| 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. Hartlepool Borough Council (23 014 953)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils actions in 2022 when it decided one of Miss Xs children should no longer live with her. The principal injustice flowing from the Councils actions concerns the decision that the child should live away from Miss Xs care, confirmed by court orders. We cannot investigate matters related to that decision as a legal bar prevents us considering any matter subject to or closely connected with court action. Any intentional reduction in contact time would be a matter where Miss x had a right to go to court it would have been reasonable to use. There is not enough fault causing injustice caused by the Councils actions in the remaining matters, or likelihood of reaching a robust view, to warrant investigation. Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (23 015 134)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about home to school transport. The Council has accepted it was at fault when it failed to tell Ms X her sons transport had changed. We could not add anything to this point. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Councils decision to change the transport it provides to Ms Xs son. Leeds City Council (23 017 253)
Summary: A parent complained that she missed a school admission appeal hearing because the Council gave her misleading information about the appeal venue. But we cannot investigate this matter because the Council was acting on behalf of an academy school, and we have no jurisdiction to consider complaints about academies. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (23 009 424)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council maintaining restrictions on Miss X s contact with her childs social worker. Any injustice caused is not sufficient to warrant our involvement. London Borough of Barnet (23 014 651)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint about the Councils involvement with her family. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation and we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (23 014 765)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xs complaint about the Council wrongly telling a hospital she had drunk alcohol during her pregnancy and disregarding her parental rights. There is another agency better placed than us to consider a complaint of data inaccuracy, and a medical diagnosis of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder is a medical matter for a hospital, not the Council. Any injustice would also be largely related to the effect of the diagnosis on Miss Xs right to care for her child. This is a matter where she has a right to go to court it would be reasonable to use to seek any variations she desires in arrangements already ordered by a court. Kent County Council (22 015 764)
Summary: Miss X complained about the Councils failure to arrange an early review and the scheduled annual review of her Education, Health and Care Plan. This led to a failure to provide support for her special educational needs for two and a half terms. We have found the Council to be at fault. We also found fault with the Councils complaint handling. To remedy the injustice to Miss X, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment and take action to improve its service. Lincolnshire County Council (23 001 813)
Summary: Mrs D complains the Council failed to properly consider her request for her daughter to be admitted to reception at compulsory school age when she starts school in 2024. We have ended our investigation because we cannot achieve the remedy Mrs D wants. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (23 003 331)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to secure the special educational needs provision in her child Ds Education, Health, and Care plan. The Council was at fault because it failed to ensure the plan was in place, which caused D to miss special educational needs provision. The Councils fault also caused avoidable distress for D and their parents, and avoidable time and trouble for Mrs X. The Council agreed to apologise, ensure the provision in Ds plan is in place without delay, and pay a financial remedy. It will also share a copy of our decision with, and issue reminders to, relevant staff. Staffordshire County Council (23 004 320)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide an alternative education for her child, Y, when they were out of school, delayed in finalising their Education, Health and Care plan, and delayed paying a personal budget. The Council was at fault. It should apologise, make payments to remedy the uncertainty caused, and the impact to Y of the delayed provision, and review its policy. Milton Keynes Council (23 006 683)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) provision to his son, C, when he began attending college. I find the Council at fault. It failed to provide the SALT as detailed in the Education Health and Care plan. Further, it failed to take reasonable steps to source provision when its own SALT provider had no availability. The Council will make payment to recognise the loss of provision and take action to prevent reoccurrence. Derby City Council (23 007 265)
Summary: We upheld Ms Xs complaint about a delay in issuing her son Ys Education, Health and Care Plan. We also upheld a complaint about a refusal of funding for transport to school and about complaint handling. The Council will apologise and make payments to reflect avoidable distress and a loss of educational provision. We have also recommended actions for the Council to minimise the risk of recurrence. Kent County Council (23 011 351)
Summary: Mrs X complained Y had not received the physiotherapy support set out in his Education, Health and Care plan since March 2023. This risks Ys physical deterioration. The Council was at fault. It should apologise, make a payment to remedy the injustice caused and take action to address the situation. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (23 014 997)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council is at fault in preventing the complainant from having contact with his children. This is because the matter has been considered in court. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (23 015 002)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils actions in the course of child protection action and in the production of a report the complainant regards as inaccurate. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking. Hertfordshire County Council (23 014 274)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainants application for help with home to school transport. This is because there is either not enough evidence of significant personal injustice to the complainant or fault by the Council. Kent County Council (23 005 353)
