A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to arrange suitable education when his child, W, stopped attending school in September 2023. The Council was at fault. This meant W missed out on educational provision, social care support and play therapy they should have had. This affected W’s wellbeing and caused Mr X avoidable frustration, upset and uncertainty. To remedy their injustice, the Council will apologise to Mr X and pay him £2500. The Council will also remind staff about using the children’s statutory complaints procedure and review its systems for arranging provision for children out of school, to minimise delays.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement in Miss X’s children’s case. We have no power to consider matters the courts have considered, or the Council’s decision to begin care proceedings. We have no power to investigate police conduct.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council failing to respond to her communication and concerns about how it was dealing with her son’s education, health, and care plan. This is because the fault did not cause any significant injustice. In addition, the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused by its failure to send emails directly.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide her child with home to school transport. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainants’ request to vary the schedule of her children’s school transport. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

Summary: We have upheld Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in completing her child’s Education, Health and Care needs assessment. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about changes to home to school pick up times. The alleged fault is not significant enough to justify an investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s actions linked to its independent investigation into her complaints about its children’s services department. The Council has already agreed to some fault and offered an apology to remedy Mrs X’s injustice. We found additional fault in how long it took to address Mrs X’s complaints. We also considered that the injustice of the distress and time and trouble Mrs X experienced required a remedy greater than an apology. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X, make a payment to her and share good practice guidance with relevant staff.

Summary: Ms X complained that Sheffield City Council and Sheffield Children’s NHS Foundation Trust failed to address the impact of their failings during a child safeguarding enquiry. We are satisfied the Council and the Trust have now proposed appropriate and proportionate action to resolve the complaint. Because of this, we will not investigate Ms X’s complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to renew her son’s Blue Badge. The Council has changed its decision so an investigation would not achieve anything more.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s actions in its child protection involvement with his child. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider his complaint whilst the case is subject to ongoing court proceedings.

Summary: We cannot investigate the Council’s decision to suspend its response to Mr X’s complaint. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that are being, or have been, considered in court.

Summary: There was fault by the Council which failed to secure some of Y’s special educational provision, failed to complete his annual review and delayed reviewing his personal budget. This caused avoidable confusion and a loss of educational provision. The Council will apologise and make payments to reflect the injustice.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council was at fault in the way it responded to her requests for alternative educational provision for her daughter when she was out of school causing distress and loss of educational opportunity. We found no evidence of fault in the way the Council responded to Ms X’s request for alternative provision. We found fault in the way the Council dealt with the annual review as it did not meet the statutory timescales. We have recommended a suitable remedy for the injustice caused in this case so have completed our investigation.

Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council failed to deliver provisions in her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. We found fault in the actions of the Council which caused Mrs B distress and her child to miss out on educational provision. The Council has agreed to pay Mrs B £300 for her own injustice and £1300 for the benefit of C’s education.

Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council had not ensured that her daughter received the specialist occupational therapy set out in her Education Health and Care Plan. There was fault by the Council. It has not provided the therapy and has not communicated with Mrs B about this properly. This has caused Mrs B distress and frustration and means her daughter has missed out on the provision she needs to support her at school. The Council has agreed to make symbolic payments to Mrs B, and share an action plan as to how it will make sure K gets the therapy she is entitled to.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to complete the actions it agreed in mediation in relation to her daughter Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan. Ms X also complained the Council failed to provide a full-time education for Y since September 2022 and did not communicate with her properly. The Council was at fault and as a result Ms X was caused frustration and uncertainty and Y missed out on two terms of special educational provision. The Council will apologise to Ms X and pay her £5,300 to recognise the injustice caused to them both and provide evidence it has improved its service.

