| 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. Surrey County Council (23 000 875)
Summary: The Council has delayed its education, health and care (EHC) needs assessment for Mrs Js daughter, K. This has been mainly due to a delay in obtaining advice from its educational psychologist. The Councils communications have been poor. Mrs J says the impact on K is that she has not been able to access education. The whole family has had counselling, as a direct result of the delay. K is at the end of her Key Stage. And, due to the delay, K attended taster days at mainstream schools, despite the schools saying a placement would not work for her. Somerset Council (23 000 925)
Summary: There was fault by the Council. It failed to provide the tutoring or occupational therapy set out in an Education Heath and Care plan. It took too long to notify Mrs B that it would not amend the plan following a review, and it took too long to put direct payments in place. The Council also failed to consider Mrs Bs school transport request in accordance with the law. The Councils shortcomings meant Mrs Bs child missed out on educational provision, and has caused Mrs B severe distress and frustration. The Council has to MrsB and agreed to take further action to remedy the injustice in line with my recommendations. North Yorkshire Council (23 004 200)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide a suitable education for her daughter, Y when she was unable to attend mainstream school for medical reasons from March 2022 to October 2022. There was no fault in the Councils actions. Leeds City Council (23 005 153)
Summary: The Councils delay considering Mrs Xs request for an Education Health and Care needs assessment for her child was fault. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mrs X and act to improve its services. Worcestershire County Council (23 006 333)
Summary: The Council was at fault for not carrying out an annual review of a childs Education, Health and Care plan in 2021 and for delaying in issuing an amended Education, Health and Care plan following an annual review in 2022. This caused injustice as Ms X could not be sure her child was getting the support they needed. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X for the distress and uncertainty caused. Somerset Council (23 011 750)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils refusal to arrange and pay for school transport as it was reasonable for Mrs X to appeal. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (23 012 801)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council failed to make alternative educational provision for the complainants son while he was unable to attend school. This is because the complaint concerns matters which are inextricably linked to matters subject to his appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). Stretford Grammar School (23 013 192)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (23 012 484)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Ms X being excluded from a meeting and matters concerning her niece and her niece's children. There is not enough injustice to Ms X from the Councils actions to warrant investigation. We do not have consent to consider matters affecting Ms Xs niece or her nieces children. Cheshire East Council (23 012 854)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils alleged refusal to allow Mr X to resume contact with his children. This is because this is a legal matter which is better suited for the courts. Devon County Council (23 012 949)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils Disabled Childrens Services Team. We cannot consider complaints about matters that were or could have been discussed in court. Kent County Council (22 012 090)
Summary: Mrs B says the Council failed to consult a school following a review of her sons education, health and care plan, delayed issuing an amended plan and failed to ensure the school put in place the provision in her sons plan. The Council failed to carry out two reviews properly and delayed issuing plans. The provision in the plan was largely in place. An apology, payment to Mrs B and for the Council to issue an updated plan is satisfactory remedy. North Yorkshire Council (23 000 638)
Summary: We have ended our investigation into Mrs Xs complaint that the Council failed to provide her with funds to receive a personal budget for an education other than at school package for her child who has an Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because Mrs Xs appeal to the Tribunal was connected to, or a consequence of, the same matter which the law does not allow us to investigate. London Borough of Bromley (23 012 594)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils education welfare service. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement. Essex County Council (23 012 721)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint about the Council's decision not to issue her daughter with an Education Health and Care Plan. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs X to use her right of appeal to a tribunal. Sunderland City Council (23 001 867)
Summary: Miss X complains the Council did not safeguard Child Y, and for excluded her from the care process for Child Y. Miss X says this meant Child Y was unsafe at their residential placement, and that she was unaware of what was happening to them. We find fault with the Council for its complaint handling. We do not find fault with the Council for the other parts of the complaint. The Council has agreed to make an apology to Miss X for its complaint handling and review the mistakes that it made during the complaints process. Thurrock Council (23 012 807)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xs complaint about the Councils involvement with her family. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Durham County Council (23 013 574)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council removing Mr Xs child from his care. There are ongoing relevant criminal proceedings, and only the courts can decide where the child should live. Cheshire East Council (22 017 139)
Summary: Mr F complains about his dealings with the Council in connection with his son Bs education. He says B has missed education, and he has incurred significant costs, as a result of fault by the Council. The education Mr F says B missed was too long ago for us to consider and we are unable to consider the costs Mr F says he incurred since they were in connection with his appeals to the SEND Tribunal. Southend-on-Sea City Council (23 002 491)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the competency of staff compiling an Education Health and Care plan. This is because the complainant has used her right of appeal against the contents of the final plan to a tribunal. We cannot add to the investigation carried out by the Council regarding other matters. Wokingham Borough Council (23 002 998)
