| 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. Suffolk County Council (23 019 930)
Summary: the Council delayed putting in place education for Miss Bâs daughter, failed to put in place sufficient education, failed to put in place some of the provision in her daughterâs education, health and care plan and delayed completing the annual review for that plan. An apology, allocation of a budget to be used for Miss Bâs daughterâs benefit, payment to Miss B and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy. London Borough of Bexley (23 021 007)
Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to provide his son, Y, with suitable alternative education and the content of his Education, Health and Care Plan since January 2022. Mr X says this has caused Y and his family distress and Y has missed out on his education. Mr X wants the Council to put a plan in place to allow Y to receive an appropriate education and return to school. We have found fault in the actions of the Council for delays in putting place Section 19 provision and responding to Mr Xâs complaint. The Council has already apologised for this so we have not recommended any remedy. Reading Borough Council (24 007 965)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs school transport policy, allegations of sub-contracting, and issues with the taxi-driver leaving her child unsupervised and leaving her before she was received into the care of an adult. We consider further investigation will not add to that carried out by the Council. Nor would it lead to a different outcome. Sheffield City Council (24 009 331)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing Mr Xâs request his child be taught out of year group. If Mr X wanted to challenge the Councilâs decision, then it was reasonable for him to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). Maidstone Grammar School For Boys (24 013 030)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful school admission appeal. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault for us to question the panelâs decision. London Borough of Brent (23 019 377)
Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of Y. Ms X said the statutory complaints process failed to address the injustice caused to Y by the Councils failure to provide support to them as a looked after child. There was no fault in how the Council investigated the complaint under the statutory childrenâs complaints procedure. We therefore have no grounds to question or reinvestigate its findings and the Council provided evidence it carried out the recommendations made. However, the Council was at fault for delay in completing the stage 2 investigation and delay in holding the stage 3 review panel. The Council will apologise, pay Y a symbolic payment and act to improve its services. London Borough of Enfield (24 004 921)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs involvement with Miss Xâs child being removed from her care. The key decisions are for the courts, not just the Council. We cannot investigate the commencement or conduct of court action, or the courtâs decision-making. Blackburn with Darwen Council (24 009 208)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to take reasonable steps to inform the complainant of the death of his childrenâs mother, or to ensure that he was subsequently involved in matters relating to his childrenâs welfare. This is because we would not add anything significant to the investigation which has already been carried out. Kent County Council (24 011 121)
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 until it has received confirmation that the ongoing court proceedings have concluded. Hampshire County Council (24 011 883)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs parenting assessment. The law prevents us from considering matters that have been considered in court. Warwickshire County Council (24 013 258)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about delay in the Council responding to her complaint at stage two of the childrenâs statutory complaint procedure. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Hertfordshire County Council (23 013 953)
Summary: Ms X complains about the way the Council dealt with her request for a reassessment of her childâs special educational needs, a request for a personal budget and her complaints about these matters causing distress and loss of educational provision. We found fault because the Council delayed dealing with the reassessment of needs request and personal budget request. And we found fault by the Council in responding to Ms Xâs complaints about both issues. We have recommended a suitable remedy in this case, so we have completed our investigation. Staffordshire County Council (23 020 424)
Staffordshire County Council (23 020 424) Peterborough City Council (24 000 062)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide formal education for her child until April 2023. Ms X complained the education provided since April 2023 has not been suitable full-time education. We found fault with the education provided by the Council from January 2023 to the end of the 2023/2024 academic year. We also found fault with the way in which the Council handled Ms Xâs complaint. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her £2,000 for her childâs missed education. The Council also agreed to pay Ms X £150 for the frustration and inconvenience caused through its handling of her complaint. City of Doncaster Council (24 000 117)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide suitable education to her daughter and did not check on her wellbeing after she was permanently excluded from school. Mrs X says the Councilâs actions caused avoidable distress to her daughter and the family, and meant her daughter missed out on education. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to provide an apology and a financial remedy and make service improvements. London Borough of Bromley (24 001 796)
