| 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. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (24 007 154)
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 Wâs 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 childrenâs statutory complaints procedure and review its systems for arranging provision for children out of school, to minimise delays. West Sussex County Council (24 016 359)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs involvement in Miss Xâs childrenâs case. We have no power to consider matters the courts have considered, or the Councilâs decision to begin care proceedings. We have no power to investigate police conduct. Devon County Council (24 016 407)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Council failing to respond to her communication and concerns about how it was dealing with her sonâs 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. Worcestershire County Council (24 017 011)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision not to provide her child with home to school transport. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Darlington Borough Council (24 017 536)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision to refuse the complainantsâ request to vary the schedule of her childrenâs school transport. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Councilâs part to warrant investigation. Lancashire County Council (24 017 617)
Summary: We have upheld Ms Xâs complaint about the Councilâs delay in completing her childâs Education, Health and Care needs assessment. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (24 017 752)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about changes to home to school pick up times. The alleged fault is not significant enough to justify an investigation. West Sussex County Council (23 012 456)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Councilâs actions linked to its independent investigation into her complaints about its childrenâs services department. The Council has already agreed to some fault and offered an apology to remedy Mrs Xâs injustice. We found additional fault in how long it took to address Mrs Xâs 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. Sheffield City Council (24 002 665)
Summary: Ms X complained that Sheffield City Council and Sheffield Childrenâs 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 Xâs complaint. West Northamptonshire Council (24 016 602)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision not to renew her sonâs Blue Badge. The Council has changed its decision so an investigation would not achieve anything more. Northumberland County Council (24 019 447)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs actions in its child protection involvement with his child. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Councilâs decision not to consider his complaint whilst the case is subject to ongoing court proceedings. Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (24 020 746)
Summary: We cannot investigate the Councilâs decision to suspend its response to Mr Xâs complaint. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that are being, or have been, considered in court. London Borough of Bexley (23 019 836)
Summary: There was fault by the Council which failed to secure some of Yâs 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. Cheshire East Council (24 000 585)
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 Xâs 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. Lancashire County Council (24 006 256)
Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council failed to deliver provisions in her childâs 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 Câs education. Hertfordshire County Council (24 006 445)
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. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (24 007 678)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to complete the actions it agreed in mediation in relation to her daughter Yâs 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. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (24 015 443)
Summary: We have upheld Mrs Xâs complaint because the Councilâs financial remedy for her childâs missed education was not sufficient. The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint by proving a proportionate remedy for the injustice it caused. London Borough of Camden (24 016 681)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs handling of an Education Health and Care Plan transfer. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Norfolk County Council (24 009 894)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to implement the recommendations of the stage three panel review into his complaint about childrenâs social care, and that this caused him stress and frustration. We have found that the Council acted without fault. Derbyshire County Council (24 016 568)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about a childrenâs 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 Councilâs reply to her complaint about communication issues. Cambridgeshire County Council (24 016 906)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the actions of the Councilâs childrenâs services. Most of the issues raised relate to what has happened in court. There is insufficient evidence of fault with the Council regarding Mr Xâs housing situation and Social Work England are better placed to deal with his complaint about the conduct of a social worker. Southampton City Council (24 016 912)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs 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. Wakefield City Council (24 019 875)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the actions of the social worker allocated to her childrenâs case. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Councilâs decision not to consider her complaint whilst there are ongoing court proceedings. North Yorkshire Council (24 017 898)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision to change the way it charges for music lessons. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Councilâs part to warrant investigation. Hertfordshire County Council (24 018 140)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to make appropriate alternative educational provision for the complainantâs daughter. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Councilâs part to warrant investigation. Manchester City Council (24 011 979)
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 Xâs daughterâs 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. Birmingham City Council (24 016 073)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed his son, Yâs, 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. Dorset Council (24 016 702)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs 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. East Sussex County Council (24 018 324)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X complaint about her childâs education. She has used her right of appeal to a tribunal which places the complaint outside of our jurisdiction. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (24 000 665)
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 Xâs complaint about Jâs school meal entitlement, as this is outside the Ombudsmanâs jurisdiction. We have not considered complaints about some historic matters. We explain why in our statement. Birmingham City Council (24 007 759)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council has not completed the annual review for his son, Y. He also complained the Council has not funded Yâs 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 Xâs 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. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (24 009 040)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed reviewing his childâs 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 Xâs childâs 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 childâs potential missed education. Leicestershire County Council (24 009 142)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to complete her sonsâ 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. Leicester City Council (24 009 332)
