| 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 Yorkshire Council (23 019 161)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not ensure her son, Y, received any education from when he was unable to attend school from May 2023. She also complained the Council did not follow the annual review process. Mrs X complained communication from the Council was difficult. Mrs X said she was distressed and frustrated by the Councilâs actions and Y missed education. There was fault in the way the Council did not ensure Y received any education or EHC Plan provision for two academic terms, did not respond to the complaint in a reasonable time and communication with the Council was poor. This distressed Mrs X, frustrated her appeal rights to the Tribunal and she was put to time and trouble to complain. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and Y, make a financial payment and provide training to its staff. Essex County Council (24 002 855)
Summary: Miss X complained about the Councilâs delay completing her child, Yâs Education, Health and Care needs assessment, and failure to provide Y with suitable alternative provision while out of school. We find the Council at fault. This impacted Yâs education and caused avoidable distress and uncertainty to Miss X. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Miss X. Worcestershire County Council (24 009 336)
Summary: We cannot investigate Miss Xâs complaint the Council ignored her reports of coercive control. Part of the complaint is late and more recent matters have been considered by the Court. Surrey County Council (24 009 536)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about education matters concerning Mrs Xâs adult child, Mr Y. We lack his consent to do so and there is thus no worthwhile outcome achievable by investigating. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (24 012 586)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council operates its clerking function for school admission appeals. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council for us to be able to question its decision. Gloucestershire County Council (24 012 734)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the school admissions process. The Council has offered a fresh appeal and it is unlikely an investigation would achieve anything more. Kent County Council (24 002 288)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about support provided to his child by the Councilâs childrenâs services and how it has communicated with him. We could not add to the Councilâs investigation or achieve anything more. London Borough of Lewisham (24 006 042)
London Borough of Lewisham (24 006 042) Swindon Borough Council (24 010 532)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker, including what was written about Mr X and the alleged failure to safeguard his children. The matters complained either were or could reasonably have been raised in court and we have no legal authority to investigate them. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (24 011 286)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about information the Council holds about him which he says is incorrect and was forwarded to the NHS. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider it now. London Borough of Sutton (24 011 499)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs concerns about the accuracy of information the Council provided to be used for a court report. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to raise his concerns at court. Staffordshire County Council (23 014 937)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to deliver her daughterâs Education, Health and Care Plan in line with statutory timescales. We find fault with the Council for delay and have agreed a payment for the distress and frustration caused. Durham County Council (23 015 863)
Summary: We upheld Ms Xâs complaint about the Councilâs failure to provide suitable educational provision for Y between April and July 2023. The Council will apologise and make a payment of £1500 to reflect this. North Yorkshire Council (23 015 913)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to ensure her son, Y, received an education and the specialist provision outlined in his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan between April 2023 and July 2024 when he attended a school which said it could not meet his needs. The Council had sufficient oversight of Yâs education when Yâs school raised concerns and ensured support was in place to try and support Y to engage in the school environment. The Council was at fault for delays in consulting with an alternative placement during 2023 and it has already offered a suitable remedy. Suffolk County Council (23 019 255)
Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council failed to provide transport for her son, C to attend his educational provisions for almost a year. We found the Council, failed to provide transport, delayed excessively in reaching a decision on Câs eligibility for transport and also in offering Mrs B a personal travel budget. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B, pay her £500 and improve its procedures for the future. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (23 020 069)
Summary: There was delay by the Council issuing Yâs first Education, Health and Care Plan after the law changed in 2018. This caused avoidable uncertainty. There was also delay securing educational provision on the post-Tribunal Plan of December 2023 which caused Y a loss of educational provision. The Council offered a payment of £18,023 to remedy the loss of educational provision. This is an appropriate remedy for Yâs injustice. The Council will also apologise to Ms X and make her a payment of £150 to reflect the avoidable distress. Surrey County Council (23 020 535)
Summary: Mrs X complains about the way the Council dealt with her daughter, Yâs post-16 education placement causing distress. We cannot investigate Mrs Xâs complaints about the way the Council dealt with Yâs post-16 education placement. This is because Mrs X has appealed to the SEND Tribunal about her concerns and the law prevents the Ombudsman for investigating such matters. So, we are ending our investigation. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (24 001 402)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to find her son, Y, a place at a special school in the last four to five years. She also says the Council has failed to pursue a place at her preferred school. Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide the intervention therapy specified in her sons Education and Health Care Plan for the past two years. Mrs X says this has caused her and her family distress. We have found fault in the actions of the Council for failing to provide part of the provision set out in Yâs Education and Health Care Plan. The Council has agreed to issue an apology, pay a financial payment to Mrs X, implement the provision noted in Yâs EHC Plan and complete service improvements. Kent County Council (24 002 316)
