs application for a school place. This is because it is reasonable for Miss X to use her right of appeal. Cumberland Council (23 018 542)
Summary: Mr and Mrs B complained that the Council had failed to complete the stage two investigation of their complaint about childrenâs services within 13 weeks and following an earlier complaint to us. We have not found fault with the Councilâs actions. London Borough of Harrow (24 001 569)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision not to issue a blue badge. There is not enough evidence of fault in how it made its decision to justify our involvement. Coventry City Council (24 002 048)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Councilâs childrenâs services. This is because the issues raised are about matters that have been considered during court proceedings and because there are other bodies better placed to consider other matters. North Yorkshire Council (23 004 538)
Summary: Mrs Y complained about the way the Council dealt with her childâs education and special educational needs provision. We have found fault with the Councilâs delay in completing the Education Health and Care needs assessment process and its communication failures, causing injustice. The Council had already accepted fault and offered a remedy for the injustice. We have found the payments it offered for the impact of the missed special educational needs provision and distress and time and trouble are in line with the expectations in our guidance on remedies. It has agreed to make these payments and service improvements. We have not found a failure by the Council to make appropriate alternative educational provision. Staffordshire County Council (23 012 411)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the process of reviewing Ms Yâs Education, Health and Care Plan and about delays in securing the named provision. We find the Council at fault for missing statutory deadlines and for delays in securing provision. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the injustice caused by the fault. Leeds City Council (23 017 493)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed completing her child, Child Yâs Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment and deciding to issue Child Y with an EHC Plan. The Council was at fault. Its failure to meet its statutory timescales was mainly due to a delay in obtaining Educational Psychologist advice. The Council will apologise, make a payment to Mrs X for the frustration and uncertainty the delays caused and put a service improvement in place for decision letters. The Council has already put service improvements in place for delays and communication. Kent County Council (24 001 785)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about information allegedly omitted by the Council when consulting with possible schools in drawing up an Education Health and Care Plan for Mr Xâs child. This matter is closely connected to the decision reached by the Council about the most suitable provision, in respect of which Mr X had a right of appeal to the Special Educatuional Needs and Disability Tribunal it would have been reasonable to use. Hertfordshire County Council (23 006 358)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Councilâs Local Authority Designated Officer because there is no evidence that those actions caused the complainant a demonstrable injustice and investigation would not achieve a worthwhile outcome. Peterborough City Council (23 010 618)
Summary: We found fault by the Council on Mrs Dâs complaint about how she was dealt with following allegations from her foster child. Concerns were not consistently raised with her, a serious allegation was not properly dealt with, there was a failure to follow procedures, and she was not given information about key developments with the investigation or given clear information about procedures. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused. Essex County Council (24 000 830)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X complaint about the Councilâs handling of her concerns about incidents involving her child at their school. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Kent County Council (24 004 144)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr Xâs complaint about a report. This is because it is being used in ongoing matters with the family court. We have no remit to look at reports used in court. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (23 015 327)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has not dealt properly with her son Yâs Special Educational Needs (SEN). The Council is at fault because it did not hold an annual review properly. Y lost education provision and Mrs X was denied the ability to appeal to Tribunal. The Council should apologise, Pay Mrs X £6000 for lost education provision, £400 for her time and trouble and avoidable distress, make a decision about incurred costs, provide an action plan and staff training. Central Bedfordshire Council (23 015 961)
Summary: Miss B complained the Council failed to provide suitable education for her son, C, and failed to ensure he received the provision set out in his Education, Health and Care Plan from March 2022 to January 2023. Miss B said C missed education and plan provision and she was distressed and impacted financially by the Councils actions. There was fault in the way the Council did not ensure C received any education or plan provision, did not follow the plan review process and not fully considering Miss Bâs complaint. C missed out on education and plan provision for two and a half academic terms. Miss B was frustrated and put to time and trouble to complain. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment and remind staff of the Councils responsibilities. Central Bedfordshire Council (24 001 147)
Summary: Miss B complained the Council failed to provide appropriate education to her son, C, and failed to ensure he received the provision set out in his Education, Health and Care Plan from September 2022 to September 2023. Miss B said C missed education and provision and she was distressed and impacted financially by the Councils actions. The Council did not provide C with any education or plan provision until appeal rights to the Tribunal were engaged, did not follow the plan review process and did not consider her complaint. C missed out on education and plan provision for one academic term. Miss B was frustrated and put to time and trouble to complain. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment and remind staff of the Councils responsibilities. London Borough of Hillingdon (24 003 688)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about school admissions. The Council was acting on behalf of academy schools. We have no powers to consider complaints about academies. Suffolk County Council (24 003 796)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs 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. West Sussex County Council (24 003 886)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Councilâs School Admissions Appeal Panelâs handling of her appeal against the refusal to offer her child a place at her preferred school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant further investigation. Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (23 011 592)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has not dealt properly with Childrens Social Care. The Council wrongly assessed the nature of the care arrangements and did not complete a review of financial support needed. Mrs X suffered financial hardship. The Council should complete a review of financial support. East Sussex County Council (23 015 052)
Summary: Mr and Mrs B complained about the Councilâs handling of their application to become respite foster carers. They say the Council unreasonably refused their application despite the fact they have fully cooperated with the process and given as much as information as they can. We do not find fault with the Councilâs decision making. Coventry City Council (23 015 707)
Summary: We have upheld this complaint about delay in the childrenâs statutory complaints procedure. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (23 018 243)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs responses to the complainantâs requests for the provision of social care services for her daughter. This is because investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Westminster City Council (24 002 124)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the evidence given in court and the reports written for it. An absolute legal bar prevents us doing so. Birmingham City Council (24 003 925)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr Xâs complaint about a report. This is because it was used in the family court during private law proceedings between Mr X and another party. We have no remit to look at reports used in court. London Borough of Bromley (24 004 177)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs alleged failure to safeguard Mrs X when she was a child. This is because parts of the complaint relate to data protection and are best placed for the information commissionerâs office to investigate. The remaining parts of the complaint relate to events that took place more than 12 months ago and are therefore outside of our jurisdiction due to the time that has elapsed. |