Summary: Miss X says the Council incorrectly assessed her child, Yâs, 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 Yâs school transport application. The Council has agreed to pay Miss X a financial payment. Surrey County Council (24 004 684)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council dealt with her son, Mr Yâs 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. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 017 333)
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 Councilâs reply to her complaint. Suffolk County Council (24 017 496)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision to treat Miss Xâs children as children in need. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation. Devon County Council (24 018 719)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about problems in receiving contact letters on time via the letterbox service following her childâs adoption. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (24 005 011)
Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to deliver her son Hâs 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. Northumberland County Council (24 005 014)
Summary: Mr X complained that the Council did not deal with his daughter Yâs 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. Essex County Council (24 005 168)
Summary: The Council was at fault for delay completing a review of Yâs 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. All Souls Catholic Primary School (24 005 966)
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. Devon County Council (24 006 715)
Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to secure the provision set out in her sonâs Education and Health Care Plan. We found fault by the Council which caused Mrs Xâs 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. Lancashire County Council (24 006 778)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed reviewing her son Yâs 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 Yâs 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. Cornwall Council (24 007 176)
Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his child Zâs 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. London Borough of Bromley (24 008 472)
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. Lincolnshire County Council (24 016 076)
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 Councilâs 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. East Sussex County Council (24 016 559)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed in its duty to provide suitable alternative educational provision for the complainantâs daughter. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Councilâs part to warrant investigation. Lancashire County Council (24 017 057)
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. Slough Borough Council (24 017 155)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs 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. Central Bedfordshire Council (24 017 178)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the school named in her childâs 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. Worcestershire County Council (24 019 765)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr Xâs complaint that his schools failed to safeguard him when he was a student. We have no jurisdiction to look at what happens in schools. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (24 020 829)
Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to deliver her daughter Jâs 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. Coventry City Council (22 011 292)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs 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 Councilâs own investigation. And we could not achieve Mr Xâs desired outcomes by investigating. Northumberland County Council (24 009 086)
Summary: We cannot investigate Miss Xâs 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 Xâs complaint about the Councilâs communication with her and contact arrangements with her relative. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Kent County Council (24 017 326)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Councilâs childrenâs services dealt with a concern raised about Mr Xâs child. Investigation would not achieve a worthwhile and the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider data protection matters. Surrey County Council (24 017 618)
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. London Borough of Croydon (23 020 974)
Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council handled issues relating to her child, Wâs, Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council was at fault for delay in reviewing Wâs EHC Plan, mistakenly referring W for Speech and Language Therapy and for failing to assess Miss Xâs 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. Derby City Council (23 021 114)
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 Yâs 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. Manchester City Council (24 004 809)
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. Durham County Council (24 008 210)
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 Dâs case and produce an action plan to prevent recurrence of the same fault. Essex County Council (24 012 909)
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 childâs 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. Essex County Council (24 014 345)
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. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (24 015 124)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision to cease to maintain the complainantâs Education and Health Care Plan in 2023. This is because the Councilâs 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. East Sussex County Council (24 017 021)
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. London Borough of Hounslow (24 017 636)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs Xâs complaints about how the Council conducted a review of her childâs Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan or about the Councilâs 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. Thurrock Council (24 017 741)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to make an appropriate specialist school place available for the complainantâs 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 sonâs Education Health and Care plan and it would be reasonable for her to do so. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (24 017 763)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision to refuse the complainantâs application and appeal for school transport assistance for his daughter. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Councilâs part to warrant investigation. Essex County Council (24 018 249)
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. Lincolnshire County Council (24 007 388)
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 Xâs concerns in line with the relevant policies without fault. Worcestershire County Council (24 018 108)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alledged professional misconduct and negligence by the Council with respect to its Childrenâs social services involvement with the complainantâs 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. Leeds City Council (24 018 187)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs 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 Councilâs decision not to consider her complaint whilst there are ongoing court proceedings. |
