A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions

Summary: The Council failed to consider an interim review Miss X’s child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan when they stopped attending school in April 2024. It also delayed reviewing the Plan when Y’s alternative provision failed. This caused Miss X a period of uncertainty and Y to miss out on two terms of the provision in their Plan. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Miss X and review its approach to interim EHC Plan reviews.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to act on his request for a reassessment of his daughter’s Education, Health and Care Plan, failure to provide alternative provision, and delay paying for a Speech and Language Therapy report. We find the Council at fault causing avoidable distress, uncertainty, and denied and delayed appeal rights. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr X, and make service improvements.

Summary: The Council was at fault in how it decided to refuse Miss X’s appeal to admit her child, W, to her preferred school. This caused Miss X uncertainty and frustration. To remedy her injustice, the Council will apologise, pay her £100 and hold a new appeal hearing. It should also remind school admission appeal clerks they must keep suitable records of appeal panel’s decision-making.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Education, Health and Care Plan process for her daughter. Mrs X has appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). This places the complaint outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about her child, Y’s Education, Health and Care needs assessment process. Mrs X had a right of appeal to a tribunal if she disagreed with the content of the plan, which it was reasonable for her to use. We could not require the Council to conduct a fresh educational psychologist assessment and so cannot achieve what she wants.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs Y’s complaint about the Council’s failure to name a school on her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because she has used her right of appeal to a tribunal about the same matter.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed completing an Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment and failed to issue an EHC Plan for her child, Y, within statutory timescales. Mrs X also complained the Council delayed processing Y’s personal budget and did not pay the full amount. Mrs X said these faults caused avoidable distress and uncertainty. She said it also led to Y missing special educational provision. We have found the Council at fault for its delay in processing and paying Y‘s personal budget. The Council has agreed to provide a written apology and pay a symbolic financial remedy to recognise Y’s missed special educational provision. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about delays in the EHC needs assessment. We explain why in this statement.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to properly consider all the relevant information when she appealed its decision to deny school transport assistance for her son Y. She said the decision has had significant negative impacts; causing anxiety, stress and logistical challenges for Y and the family. We find no fault in the way the Council made its decision. Because of this we cannot question the outcome.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to properly support her child, Y’s, special educational needs. There was fault in how the Council failed to keep Y’s alternative education under review and how it decided to withdraw school transport. As a result, Y missed out on education for over a term and this caused Miss X avoidable inconvenience and distress. The Council agreed to apologise, pay Miss X a financial remedy and issue reminders to its staff.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to secure provision set out in Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan once they moved into its area. The Council is at fault for not securing Y’s provision, causing a loss of education. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to recognise the loss of education and put provision in place and act to prevent recurrence.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not secure the special educational provision listed in his child’s, Y’s, Education Health and Care Plan. We find the Council failed to secure speech and language therapy and occupational therapy it should have, and had poor complaint handling. This caused injustice in the form of missed educational provision, distress and time and trouble. The Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice.

Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s handling of a situation where a child was missing education. It took appropriate steps to make arrangements for alternative provision. We have therefore completed our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s late complaint the Council has ignored her safeguarding concerns for her child. Some elements of Miss X’s complaint relate to another local authority. We also could not add to the responses the Council has already provided.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a safeguarding referral made by a Council officer involving Ms X, and associated actions of the Council. Investigation by us would be unlikely to add to the Council’s own investigation, or to lead to the outcome Ms X is seeking.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker and what she recorded about Miss X’s family. A permanent legal bar prevents us investigating these matters as they are closely linked to court action.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement with her child between 2021 and 2023. This is because the complaint is late.

Summary: We cannot investigate most of Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s social care report for court or the involvement of its children’s services. The matter complained about was considered by the courts, and the law says we cannot investigate. We will not investigate the remainder of the complaint because Mr X can take the matter to Social Work England.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council has failed to provide any provision detailed in Section F of her son Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan, and has missed three opportunities to book his GCSE exams. We find fault with the Council for failing to provide the provision and have recommended a payment for the frustration and distress caused to Ms X and Y.