Summary: Mrs X complained about delays and other failures in how the Council provided education for her son, who has special educational needs. We ended our investigation because part of Mrs Xâs complaint was late, it would have been reasonable for Mrs X to use her appeal rights and the Council has not yet had an opportunity to respond to the latest issue. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (24 003 408)
Summary: We found fault on Miss Pâs complaint about the appeal panel failing to properly consider her appeal against the admission authorityâs decision to refuse her daughter Q a place at her preferred school. This caused the family a great deal of distress. The panel failed to properly consider her submissions when reaching its decision. It failed to properly communicate its decision to her. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (24 005 269)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the Councilâs failure to complete the Education, Health and Care needs assessment within required timescales, and matters related to the assessment process. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating. Somerset Council (24 008 872)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about Education Health and Care Plan issues. We are unlikely to achieve more than the Council has already offered. And it is reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal to the Tribunal. Derbyshire County Council (24 009 712)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education, Health and Care Plan process for the complainantâs child. The delay by the Council did not cause a personal injustice significant enough to warrant us investigating. Miss X has now appealed to a tribunal which places the recent decision outside our jurisdiction. Surrey County Council (24 010 742)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how a school dealt with a safeguarding matter. This is because the law prevents us from investigating what happens in schools. Leagrave Primary School (24 013 355)
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. Derby City Council (23 015 409)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide appropriate financial support when she was a kinship carer (also known as a family and friends foster carer) for her grandchildren. Ms X said she financially supported the children as well as caring for them, which had a financial impact. She said it impacted her mental health and caused unnecessary distress. We find the Council at fault, and this caused Ms X injustice. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Ms X. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (23 020 879)
Summary: Mrs X complained about failings in the Councilâs child protection investigation concerning two children she and her husband were fostering. We found the Council at fault for not including all relevant professionals in its investigation, and for not having a safety plan for both children. This caused Mrs X and her husband frustration and uncertainty about whether the Councilâs findings are reliable. London Borough of Newham (24 002 314)
Summary: Miss X complained to the Council about its actions when she was in its care as a child and as a care leaver. We found that the Council was at fault for not agreeing to investigate the complaints under the statutory Children Act 1989 complaintsâ procedures. The Council has now agreed to start a statutory investigation at stage two without delay. We have therefore completed our investigation and are closing the complaint. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (24 002 544)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to protect her grandchild, Y. Miss X said the Council delayed sharing information about Y being subject to child protection planning with her. The Council was at fault which put Y at risk of harm. The Council has already upheld Miss Xâs complaint, apologised and agreed to put in place staff training, improve its service and reimburse costs to Miss X. The Council will also pay Miss X a symbolic payment for distress and uncertainty caused to her. London Borough of Lewisham (24 005 116)
London Borough of Lewisham (24 005 116) London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (24 008 104)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Councilâs childrenâs services because it concerns matters that have been or reasonably could reasonably be considered in court. London Borough of Barnet (24 009 108)
Summary: We will not investigate Xâs complaint on behalf of Y that the Council failed to consider a complaint under the childrenâs statutory complaints process. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Leeds City Council (24 009 276)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to address neglect and safeguarding issues at a nursery setting because we would not add anything significant to the investigation the Council has already carried out. Liverpool City Council (24 009 399)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Councilâs involvement in the care and contact arrangements between Miss X and her child. This is because these issues have been considered in court and some issues raised are late. The Information Commissioner is better placed to consider Miss Xâs complaint that the Council are withholding information. Wiltshire Council (24 009 789)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about what happened when Ms X was adopted in the 1970s. This is because the complaint is late, and the issues raised took placed too long ago for us to now properly investigate. The police are the appropriate body to investigate crimes and a claim for compensation needs to be considered by the courts. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (24 009 637)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the content of the complainantâs daughterâs Education Health and Care Plan and her educational placement. This is because the complainant had the right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) about these matters and it would have been reasonable for her to do so. North Yorkshire Council (24 010 740)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about changes to how the Councilâs music service charges its customers. If Mr X thinks the Council has breached contract and consumer law, then it is reasonable for him to seek a remedy in court. North Huddersfield Trust School (24 012 815)