Summary: Ms X complains the Council delayed amending her sons Education Health and Care Plan after an annual review and failed to ensure the provision listed in the plan was provided by the school causing distress. We have not investigated Ms Xs complaint about the delay as the complaint is out of time. We found fault in the way the Council dealt with Ms Xs concerns about lack of provision being made as it failed to investigate Ms Xs complaints and to attend an annual review meeting after making a commitment to attend. We have recommended a suitable remedy so have completed our investigation. Surrey County Council (23 003 134)
Summary: Mr X complains about the Councils delay in completing its education, health and care needs assessment for his daughter. The Ombudsman upholds the complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment in recognition of the continuing delay. Leicestershire County Council (23 004 984)
Summary: Mr X complained that the Council took too long to issue an Education, Health and Care plan for his daughter. He also complained his daughter was not provided with a suitable education during the period she was unable to attend school. We found there was delay and failure to establish suitable education prior to March 2023. The Council has already accepted fault and partially remedied the injustice its actions caused to Mr X. The Council agreed to make a payment to Mr X for the outstanding injustice its actions caused him. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (23 011 178)
Summary: We cannot investigate Ms Xs complaint the Council has failed to provide the occupational therapy provision listed in her childs Education Health and Care Plan causing distress. This is because Ms X has appealed to the SEND Tribunal about the contents of the Education Health and Care Plan and the law prevents us from investigating such matters. So, we are discontinuing our investigation into Ms Xs complaint. Essex County Council (23 012 503)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the school placement of Miss Xs child. She had a right of appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal it would be reasonable to use when the Council declined to name the school she preferred in Section I of the childs Education Health and Care Plan. We cannot act in a supplementary role to that of the Tribunal. Derbyshire County Council (23 012 515)
Summary: We cannot investigate Miss Xs complaint about the Councils handling of her sons Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment. This is because the injustice she claims relates to the lack of suitable support and this stems from the contents of his Education, Health and Care Plan against which she has appealed. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (23 012 533)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils decision to refuse the complainants application for a fare-paying seat on school transport for her son. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Councils part. West Northamptonshire Council (23 012 447)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils alleged failure to follow court ordered contact between Mr X and his child. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Councils actions. Middlesbrough Borough Council (23 012 684)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils alleged failure to properly safeguard Mr Xs children. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to result in a different outcome. London Borough of Bromley (23 013 506)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council sharing Miss Xs information. The Information Commissioners Office is best placed to consider the matter. Hampshire County Council (23 013 564)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not helping to facilitate contact between Mr X and his children. The courts are best placed to decide whether it is in a childs best interests to have contact with their parent. London Borough of Newham (22 010 608)
Summary: The Council was at fault for delays in completing a childs Education, Health and Care needs assessment and for delays in complaint handling. As a result, the child had to wait for over a year to receive their Education, Health and Care plan and missed out on provision they should have received much sooner. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council agreed to apologise, make a payment for the loss of provision and the distress caused, and carry out service improvements to address its complaint handling and backlog of Education, Health and Care needs assessments. Essex County Council (23 004 610)
Summary: Mr X complains about the delay in the Council issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan for Child Y. He says this meant Child Y was without the support they needed and missed out on the opportunity to attend their preferred school. We find fault with the Council for the delay in issuing Child Ys Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council has agreed to pay a financial remedy in recognition of the delay. West Sussex County Council (23 004 886)
Summary: Ms X who is an advocate, complains on behalf of Mr and Mrs Z and their daughter. She said the council have failed to respond to their communication in a timely manner; offered to reimburse speech and language therapy but failed to make the payment; initially declined to continue to provide school transport and failed to respond to a request to escalate their complaint. We find the Council was at fault for lack of communication, failing to reimburse the payment and failing to respond to their request. This caused Mr and Mrs Z significant distress. The Council has agreed to several recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault. Shropshire Council (23 012 708)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not making the special educational needs provision for Mrs Xs daughter between March 2020 and September 2022. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise the discretion available to investigate these matters now. Mrs X is welcome to return to us regarding any more recent matters provided she does so promptly after complaining to the Council. West Sussex County Council (23 012 794)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a school admission appeal panels refusal of an appeal for a primary school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel to justify our involvement. Medway Council (22 017 767)