Summary: Mrs C complained the Council wrongly refused to provide free school transport for her son to her preferred school which was listed in his Education, Health and Care plan. We found no fault by the Council. It reached decisions about the school placement and free school transport in line with statutory guidance and its policy.

Summary: The Council accepted it failed to provide Miss X’s child, Y, with an education from September 2023 to April 2024, and then failed to attempt to secure alternative provision for Y. This resulted in Y missing two terms of education and caused Miss X distress and frustration. The Council has offered to make a payment to Miss X. I am satisfied with the Council’s proposed remedy.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of her transport application, and for awarding a personal transport budget. She said this was not suitable to arrange private taxis and she has had to transport her child to school, causing significant difficulties to the family. We found the Council at fault for its communication and the way it provided a personal transport budget. The Council has now agreed to arrange home to school transport for her child. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment to recognise the remaining injustice, and take action to prevent recurrence of fault.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council incurred delays in providing an Education, Health and Care Plan for his son. Mr X says the Council’s actions caused avoidable distress and frustration and hindered his son’s access to appropriate support and provision. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to issue the final Education, Health and Care Plan and provide an apology and financial remedy to Mr X. The Council has also agreed to provide regular reports to Cabinet and other appropriate senior committees regarding the progress made by its Special Educational Needs and Disabilities service following its restructure, investment and recruitment measures.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide her son with alternative provision while he was unable to attend school. We found the Council’s failure to ensure Y receive a suitable full time education or alternative provision from September to November 2024 is fault. This fault meant Y received a very limited education between September and November 2024, which was a key stage in his school career. The Council will apologise and make payments to Miss X and Y.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint the Council failed to provide sufficient funding to ensure her child’s school could deliver the provision set out in their Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. The matter falls outside our jurisdiction because Mrs X has appealed to the Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate X’s complaint about the Council’s actions about a school admissions application as the school is an academy.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a school admissions appeal panel refusing her appeal. It is unlikely we would find fault which caused Miss X to lose out on a school place.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council did not send an apology as agreed. The Council has said it will send the apology. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the outcome of Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council’s occupational therapy assessments of her children. The Council acted with fault by not considering Mrs X’s complaint under the statutory complaints procedure for children’s social care services. But as we do not consider the Council carried out those assessments with fault, we have not asked the Council to reconsider the complaint under the statutory complaints process. The Council should share this decision with staff to ensure learning.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in carrying out an occupational therapy assessment. This is because the Council has already taken suitable action to remedy the matters.

Summary: We will not investigate the Council’s handling of Ms X’s complaint about its children’s services under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to arrange a stage three panel. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the removal of a child from their mother’s care and related events. We cannot investigate matters that have been considered in court. We have no power to investigate the actions of police officers and a judge.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that a safeguarding referral was unlawfully made and then considered by the Local Authority Designated Officer. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about his children being removed from his care following family court proceedings because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been subject to court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr & Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with child protection enquiries. This is because doing so would not add to the investigation carried out by the Council, or lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to provide alternative education when her child was unable to attend school for medical reasons. We find fault causing a loss of education and avoidable distress and frustration. The Council had already made a symbolic payment to Mrs X for the injustice and had introduced some service improvements. We recommended further improvements to the Council’s school attendance policy which it has accepted. We have therefore completed our investigation and are closing the complaint.

Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council dealt with her daughter, Y’s, education and special educational needs. Mrs X said this distressed her, impacted her financially and Y missed education and plan provision. There was fault in the way the Council delayed issuing the Education, Health and Care Plan and did not ensure Y received education and plan provision. This fault frustrated Mrs X’s right of appeal and Y missed education and provision. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a financial payment.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the way the Council dealt with their child, P’s education and special educational needs provision. We have found fault by the Council, causing injustice, in failing to provide P with a suitable education and with its complaint handling. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by: apologising; making payments to reflect the distress caused to Mr and Mrs X and the impact of the missed education on P.

Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council handled her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan process. We have found fault with the Council for failing to meet statutory timescales which delayed Mrs X’s right of appeal and caused Mrs X and her son distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed issuing her child, C, with a final Education, Health and Care Plan and has not provided them with suitable education. The Council is at fault. This has caused distress to Ms X and family and missed education for C. I have recommended remedies.

Summary: Ms D complained the Council has failed to put provision in her daughter’s Education, Health and Education Plan in place. We found the Council is at fault. The Council has apologised and made a symbolic payment in recognition of the injustice caused. We do not consider any further remedy is due.

Summary: Mrs B complained the Council delayed carrying out an education, health and care (EHC) needs assessment and in issuing an EHC Plan and failed to put in place education for her son. The Council delayed carrying out the assessment and in issuing the final EHC plan. There is no fault in those parts of the complaint the Ombudsman can investigate about education provision. An apology and payment to Mrs B is satisfactory remedy for her delayed appeal right and distress.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about delays in offering a school place as the Council has agreed to a proportionate way to resolve the complaint.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about poor communication from the Council. An investigation would be unlikely to add anything to the Council’s response or achieve a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s actions relating to an Education, Health, and Care Plan for his child. Parts of the complaint are late and there are no good reasons why it could not have been made sooner. Of the parts that are not late, we are satisfied the Council has taken action to prevent a reoccurrence of the fault and offered a suitable remedy for Mr X’s injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide Mrs X’s son with free transport to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to attend a mediation meeting, and its subsequent refusal to reimburse the complainant for costs she incurred as a result. Investigation would not lead to a different outcome and is not therefore warranted.

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 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 Ms X’s complaint that the Council failed to provide a school place for her child who has an Education Health Care (EHC) Plan. Part of the complaint is late, and it was reasonable for Ms X to appeal to the SEND Tribunal if she disagreed with the content or provision in the EHC Plan.

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 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 cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the alleged bias of the Council in failing to protect his child from harm and accepting allegations made by his ex-partner. There has been court action during which the matters complained either were or could reasonably have been raised. The investigation by us of such matters in prevented by a legal bar that applies permanently from the first contact of any party with the court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council declining to escalate Miss X’s complaint about its actions relating to her child in its care. Investigation would be unlikely to achieve any more than the Council’s own investigation has already provided.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement when he was a child. This is because, given the passage of time, we do not consider there is a realistic prospect of reaching a sound, fair and meaningful decision. We also could not achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

Summary: We have upheld Miss X’s complaint because the Council failed to consider her complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Miss X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a safeguarding referral. This is because the complaint is made late, and I see no good reason to exercise discretion and consider it now. Also, the courts are better placed to consider Mr X’s claim for damages.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s historic complaint about the Council’s decision to allow her mother to have contact with her when she was a child in its care. This is because we could not carry out a full, fair and effective investigation of the matter now due to the very significant passage of time since the events complained about.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the production and content of a report used in Court proceedings. We will not investigate her child protection decisions’ complaint as it is reasonable to expect Miss X to complain to the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in refusing the complainant’s application and appeal for school transport for his son. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council made a flawed decision to refuse the complainant’s application and appeal for school transport for her son. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

Summary: Mrs Y complained the Council failed in its duty to ensure that her son’s Education, Health and Care plan was reviewed in line with the statutory timescales. She also complains the Council did not ensure her son received the educational provision he was entitled to. Some of Mrs Y’s complaint is too old for us to consider. In the other parts of the complaint, we find fault and the Council has agreed to provide a symbolic remedy in recognition of a shortfall in D’s interim provision between May and September 2024.