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. Wokingham Borough Council (24 013 134)
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. Lincolnshire County Council (24 008 957)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to provide appropriate services for the complainantâs family. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Councilâs part to warrant investigation. Devon County Council (23 012 906)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed issuing her child, Yâs Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and then failed to ensure they received the provision in the plan from July 2023 until May 2024 after it named an inappropriate school. The Council delayed issuing Yâs final EHC Plan by five months. It agreed to apologise and make a payment for the injustice that caused. Mrs X appealed the content and named placement in Yâs EHC Plan to the SEND tribunal therefore I cannot investigate the period July 2023 until May 2024 as it falls outside our jurisdiction. Surrey County Council (23 021 190)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed outside the statutory timescales in issuing his childâs Education, Health and Care Plan. Mr X also complained the Council failed to secure a suitable school placement for his child for September 2024. I have ended my investigation because the Council has offered a suitable remedy for the delays in production of the Education, Health and Care Plan. The SEND Tribunal is better placed to investigate the school placement named in the Education, Health and Care Plan. Cornwall Council (24 000 749)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has not properly dealt with alternative education provision for her son Y. The Council is at fault because it delayed making a decision and did not consider Yâs health concerns. Mrs X suffered distress and uncertainty as well as financial loss in educating Y at home. The Council should apologise, repay money Mrs X has spent on Yâs education and pay £200 for distress. Essex County Council (24 001 924)
Summary: Mrs X says the Council has failed to issue her son, Yâs final Education, Health and Care Plan in line with the statutory timescales. Mrs X also says the Council failed to liaise with her preferred school and gave incorrect information about being unable to contact the school. Mrs X says this case her and her family distress. We have found fault in the actions of the Council for delaying in issuing the Education, Health and Care Plan and delaying in contacting Mrs Xâs preferred school. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X, pay her a financial payment and complete service improvements. Devon County Council (24 002 450)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed completing her child, 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 delay in obtaining Educational Psychologist (EP) advice. It then further delayed issuing Yâs final EHC Plan by 20 weeks after it received the EP advice. The Council agreed to make payments to Mrs X to acknowledge the injustice the delays caused. Suffolk County Council (24 009 102)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about Education Health and Care Plan matters. It is unlikely we could find he has been caused any direct significant injustice because of significant fault. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (24 009 523)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to ensure the delivery of provision set out in the complainantâs sonâs Education Health and Care plan. This is because the complaint has already been upheld and our intervention would not lead to a different outcome. Medway Council (24 011 134)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about her childâs education. Miss X has appealed to a tribunal which places the complaint outside our jurisdiction. Devon County Council (24 009 558)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council removing Ms Xâs child. This matter was subject to court action, and we are legally prevented from investigating it. Only a court can decide if criminal offences have been committed. Bracknell Forest Council (24 010 215)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint that the Council has failed to ensure the NHS keeps up to date records. This is because an investigation by this office would not be able to add to the response the Council has already provided via its own investigation of the matter. Brighton & Hove City Council (24 012 620)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs involvement in Mr Xâs childrenâs case. The matter is currently being considered as part of private court proceedings. Gloucestershire County Council (23 021 202)
Summary: Mr F complained the Council failed to provide suitable education for his son after he was permanently excluded and about delay in the education, health and care needs assessment. We found fault. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mr F to remedy the injustice caused. Coventry City Council (24 008 031)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs actions when his child was removed from a schoolâs roll. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Additionally, some of Mr Xâs complaint is late, and there are no good reasons why it could not have been made sooner. North Yorkshire Council (24 009 265)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about home to school transport. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. It is also reasonable for Mr X to use the Councilâs appeals process if he wants to challenge the decision not to provide his son with free transport. Surrey County Council (24 009 335)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about Education Health and Care Plan delays. The Council has paid Miss X a lump sum for the delays. And it is reasonable to expect Miss X to have appealed the named educational setting to the Tribunal. City of Wolverhampton Council (24 009 596)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision to change the school transport pick-up point for the complainantâs child. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the matter to justify an investigation. Medway Council (24 013 371)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs failure to secure a suitable educational setting for his child, and the suitability of remedy it provided. This is because it was reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the Tribunal. Plymouth City Council (24 001 826)
