| 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. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (23 013 127)
Summary: Mr X complained about the Councilâs refusal to provide school transport for his son (B) when the school named in his Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) is the only school offered by the Council and is more than three miles from his home. Mr X also complained about the failure to properly consider his school transport appeal. Bristol City Council (23 017 134)
Summary: The Council failed to make the provision set out in a childâs Education Health and Care Plan when his school placement broke down, including speech and language therapy. The Council made some alternative provision in this time, but it did not consider fully whether this was suitable or a full-time provision. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice to the child and his family. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (23 017 854)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to arrange suitable full-time education for her child, W, after they stopped attending school, and that it took too long to find another school for W. The Council was at fault for failing to secure the special educational provision in Wâs Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for over a year. It was also at fault for delay issuing an amended version of Wâs EHC Plan and for delay seeking a new school place for W. This meant W missed out on education they were entitled to, and Mrs X experienced undue frustration, upset and stress. To remedy their injustice, the Council will apologise to Mrs X, pay her £7,825 and take action to prevent similar fault in the future. Surrey County Council (23 020 484)
Summary: There was a delay in issuing Mr Yâs Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused avoidable frustration, confusion and a delay in appeal rights for which the Council has already offered an appropriate payment. The Council will apologise and make an additional payment of £7200 to reflect the loss of special educational provision Mr Y was entitled to. Essex County Council (24 004 725)
Summary: We upheld Mrs Xâs complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care assessment process regarding her child, Y. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. St. Teresas RC Primary School (24 006 966)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about an unsuccessful school admission appeal. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault for us to be able to question the panelâs decision. St. Teresas RC Primary School (24 006 973)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about an unsuccessful school admission appeal. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault for us to be able to question the panelâs decision. London Borough of Bexley (24 003 364)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision to stop special guardianship support. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Gloucestershire County Council (24 003 666)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X complaint about children servicesâ issues. We cannot investigate matters which have been involved in Court proceedings and Social Work England is better placed to consider social worker conduct issues. Southend-on-Sea City Council (23 004 839)
Summary: Mrs X complains there was delay in issuing her sonâs revised Education Health and Care Plan. We found there was significant delay and insufficient oversight of the process. There was also a failure to ensure her son received an education for a period of time and the Council failed to properly respond to the complaint. The Council explained it had started improvement work to restore its service level for children with Special Education Needs. We recommended payments to Mrs X to recognise the loss of education to Y and the distress caused. Wakefield City Council (23 017 571)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not act to ensure the delivery of the provision set out in her sonâs Education, Health and Care Plan causing him to miss out. The Council did at least the minimum the Ombudsman would expect, and Mrs X had rights of appeal if she disagreed. We therefore find no fault. London Borough of Ealing (23 018 697)
Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, about the Councilâs involvement with a child who was not attending school full-time. This is because we could not add to the Councilâs response or provide anything meaningful through further investigation. London Borough of Islington (23 019 982)
Summary: Mrs F complained about the Councilâs handling of the Education, Health, and Care plan process for her son following an annual review. The Council accepted it was at fault for causing delays in the process and how it communicated with her, and proposed a remedy to Mrs F. We found the Council was at fault, but its remedy was not enough. The Council will apologise and make payment in line with our recommendations to Mrs F to acknowledge the injustice its faults caused her. Worcestershire County Council (23 020 038)
Summary: The Council was at fault because it did not arrange alternative educational provision for a child who was not attending school. It has already offered an adequate remedy for this, with the exception that it should also have offered to reimburse the complainant for a report she obtained privately. The Council has now agreed to do this. We have not investigated a complaint about the Councilâs decision not to issue an education, health and care plan, because it carried a right of appeal to tribunal. Plymouth City Council (24 000 538)
Summary: There was a four-month delay by the Council in dealing with Ms Xâs request for an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment. Communication and complaint handling were also poor. This caused avoidable distress and a delay in appeal rights. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment of £150 and provide us with a report on how it has reduced waiting times. London Borough of Lewisham (24 005 158)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the failure to provide Y with an education as we are unlikely to find fault. And it is reasonable to expect Miss X to have appealed the Councilâs decision not to assess Y for an Education Health and Care Plan. Durham County Council (24 004 686)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs response to the complainantâs concerns about her childrenâs welfare. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Councilâs part, and investigation would not lead to the outcome the complainant wants. Surrey County Council (23 010 565)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her child with alternative education provision despite being aware he could not attend school full-time and delayed issuing a final Education, Health and Care plan following an emergency review. Mrs X says her son did not receive suitable full-time education and missed provision set out in his final plan. We found fault by the Council but consider the agreed action of an apology, provision of any missed speech and language therapy and a symbolic payment provides a suitable remedy. Staffordshire County Council (23 016 843)