Summary: We found the Council at fault for failing to properly consider its duty to provide alternative education for Mrs X’s child, Y, or document its decision-making. However, we cannot say the Council’s decision would have been different, but for these faults. The Council agreed to apologise and pay a symbolic financial remedy in recognition of the avoidable uncertainty this caused. It also agreed to provide guidance to its officers.

Summary: Miss B complained that the Council had failed to find a suitable educational placement for her daughter C or provide her with a suitable full-time education since May 2023. We found some fault causing injustice to Miss B and C. The Council has agreed to apologise to them both, make symbolic payments totalling £800 and improve its procedures for the future.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide the Speech and Language Therapy and Occupational Therapy from her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan since September 2023. Ms X also complained the Council failed to provide suitable education for her child while absent from school and declined to complete an early annual review. We found fault with the Council delaying providing some Education, Health and Care Plan provision from June 2024 until November 2024 and Alternative Provision of education in September 2024. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her a total of £550 to recognise the distress, frustration and lost opportunity caused. The Council also agreed to put specific missing Education, Health and Care Plans provision in place.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s complaint handling in relation to a school matter. This is because we cannot investigate what happens in schools.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with their child. The law prevents us from investigating anything that is or has been the subject of court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement with his family because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from considering complaints about matters that have been considered in court proceedings. Investigation into other issues raised would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement with his family because the law prevents us from considering complaints about matters that have been considered in court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the removal of her sibling’s child from their care. The law prevents us from investigating anything that is or has been the subject of court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a social worker’s involvement in a court report. The law prevents us considering such complaints.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed progressing a complaint to stage two of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint by completing its investigation without further delay. It will also apologise and make a payment to the complainant to remedy the time and trouble they have been to.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to secure the provision set out in her son, Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan, and failed to issue an amended plan within the correct timescale for a phase transfer. We found the Council was at fault for delays and failing to secure all provision in Y’s EHC Plan. This Council agreed to apologise and provide symbolic financial payments for the distress and uncertainty caused.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to arrange suitable education for her daughter, W, when she was unable to attend school. The Council was at fault. This caused Miss X upset and frustration and meant W missed out on education and special educational provision she was entitled to. To remedy their injustice, the Council will apologise, pay Miss X £3550 and review its practices to prevent the fault happening again.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of her child, Y’s education since 2022 when they stopped attending school. She complained about a lack of alternative provision, delays completing Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment and the decision to name a mainstream school in the final EHC Plan. I ended this investigation because part of the complaint is late and the other part falls outside of our jurisdiction because Mrs X appealed to the SEND tribunal.

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 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 cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint the Council named a school which could not meet her child’s needs in their Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because we cannot investigate any matter connected to a decision that has been appealed to a tribunal.

Summary: Mrs M complains about further delay by the Council arranging overnight respite away from home for her children. We previously considered Mrs M’s complaint in July 2024 when the Council said it hoped to arrange respite by September 2024. Overnight respite began in April 2025. We have recommended a symbolic payment to recognise the impact of the delay.

Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council delivered support to her children. We have found that the Council was at fault, as it has not yet dealt with Miss X’s complaint properly. It will now do so.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of matters involving her stepchild. We could not add to the complaint responses the Council has already provided. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider Miss X’s complaints about how the Council has processed personal data.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the contents of a Section 7 report. The law prevents us from investigating matters that are subject to court proceedings. And an investigation into a social worker’s actions would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council handled her personal data during a child protection conference. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider the complaint.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement with his children. The matters complained about are currently being considered by a court, and the law says we cannot investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement with her family between 2015 and 2022. The complaint is late, and we decided there were no good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate now.

Summary: We cannot investigate most of Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s social care report for court. The matter complained about is being considered by the courts and the law says we cannot investigate. We will not investigate the remainder of the complaint because Mr X can take the matter to Social Work England.

Summary: Mrs M complained the Council failed to secure the provision set out in her daughter’s education, health and care plan. The Council was at fault, and it has agreed to offer a financial remedy and formally apologise for this.