Summary: We have upheld Mrs X’s complaint because the Council’s financial remedy for her child’s missed education was not sufficient. The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint by proving a proportionate remedy for the injustice it caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of an Education Health and Care Plan transfer. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to implement the recommendations of the stage three panel review into his complaint about children’s social care, and that this caused him stress and frustration. We have found that the Council acted without fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a children’s safeguarding risk assessment. We are unlikely to find she has been caused a direct significant injustice by the assessment, and we are unlikely to add to the Council’s reply to her complaint about communication issues.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the actions of the Council’s children’s services. Most of the issues raised relate to what has happened in court. There is insufficient evidence of fault with the Council regarding Mr X’s housing situation and Social Work England are better placed to deal with his complaint about the conduct of a social worker.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the actions of a social worker. This is because doing so would not add to the investigation carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome. Also, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the actions of the social worker allocated to her children’s case. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider her complaint whilst there are ongoing court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to change the way it charges for music lessons. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to make appropriate alternative educational provision for the complainant’s daughter. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to provide a proper education to her daughter, and caused delays when deciding her special educational needs support. We have found fault with the Council because it caused a short delay amending Mrs X’s daughter’s support. But this did not cause her a significant injustice. And we cannot comment on the other matters because they are linked to something which could have been appealed to the SEND Tribunal.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed his son, Y’s, Education, Health and Care Plan annual review. He also complained the Council has not ensured Y received education or plan provision. Mr X said this distressed him, impacted him financially and Y has not received education or plan provision. There was fault in the way the Council did not complete the annual review process within statutory timescales and did not ensure Y received education or provision. This distressed Mr X and frustrated his right of appeal to the Tribunal. Y missed education and provision for three school terms. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment and provide guidance to its staff.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to arrange alternative provision for her daughter and assign an alternative school. It is reasonable to expect Mrs X to appeal to the Special Educational Needs Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X complaint about her child’s education. She has used her right of appeal to a tribunal which places the complaint outside of our jurisdiction.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to ensure J received suitable education provision over a prolonged period. Miss X also complained the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments so J could access free school meals when unable to attend school. We have found J missed suitable education provision for three academic terms, including during a key transition year, a fault the Council has accepted. The Council has agreed to increase the financial remedy it offered in recognition of the injustice to J. We cannot consider Miss X’s complaint about J’s school meal entitlement, as this is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. We have not considered complaints about some historic matters. We explain why in our statement.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council has not completed the annual review for his son, Y. He also complained the Council has not funded Y’s Education, Health and Care plan provision. Mr X said this has distressed him and impacted him financially. There was fault in the way the Council did not complete annual reviews within timescales and delayed responding to Mr X’s complaint. This distressed Mr X and frustrated his right of appeal to the Tribunal. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a financial payment.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed reviewing his child’s Education, Health and Care Plan and failed to provide suitable education for his child. I found the Council delayed for 12 months in reviewing Mr X’s child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. I also found the Council failed to properly consider its Section 19 duty to provide alternative provision of education from 7 February 2024 to the end of the academic year 2023/2024. This caused distress and frustration to Mr X and potential lost educational provision for his child. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, pay him £500 for the distress and frustration caused and £1,450 for his child’s potential missed education.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to complete her sons’ annual reviews so that they were left without college places for 2024/5. We found fault causing injustice, including loss of special educational provision in Education, Health and Care Plans. The Council has agreed to apologise, make symbolic payments, and carry out service improvements.

Summary: Miss X says the Council incorrectly assessed her child, Y’s, school transport application. Miss X says this has caused her financial losses and for Y to miss education. We have found fault in the actions of the Council for the delay in offering transport in Y’s school transport application. The Council has agreed to pay Miss X a financial payment.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council dealt with her son, Mr Y’s care. The Council already accepted fault for several complaint points which caused Mrs X distress. The Council will make a symbolic payment and update us on proposed service improvements, in addition to the remedies it has already carried out, to recognise this injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X complaint about delays in telling her about a grant process. We are unlikely to add significantly to the Council’s reply to her complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to treat Miss X’s children as children in need. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about problems in receiving contact letters on time via the letterbox service following her child’s adoption. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to deliver her son H’s Education, Health and Care Plan in line with statutory timescales, causing frustration and uncertainty. We find fault with the Council for delay, and have agreed a symbolic payment for the distress and frustration caused to Miss X.

Summary: Mr X complained that the Council did not deal with his daughter Y’s education properly. The Council is at fault because it did not consider providing s19 alternative education provision. Mr X and Y suffered avoidable distress. Y suffered loss of educational provision. The Council should apologise, pay Mr X and Y £200 each for avoidable distress, pay Mr X £3,000 for missed educational provision and provide guidance to staff.

Summary: The Council was at fault for delay completing a review of Y’s EHC plan in 2022, but this did not cause significant injustice. The Council was also at fault over its communication with Mrs X following the 2023 review. This delayed Y receiving tutoring by two months and meant Y missed educational provision in that time. The Council agreed to provide a financial remedy to recognise this injustice.

Summary: Mrs X complained the school admission panel failed to follow proper process or properly consider her appeal for a place for her son. Mrs X complained the appeal hearing was rushed and they were not given the opportunity to present their case fully. We found the failure to record the panel's consideration and the reasons for its decision is fault. As is the failure to explain or provide a summary of the issues the panel considered and the reasons for the panel's decision in the decision letter. These faults have caused Mrs X an uncertainty and frustration. The School had agreed to arrange a fresh appeal Mrs X and take action to improve how decisions are recorded.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to secure the provision set out in her son’s Education and Health Care Plan. We found fault by the Council which caused Mrs X’s son to miss some Special Educational Needs provision. It also caused avoidable distress for Mrs X. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy. It has also agreed to review the adequacy of the funding arrangements in place and inform Mrs X of its decision.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed reviewing her son Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and that it failed to provide special educational provision and appropriate education for Y. Ms X also complained about how the Council considered her complaint about a child protection decision. The Council was at fault for delay in reviewing Y’s EHC Plan, and delay in providing education and special educational provision for Y. This meant Y missed out on some education and specialist provision for two terms, which also caused Ms X frustration. The Council will apologise and make a payment to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his child Z’s education and special educational needs provision. We have found fault by the Council, causing injustice, in failing to: complete the annual review process within the statutory timescales; provide Z with a suitable education; and with its communication and complaint handling failures. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by: apologising; making payments to reflect the distress caused to Mr X and the impact of the missed education on Z; and a service improvement.