Summary: Mrs B says the Council delayed making a decision following a review of her sonâs education, health and care plan, issued the wrong decision and failed to put in place education for her son. The Council delayed issuing a decision following the review and then issued the wrong decision but there is no fault in the failure to put in place education for Mrs Bâs son for the period before the appeal right arose. An apology, payment to Mrs B and a reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy. Salford City Council (23 016 954)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council put her child in an inappropriate school, failed to provide alternative provision when they were out of school, and failed to support her child. Miss X said the missed education impacted her child and their wellbeing. Miss X said it had a financial impact and caused her unnecessary distress. We find the Council at fault and this caused injustice. The Council has agreed to make the payment it has already offered Miss X to remedy the injustice. Devon County Council (23 017 309)
Summary: Mrs X complains there were failings in the way the Council ensured her child Y received the educational provision set out in their Education Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) following an EHC needs assessment and when they were out of school causing distress and loss of educational provision. We will not investigate Mrs Xâs concerns about the EHC needs assessment in 2022 to 2023 because the complaints are late. We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaints about the EHC Plan and the school setting for Y as Mrs X has the right of appeal against the decision. So, we have ended our investigation. Worcestershire County Council (23 017 328)
Summary: Ms X complains that the Council failed to consider its duty to make alternative education provision for Mrs Yâs daughter when she was unable to attend school on a full time basis. The Council is at fault as it delayed in considering its duty to make alternative education provision, delayed in offering the provision and delayed in issuing a final Education, Health and Care plan for Z. As a result, Z missed approximately 11 weeks of education and the faults caused distress to Mrs Y. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice by apologising to Mrs Y and Z and making symbolic payments to them to acknowledge the distress caused to Mrs Y and Zâs missed education. Surrey County Council (23 017 972)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her child with the educational provision in his education, health and care plan. The Council acknowledged the fault and injustice caused. It has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused. West Sussex County Council (23 020 255)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide suitable educational provision in line with her childâs Education, Health and Care Plan since September 2023. Ms X also complained the Council failed to provide any education for child from September 2023 to December 2023. Ms X also complained the Council failed to meet complaint timescales or communicate the outcome of her childâs Education, Health and Care Plan review with her. We did not find fault with the provision of Ms Xâs childâs Education, Health and Care Plan or their general education. However, we found fault with the Council failing to meet the statutory timescales in completing Ms Xâs childâs Education, Health and Care Plan review. We also found fault with delays by the Council in providing complaint responses and misinformation within the complaint responses. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her £250 for the frustration and inconvenience caused through the Councilâs fault. Kent County Council (24 003 277)
Summary: During the course of another investigation, we became aware the Council may have a policy limiting tuition for children out of education to ten hours per week. The Council was not at fault because it tailors tuition provision to a childâs needs without a maximum number of weekly hours. Swindon Borough Council (24 004 538)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr Xâs complaint the Council allowed their child to witness domestic abuse. That is because the Court decided where Mr Xâs child must live. We cannot investigate matters decided by the Court. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (24 004 550)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision his son is not eligible for free home to school transport. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council. Devon County Council (24 004 935)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision to refuse the application for free school transport for the complainantâs daughter. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Councilâs decision-making process. Luton Borough Council (23 020 528)
Summary: The Council has already accepted that it was at fault for some of the ways in which it attempted to support Mr and Mrs B ahead of a proposed adoption placement. And its explanations for other actions it took â which it has supported with evidence â are not obviously unreasonable. Consequently, it would not be proportionate to do a further investigation of the issues Mr and Mrs B raise. But the Council has agreed to take steps to improve its service. Kent County Council (24 004 277)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about children servicesâ actions. We have upheld Mrs Xâs complaint as the Council has now agreed to follow the Children Act statutory complaintsâ procedure. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (24 004 484)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about childrenâs services. That is because the complaint is late. London Borough of Islington (24 004 577)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about support the Council provided installing a new cooker. There is Devon County Council (24 004 740)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the actions of the Councilâs childrenâs social care team because there is insufficient evidence of fault, and Miss X can take some of her complaints to other, more suitable bodies. Liverpool City Council (24 004 962)
Summary: We find the Council at fault for failing to complete the statutory childrenâs complaints procedure and closing Miss Xâs complaint. The Council has re-started the statutory childrenâs complaints procedure. It will also make a symbolic payment to Miss X and apologise to her. Central Bedfordshire Council (23 017 717)