Summary: Ms X complained about the Councilâs decision to suspend her child, Y, from school transport. The Council accepts it should not have suspended Y and failed to consult Ms X. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Ms X and train its staff to prevent a recurrence of its mistake. Surrey County Council (24 002 523)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to follow a tribunal order and failed to put in place the special educational provision detailed in her childâs Education, Health and Care Plan. We have found the Council at fault for the delay in issuing the final Plan and failing to secure the special educational provision detailed in the Plan. The Council has agreed to apologise, reimburse financial costs and complete service improvements to remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (24 004 296)
Summary: We upheld Ms Xâs complaint about a failure to secure special educational provision in her child Yâs Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused a loss of educational provision, avoidable frustration, uncertainty and time and trouble. The Council will apologise, provide a copy of the action plan setting out how Y will receive catch-up provision, provide a copy of a specialist assessment, and make Ms X a payment of £200 to reflect her avoidable distress and time and trouble. Lancashire County Council (24 005 108)
Summary: Mrs X complains about delay in the education, health and care plan process for her son. Mrs X says the Council failed to meet statutory timescales and failed to respond to her communications. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mrs X and issue a reminder to officers as a satisfactory remedy. Sheffield City Council (24 008 883)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs handling of a child protection case because we could not achieve a worthwhile outcome, given the lapse of time since the events complained about. Northumberland County Council (24 009 005)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council delayed naming a school on a childâs Education Health and Care Plan. This is because it is reasonable to have expected the complainant to have used their appeal to a tribunal. Suffolk County Council (24 009 231)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs Post 16 transport policy and its decision not to provide transport for Mr Xâs daughter, Y. Isle of Wight Council (24 009 323)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay following the annual review of an Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The injustice caused is not significant enough to warrant an investigation. Maidstone Grammar School For Boys (24 011 532)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the appeal panelâs decision not to offer her son a sixth form place. We find some fault in how the panel handled Mrs Xâs appeal. This means she cannot be satisfied the appeals process was carried out fairly. The School has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault. Isle of Wight Council (24 012 085)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a failure to deliver provision contained in an Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because an investigation would not add anything to the Councilâs response. Devon County Council (23 009 472)
Summary: There was no fault in the Councilâs decision not to investigate Mr Xâs complaint about childrenâs services. Mr X also complained that the Council did not fully comply with his subject access request but the Information Commissionerâs Office is best placed to consider this complaint. London Borough of Bromley (24 004 807)
Summary: We have decided not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about a lack of social care for his child, Y, and a failure to properly consider his request for direct payments. The Council has accepted some fault and will investigate further using the statutory childrenâs complaints process. Durham County Council (24 010 235)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the content of an Education, Health and Care Plan. Mrs X has appealed to a tribunal and so the complaint is outside our jurisdiction with no discretion to investigate. London Borough of Bromley (24 007 313)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a referral to the Local Authority Designated Officer. This is because there is insufficient evidence that the referral has caused the complainant significant injustice. Brighton & Hove City Council (24 009 229)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a Child Protection Conference Chair. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice, and investigation would not achieve the outcome the complainant wants. Kent County Council (24 009 568)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision to suspend the complainantâs direct payment package. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Councilâs part. Surrey County Council (23 017 533)
Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council considers school transport applications for children in her village. We do not find fault with how the Council assesses these applications or how it responded to Mrs Xâs application and appeal. Sheffield City Council (23 021 148)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to find a setting for her daughter, Y, to sit her GCSE exams. Mrs X said she had to arrange for the exams to take place outside of her local area, in busy settings which would impact Y. Yâs tutor then arranged the exams in a local setting. Mrs X said she spent a lot of time arranging the exams and this impacted her, and Yâs, mental health. There was fault in the way the Council did not arrange for Y to sit the exams in a suitable location with suitable adjustments. This fault distressed Mrs X and Y. The Council will apologise, make a financial payment and provide a copy of its new policy. Somerset Council (24 001 687)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her child, Y, with a suitable alternative education while they were absent from school. She also complained the Council delayed in issuing Yâs Education Health and Care Plan, failed to deliver the provision in the plan and failed to communicate with her during the process. The Council failed to review the suitability of Yâs alternative education and delayed in issuing their EHC Plan. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Mrs X to acknowledge her frustration and Yâs lack of education provision. Liverpool City Council (24 008 734)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with the education and SEN provision for the complainantâs child. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault, and the complainant has used their right of appeal to a tribunal. Buckinghamshire Council (24 008 837)