Summary: Mr X complains about the Councils handling of child protection matters involving his children. There was no fault in the Councils handling or efforts to support and meet Mr Xs needs in the absence of an advocate. Salford City Council (23 010 211)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Councils childrens services. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council considered the complaint under the statutory procedure. London Borough of Havering (23 011 626)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with child protection concerns. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Devon County Council (23 012 428)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils childrens social care service. This is because there are parts we cannot investigate and insufficient evidence of fault to investigate the outstanding matters. West Northamptonshire Council (23 012 478)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council amending supervision requirements for Mr Xs contact with his children. Disagreements about contact arrangements can only be resolved by a court, and it would be reasonable for Mr X to use his right to go to court to seek changed arrangements. Staffordshire County Council (22 014 414)
Summary: Mr C complained the Council failed to ensure his son received the provision set out in his Education, Health and Care plan, delayed the annual review process and failed to ensure his son received suitable alternative education provision while he was unable to attend school. Mr C says his son missed Education, Health and Care plan provision and a suitable education and this has had a harmful impact on his academic, social and emotional development. We have found fault but consider the agreed action of an apology and symbolic payment provides a suitable remedy. Kent County Council (22 014 793)
Summary: The complainant (Mrs X) complained about the Councils failing to consider her Personal Budget request, to deliver full-time education and special educational provision to Y and to comply with the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) Tribunal decision. Mrs X said the Council failed to include her sons (Y) views and to list all professional reports in Ys Education Health and Care (EHC) plan issued in September 2022. We found fault in some areas of Mrs Xs complaint, including delivery of education and special educational provision, the Personal Budget process, communication and complaint handling. The Council agreed to apologise, make payments, consider Mrs Xs Personal Budget request and prepare a plan of action for Ys educational support. The Council also agreed to provide us with the evidence of making service improvements in line with its Accelerated Progress Plan. Nottingham City Council (23 003 503)
Summary: There was fault in the way the Council considered an application for free home to school transport. This caused inconvenience and distress to Ms X. Other parents who have been asked to accompany their child to a school beyond statutory walking distance may also be affected. The Council has now made an offer of transport to Ms X. It will also apologise, make financial payments for the impact when transport was not in place, and make service improvements. Surrey County Council (23 005 178)
Summary: Miss H complained the Council failed to provide her son (X) with enough educational provision as set out in his Education, Health, and Care plan for over two years. We found the Council failed to arrange a suitable placement for X during a seven-month period and caused significant delay in arranging his tuition. It also communicated poorly with Miss H and failed to adhere to the statutory timescales for the annual review process. The Council agreed to apologise and make payment to Miss H to acknowledge the injustice this caused her and X. Hertfordshire County Council (23 005 836)
Summary: We found no fault on Mrs Ss complaint about the Council failing to ensure her son received full time alternative education after stopping going to school for health reasons. The Council ensured he received education appropriate for his needs which it kept under regular review. It also planned for his reintegration back to school. Sunderland City Council (23 006 319)
Summary: There was delay by the Council in completing a review of an Education, Health and Care plan, which in turn delayed additional specialist support being provided to Ms Xs child. This adversely affected the childs education and caused distress to the family. The Council will make symbolic payments to acknowledge the impact of the fault. The complaint is upheld. North Northamptonshire Council (23 009 652)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about the Councils handling of his request for an Education, Health and Care Plan for his daughter. This is because the main issue concerns the contents of the plan and we consider it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the SEND Tribunal if he was unhappy with it. Any delay in the issue of the Plan was minor and did not cause Mr X or his daughter significant injustice. Bristol City Council (23 009 882)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the way the Council assessed Mrs Xs childs special educational needs and issued an Education Health and Care Plan. The principal matters complained of are not separable from the content of the Plan. Mrs X has an alternative remedy available it would be reasonable to use concerning the Plans contents by way on appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. Investigation of the remaining matters is not warranted by the injustice solely caused by those matters. Birmingham City Council (23 012 188)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the educational provision for Ms Xs child. She has or had an alternative remedy available by way of an appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal that it would be reasonable to use. London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (23 012 580)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in its production of a report for the Family Court. The Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints about the production or content of court reports. Lincolnshire County Council (23 013 334)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss Xs contact with her grandchildren. She does not have parental responsibility and so would not be the most suitable person to complain, and in any event the matter has been decided by the courts. Kent County Council (22 015 681)
Summary: Mrs X complained about several failures by the Council when reviewing her sons Education Health and Care Plan. We found the Council to be at fault. It took too long to issue the final Plan, failed to engage in mediation and provide speech and language therapy. There was also fault with its communication and complaint handling. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mrs X in recognition of her distress and lack of therapy. St John Fisher Catholic High School, Wigan (23 002 916)
Summary: Mrs Y complains the appeal panel did not properly consider her case when she appealed against the refusal to admit her child, D. She also says her request for an alternative hearing date was not properly considered, despite her exceptional circumstances. When refusing the appeal, the clerks decision letter referred to an old version of the statutory guidance. In our view, there is some procedural fault which creates injustice in the form of uncertainty. The governing body of the school has agreed to undertake the actions listed at the end of this statement. |