Summary: The Council was at fault for delaying changes to Mrs Bâs daughterâs special educational needs support. It was then also at fault for only partly dealing with Mrs Bâs concerns about the support her daughter received. It has agreed to make symbolic payments to recognise the injustice suffered by Mrs B and her daughter, and will take steps to improve its service. West Sussex County Council (23 020 491)
Summary: Mrs X complains about the Councilâs handling of her child, Yâs, special educational needs. She says the Council should have agreed to complete an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment without the need for an appeal. She also says the Council delayed in completing the Assessment and issuing an Education Health and Care Plan. Mrs X also says the Council failed to provide alternative provision for her child. Mrs X says this caused her and her family distress. We have found fault in the actions of the Council for the delay in issuing the Plan and for failing to provide alternative provision for Y. The Council has agreed to pay a financial remedy and implement service improvements. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (23 021 095)
Summary: Miss X complained about the Councilâs delay completing her child, Yâs Education, Health and Care needs assessment. We find fault, causing injustice to Y and avoidable distress and uncertainty to Miss X. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Miss X. Lancashire County Council (24 001 214)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to take action when the complainant reported that her sonâs school has unlawfully taken him off roll. This is because there is insufficient injustice to warrant investigation. Warwickshire County Council (24 003 844)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the Council failing to provide information to her about school admissions. She wanted a place at an Academy and we cannot investigate their admissions process. Essex County Council (24 005 005)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision following an Education Health and Care Plan annual review. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal to the Tribunal. Archbishop Blanch School (24 006 245)
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. Hampshire County Council (24 006 859)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs School Admissions Appeal Panelâs handling of his appeal against the refusal to offer his child a place at his preferred school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant further investigation. Middlesbrough Borough Council (23 012 894)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide an education and special educational provision for her child, and ignored her complaint. She said her child has missed out on education, which impacted their mental health and wellbeing. She said it caused unnecessary distress and frustration. We do not find the Council at fault for the way it handled the childâs education. But we find the Council at fault for its complaint handling, which caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment, and improve its service. Bracknell Forest Council (23 015 717)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Councilâs failure to provide her child with a suitable education and support for their special needs when they were unable to attend school. We found the Council to be at fault. There was also fault with the Councilâs communication and complaint handling. To remedy the injustice to Mrs X, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment and confirm action it has taken to improve its service. Leeds City Council (23 016 209)
Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council reached its decision to refuse travel support for her son. We are satisfied the Council considered all the information available and have found no fault with how it reached its decision. Oxfordshire County Council (23 016 452)
Summary: The complainant, Miss X, complained that the Council has failed to deliver the specialist provision in her daughter's education, health and care plan, failed to act on professional reports and failed to respond to her complaints in a timely manner. We find the Council was at fault for failing to respond to Miss Xâs complaints in a timely manner. This caused significant stress to Miss X. The Council has agreed to make several recommendations to address this injustice caused by fault. Birmingham City Council (23 016 990)
Summary: Ms D complains the Council failed to provide enough evidence her son was receiving all the provision set out in his Education, Health, and Care plan in his school. We found no fault in the way the Council considered and investigated Ms Dâs concerns about the schoolâs delivery of Xâs special educational needs provision. Birmingham City Council (23 017 968)
Summary: Ms D complains the Council failed to provide enough evidence her son was receiving all the provision set out in his Education, Health, and Care plan in his school. We found fault by the Council for its failure to recognise Yâs communications book was not available to him and direct the school to ensure he had access to it. There was no fault on other matters complained about. The Council should apologise and make payment to acknowledge the injustice this caused Ms D. Shropshire Council (24 000 454)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide suitable full time alternative education for her son from October 2023. In response to Miss Xâs complaints about this the Council accepted fault and that it did not do enough to ensure a suitable education was provided. A suitable remedy is agreed to acknowledge this loss of education provision. Derbyshire County Council (24 002 903)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Councilâs actions relating to a review of her child, Yâs, Education, Health and Care Plan. Some of the claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation. For the other elements of Mrs Xâs complaint further investigation is unlikely to achieve a different outcome. Suffolk County Council (24 004 123)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council delayed in updating its policy about free school meals. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our investigation. Buckinghamshire Council (24 007 072)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about school admissions. This is because we have no powers to investigate complaints about academy schools. Liverpool City Council (24 004 202)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with safeguarding concerns about a child. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (23 017 693)
Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with a blue badge application. There were no issues with the Councilâs decision-making process. However, we found fault with the way the Council told Mr X about his appeal rights and communicated the outcome of his appeal. This caused frustration and uncertainty to Mr X and the Council has agreed to apologise for this. |