Summary: We cannot investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the contents of her daughterâs Education Health and Care Plan because Ms X has used her right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal. We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process because the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and pay her £350. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 008 967)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about his childâs education as it is outside our jurisdiction. Mr X has appealed to a tribunal, and we cannot consider complaints about schools. Nottingham City Council (24 012 846)
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 its decision. London Borough of Bexley (24 008 898)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has been at fault in its response to the complainantâs daughterâs needs and his subsequent complaint. This is because investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Shropshire Council (24 008 914)
Summary: We will not investigate Xâs complaint about children servicesâ actions. We are unlikely to find fault which has caused X a direct injustice and the Information Commissionerâs Office is better placed. Surrey County Council (23 013 925)
Summary: there were problems following the emergency review of Bâs Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan on 26 June 2023. The Council accepts it failed to follow the statutory process, which resulted in delays, and should have had more robust oversight of alternative arrangements for Bâs education when he stopped attending school. BÂ did not attend school for one and a half terms, and although he received some alternative provision, it may not have been as much as he needed. In any event, it was considerably less than the full-time school place to which he was entitled. Cambridgeshire County Council (23 015 876)
Summary: Mx B complained about matters connected to the Councilâs assessment of their childâs education, health and care needs. We upheld the complaint finding various faults in how the Council responded to Mx Bâs service requests, their complaint and a request they made for reasonable adjustments. These faults caused Mx B distress. The Council has accepted these findings. At the end of this statement, we set out action the action it has agreed to take to remedy Mx Bâs injustice and improve its services. East Sussex County Council (23 020 257)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council refused to provide alternative provision for her child, who has not accessed full-time education since September 2023. We did not find fault in the Councilâs decision-making. Birmingham City Council (24 004 796)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the conduct of the Council during an appeal to a tribunal. The complaint is out of our jurisdiction with no discretion to investigate. Hertfordshire County Council (24 008 739)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the education of the complainantâs child. This is because the issue of alternative provision is not separable from an appeal about the content of an Education, Health, and Care Plan. Other maters are made late or there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Lancashire County Council (24 008 893)
Summary: We cannot investigate Miss Xâs complaint about a schoolâs actions. We will not investigate the Councilâs response to her child being out of school as the alleged fault and injustice is not significant enough to justify an investigation. Manchester City Council (24 009 292)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision not to provide free school transport. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Wakefield City Council (23 005 781)
Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to provide her with consistent financial and practical support to enable her to care for her niece Y, as a Special Guardian since 2020. We have found no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it has considered Ms X's application for an SGO allowance in 2023 and request for financial help. So, we are minded to complete our investigation. Essex County Council (23 017 341)
Summary: We upheld a complaint from Mr D and Mr E that they did not receive enough support from the Council when they adopted a child from its area. In particular, when they needed support with the childâs challenging behaviours. We considered fault by the Council caused them unnecessary distress. The Council accepted these findings. At the end of this statement, we set out the action it has agreed to take to remedy their injustice and make service improvements. Cambridgeshire County Council (23 018 551)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about children servicesâ issues. We are unlikely to achieve significantly more than the Councilâs replies have achieved. And the Information Commissionerâs Office is better placed to consider her data protection dispute. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 012 391)
Summary:We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed considering a complaint at stage two of the childrenâs statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint by issuing its stage two response without further delay. It will also apologise and offer to make a payment to the complainant to remedy the time and trouble they have been too. Surrey County Council (23 015 228)
Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council handled the transfer of his daughter, Miss Yâs Education, Health and Care Plan when they moved into the area. We find fault which left Miss Y without an education, or the provision detailed in her Education, Health and Care Plan for two years. The Council has agreed to apologise, makes a payment to Mr X and improve its services. Salford City Council (23 019 475)