Summary: The Council failed to update an Education, Health and Care Plan within statutory time limits for secondary transfer and failed to secure occupational therapy provision in the Plan. This led to missed provision, uncertainty, a rushed transition, and loss of appeal rights at a crucial point. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment. The complaint is upheld.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about special educational needs provision for Ms X and communications adjustments for her and her mother, Ms Y. Doing so would be unlikely to lead to any worthwhile outcome, as there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions up to September 2024 to warrant investigation, and after that Ms X and Ms Y had a right of appeal to a Tribunal it would have been reasonable to use.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed in its duty to provide suitable alternative educational provision for the complainant’s daughter. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about 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.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide free home to school transport. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the school named in her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan and that the Council is failing to provide suitable education to meet his needs. If she disagrees with the named school, it is reasonable for her to appeal to the tribunal. The Council appears to be providing suitable alternative education for Y.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint that his schools failed to safeguard him when he was a student. We have no jurisdiction to look at what happens in schools.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to deliver her daughter J’s Education, Health and Care Plan in line with statutory timescales. We find fault with the Council for delay, and have agreed a symbolic payment for the distress and frustration caused to Miss X.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s actions in removing his children and while they were away from his care. A court decided who should care for the children and matters connected with that are ones we are legally prevented from investigating. Data matters are ones the Information Commissioner would be better placed than us to consider. The remaining administrative matters are ones where we could not add to the Council’s own investigation. And we could not achieve Mr X’s desired outcomes by investigating.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the content of a court report. That is because the law says we cannot investigate matters related to court proceedings. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s communication with her and contact arrangements with her relative. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council’s children’s services dealt with a concern raised about Mr X’s child. Investigation would not achieve a worthwhile and the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider data protection matters.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alledged failure by the Council to safeguard the complainant from harm when she was a child between 1999 and 2007. This is because it is not the role of the Ombudsman to investigate historical issues and, given the passage of time, we do not consider there is a realistic prospect of reaching a sound, fair, and meaningful decision.

Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council handled issues relating to her child, W’s, Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council was at fault for delay in reviewing W’s EHC Plan, mistakenly referring W for Speech and Language Therapy and for failing to assess Miss X’s needs as a parent carer. This caused Miss X frustration and upset and meant W missed out provision they should have had. To remedy their injustice, the Council will pay Miss X a total of £800 and carry out a parent carer assessment.

Summary: Mr Y complains the Council failed to ensure his daughter, D, received a suitable education when she stopped attending primary school in 2022. He also complains about delays in the Education Health and Care (EHC) process. Parts of Mr Y’s complaint are too old for us to consider without good reason. In the other parts of the complaint within our jurisdiction, there is fault because the Council did not take timely action to consider and arrange alternative provision once it became aware that D was not attending secondary school in September 2023. The Council will provide a symbolic payment for the missed provision, apologise to Mr Y, reimburse the privately funded tuition and make a further payment for distress caused by the delays.

Summary: Ms X complained that the Council failed to provide alternative education to her son after he was unable to attend school for medical reasons, and that there were delays in completing an Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused a loss of education and avoidable distress. We find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to make symbolic payments for the lost education and avoidable distress, and to review its policy on providing pupils out of school alternative education.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to ensure her child D, a young adult with disabilities, received suitable education and support for their special educational needs. There was fault by the Council which caused D to miss special educational needs support. It also caused distress to D and Mrs X. The Council agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy. It will also review why it delayed in completing an Education, Health, and Care needs assessment in D’s case and produce an action plan to prevent recurrence of the same fault.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has failed to complete an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment within the statutory time frame. She says this has impacted her child’s education and mental health and caused avoidable distress to her wider family. We find the Council at fault which caused injustice. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about 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.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to cease to maintain the complainant’s Education and Health Care Plan in 2023. This is because the Council’s decision carries a right of appeal to a statutory tribunal and we consider it would have been reasonable for the complainant to exercise this appeal right once he became aware of this.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a school admissions appeal. This is because the appeal was for an academy school, and we have no powers to consider such complaints.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaints about how the Council conducted a review of her child’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan or about the Council’s conduct during a Tribunal. This is because Mrs X appealed to the SEND Tribunal about the content of the EHC Plan, and the law says we cannot investigate matters closely related to, or considered by, a Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to make an appropriate specialist school place available for the complainant’s son. This is because she may use her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) against the school named in her son’s Education Health and Care plan and it would be reasonable for her to do so.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainant’s application and appeal for school transport assistance for his daughter. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about 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.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to consider his concerns that his child (Y) is a victim of Fabricated or Induced Illness (FII) by Proxy and prevented them from being assessed for it despite providing supporting evidence. He says his child is at risk of harm which has caused him distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council consulted medical professionals and considered Mr X’s concerns in line with the relevant policies without fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alledged professional misconduct and negligence by the Council with respect to its Children’s social services involvement with the complainant’s family. This is because the issues occurred in 2022 and the complaint is therefore late. We considered exercising our discretion and if we should investigate despite the passage of time. However, we consider the complainant could have raised the issues with us sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council not providing records within the required timeframes and about the impact this has had on ongoing family court proceedings. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider her complaint whilst there are ongoing court proceedings.