Summary: We found fault on Miss Wâs complaint about the way the Council dealt with her daughter when it decided to place her for adoption. It delayed telling her of abuse by the prospective adopter and a change of circumstances for almost two years. Records were incomplete, there was a failure to promptly get guidance, and case management was weak. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused. Buckinghamshire Council (24 008 768)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision to end the complainantâs granddaughterâs foster placement. This is because the complaint has already been upheld and our intervention would not lead to a different outcome. Leeds City Council (24 012 619)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs childrenâs services after it completed a children and family assessment in 2022. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons to consider it now. Leeds City Council (24 013 350)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about children servicesâ actions. We have upheld Mr Xâs complaint as the Council has now agreed to follow the Children Act statutory complaintsâ procedure. West Sussex County Council (24 013 735)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about delay in the Council responding to her stage two complaint under 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. Surrey County Council (24 000 874)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed completing an Education, Health and Care needs assessment for her child and delayed putting in place educational provision after her child could not attend school. This meant her child missed education they should have received and has fallen behind their peers. We have found the Council at fault, however we are satisfied the Council has already offered Ms X an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused. Medway Council (24 003 010)
Summary: There was fault by the Council in failing to seek confirmation of whether a pupil had previously hit staff on school transport before reaching a decision about the nature of transport required. The Council will apologise, provide a payment to remedy injustice and make service improvements. The complaint is upheld. Medway Council (24 009 611)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about delay in her childâs Education, Health and Care Plan annual review process. An investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome. Ms X has appealed to the SEND Tribunal about the content of the plan and the Tribunal can consider a complaint about lost education caused by delay in its process as part of her appeal. Essex County Council (24 011 506)
Summary: We upheld Miss Xâs complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care plan process. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused by the delay. Trafford Council (22 016 973)
Summary: Miss Y complained about the way the Council dealt with her child, Zâs education and Education Health and Care Plan. We have found fault by the Council, causing injustice, in failing to: properly consider alternative provision for Z in May 2022; complete Zâs transition review within the statutory timescales; and communicate about the amended EHC Plan. And with its poor complaint handling process and SENDIASS service failure. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising, making a payment to recognise Miss Y and Zâs distress and service improvements. Surrey County Council (23 016 869)
Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council administers school transport applications for children in her village. We do not find fault with how the Council assesses these applications. We find the Council at fault for delays in considering Miss Xâs appeal, and for providing incorrect information but we find the Council has already taken sufficient action to address this. Surrey County Council (23 021 144)
Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council dealt with her childâs Education, Health and Care Plan and its alleged failure to provide her child with Occupational Therapy provision as specified in the Plan. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Y and Mrs X. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused. Liverpool City Council (24 008 698)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to allow Ms X to home-school her child and taking child protection action. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation. A legal bar prevents us investigating the actions of a school. Hertfordshire County Council (24 008 709)
Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X complaint about the decision to remove her children from her care. The law says we cannot investigate matters that have been considered by the Court. London Borough of Redbridge (24 009 031)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the process of issuing a blue badge because there is not significant enough injustice to warrant investigation. London Borough of Bexley (24 009 206)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a recent Child Protection Conference. It is unlikely we could add anything to the Councilâs response. We will not investigate Miss Xâs concerns about the Councilâs involvement with her family over the last five years. These issues are late and there is no good reason we should now look at them. Devon County Council (24 011 510)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the Councilâs delay and poor communication during pre-proceedings relating to her child. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Councilâs decision not to consider her complaint whilst there are ongoing court proceedings. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (24 011 731)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about information provided by the Council in relation to a private court matter. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. London Borough of Lambeth (23 005 025)
Summary: Ms M complains the Council owes her approximately £65,000 in fostering fees for the care she provided her nephews. The Council arranged for Ms M to care for her nephews under regulations which allow a relative to become a temporary foster carer. The Council did not, however, complete the necessary assessments. An independent investigator was critical of the Councilâs failure to take control of the situation, and to respond to Ms Mâs requests for help with transport for the boys for many months. We do not uphold Ms Mâs complaint the Council owes her £65,000 in fostering fees, but we have recommended a symbolic payment for the delays and the frustration caused. |