Summary: Miss Y complained the Council failed to make alternative provision for her child, Z, when they were unable to attend school. We have not found fault with the Council in the way it made its decisions about Zâs alternative provision. North Yorkshire Council (23 020 002)
Summary: The Council provided no education for Mrs X's son for over a year after he moved into its area. It then provided some tuition but failed to increase this as agreed. The Council also delayed in carrying out a review of the childâs education, health and care plan and failed to deliver the provision in the plan. It also failed to properly communicate with Mrs X. In recognition of the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs X. Devon County Council (23 020 358)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed completing her son, Yâs Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment in line with statutory timescales. The Council was at fault. It delayed deciding whether to issue Y with an EHC Plan within the statutory timescales, caused by a 14 week delay in obtaining Educational Psychologist (EP) advice. It then further delayed issuing Yâs final EHC Plan by 15 weeks after it received the EP advice. All of this impacted on Yâs education and meant he lost the opportunity to access the provision in his Plan earlier. It caused Miss X distress and uncertainty. The Council agreed to make payments to acknowledge this injustice. Somerset Council (23 020 705)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council delayed in putting in place an education other than at school package for her daughter, Y. The Council is at fault as it delayed in delivering elements of Yâs education other than at school package and did not arrange face to face tuition for Y as agreed. These faults caused Y to miss some education provision for three terms and caused distress to her and Mrs X. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by making a symbolic payment of £1800 to Y and a symbolic payment of £500 to Mrs X. Lancashire County Council (24 004 730)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed in completing an Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment for his child Y. The Council delayed in deciding whether to issue Y with an EHC plan. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and make a payment to recognise the frustration caused. Surrey County Council (24 005 659)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about delay by the Council in issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan for her daughter following an annual review. This is because we are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken to remedy any injustice caused. Essex County Council (24 007 047)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about delays in producing an Education Health and Care Plan as the Council has agreed to a proportionate way to resolve the complaint. Essex County Council (24 007 422)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision to end her daughterâs Education Health and Care Plan because she has appealed this decision. Nor will we investigate the other parts of her complaint because they either relate to the appeal, or the Council has already satisfactorily addressed them. North Northamptonshire Council (24 008 515)
Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed carrying out an Education Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by apologising and offering to make a suitable payment to the complainant to remedy the injustice this caused. We cannot investigate the Councilâs decision to name a mainstream school in the final EHC Plan, because the complainant has used their right of appeal to a tribunal. Sheffield City Council (24 008 720)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Social Worker who was involved in child protection proceedings. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. East Sussex County Council (24 008 950)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council did not have an appropriate procedure in place to ensure the complainantâs daughter could take a public examination. This is because investigation would not lead to a significantly different outcome. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (24 011 964)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about her childâs school because the Ombudsman does not have powers to look at complaints about schools. Staffordshire County Council (24 012 476)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs complaint handling. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. London Borough of Hounslow (23 010 319)
Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council has declined to accept that it placed her grandchild with her and that she is, therefore, a family and friends carer. She says that, as a result, she has been denied financial support to which she is entitled. We did not uphold Mrs Xâs complaint. However, we found the Council was at fault in failing to have a policy on family and friends foster carers as required by law. The Council has agreed to publish a written policy. West Berkshire Council (24 002 771)
Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council carried out Child Protection proceedings for his child, placed restrictions on how he should contact the Council, and considered his request for reasonable adjustments for his disability. He said this caused him avoidable distress and affected the outcome of Child Protection proceedings. We have ended our investigation. Since Mr X complained to us, the court granted an interim care order so his child could be temporarily taken into care and his child has since been sectioned under the Mental Health Act. Therefore, there is nothing further we could achieve. For the remaining parts of Mr Xâs complaint, our view is further investigation will not result in a finding of fault, or a different or worthwhile outcome. Southend-on-Sea City Council (24 007 620)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr Xâs complaint about information the Council gave a Court. Torbay Council (24 009 252)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs report written as part of court proceedings. The law prevents us from doing so. |