Summary: The couple complained about matters relating to the Councils child protection involvement with their family. They said the Council provided incorrect and conflicting information throughout its involvement and failed to respond to them. We find the Council was at fault. This caused the couple significant distress. The Council has agreed to make several recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (23 001 763)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council handled the annual review of her childs education, health and care plan. Mrs X said this delayed her right to appeal the plan, and caused unnecessary distress. We find the Council at fault for two parts of the complaint. This caused injustice. We are satisfied the Council has remedied some of the injustice, but the Council has agreed to further apologise. We do not find the Council at fault for two other parts of the complaint. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (23 006 211)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide alternative educational provision for her child when they were out of school, and also failed to provide the provision set out in her childs education, health and care plan. Mrs X said this caused unnecessary and avoidable distress, upset and stress, and affected her physical and mental health. She said there has been an impact on her child of the missed education and special educational provision, as well as the impact on their mental health. We do not find the Council at fault. Brighton & Hove City Council (23 007 868)
Summary: Ms X complained her daughter, C did not receive English tutoring as required in her Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This had an impact on Cs education and caused Ms X and C stress. The Council is at fault for failing to provide C with English tutoring. Peterborough City Council (23 008 638)
Summary: Ms X complains about the Councils decision to refuse her request for delayed entry to reception for her summer born child, Y. She says the Councils policy does not comply with recent government guidance. There was fault in the Councils decision making as it has not applied the correct test. The Council has agreed to apologise and reconsider Ms Xs request. It will also review and revise its policy to ensure this reflects the Admissions Code and non-statutory guidance. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (23 008 852)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to put in place alternative provision of education for her child who was out of education from February 2022 until June 2022. Ms X also complained about the Council telling the school to treat her childs absence as truancy and failing to complete an urgent annual review of her childs Education and Health Care Plan. We found fault with the Council failing to provide education for Ms Xs child from 26 April 2022 until 20 June 2022. We also found fault with the Council sending a letter warning about truancy and for delays in handling her complaint. We did not find fault with the Councils handling of the Education and Health Care Plan review. The Council agreed to provide an apology to Ms X for its fault and pay her 750 for her childs missed education. Leeds City Council (23 008 936)
Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to issue his son, Ys, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan within statutory time limits. The Council accepted it was at fault for the delay in assessing Y and issuing his EHC Plan. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused to Mr X and to Y as a result of the fault. Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (23 014 580)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an Education Health and Care plan. This is because the complainant has appealed the contents of the plan to a tribunal. Hertfordshire County Council (23 014 734)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint about the Council not making alternative educational provision for her child. The Council has reached the view this is not necessary, and that the child does not need an Education Health and Care needs assessment. Investigation by us would be unlikely to lead to a finding of fault as the Council is entitled to decide a matter is one of attendance. There is also a right of appeal against the Councils refusal to assess it would be reasonable for Mrs X to use. Medway Council (23 013 764)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to respond reasonably to the complainants concerns about his son and has failed to provide appropriate information and services to him and his family. This is because we would not add anything significant to the investigation which has already been carried out under the statutory procedure for complaints about childrens services. Kent County Council (23 014 505)
Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed considering a complaint under the childrens statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint by considering the complaint at stage two of the procedure and issuing a response by the end of March. It will also offer to make a payment to the complainant to remedy the time and trouble they have been too. Derbyshire County Council (23 005 384)
Summary: The Council was at fault for taking too long to decide what support Miss Bs daughter should receive for her special educational needs. It should make symbolic payments to Miss B to recognise the injustice caused to her and her daughter. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (23 005 518)
Summary: Mrs X complains about delays in the education, health and care plan process and lack of communication. We find the Council was at fault. This caused significant stress to Mrs X and her son was out of education. To address this injustice caused by fault the Council has agreed to apologise, make symbolic payments and remind staff of the relevant guidance. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (23 008 031)
Summary: The Council was at fault by not arranging all the special education provision in line with its proposals in an amended Education, Health, and Care plan for a child. This fault caused the child an injustice because it meant they did not get all the provision they should have had for a whole academic year. It was also at fault for not finalising that plan in line with the statutory requirements. This fault caused Mrs X avoidable distress because of delays in handling her case. The Council have agreed to my recommendations about how it can now remedy these injustices. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (23 014 308)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint about lack of education. The Council has offered a remedy which is within our guidelines and it is unlikely we could achieve significantly more. London Borough of Hounslow (23 004 731)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not properly consider his complaint about the lack of support it provided to him when he inherited a large amount of money from his late father. He also complained the Council delayed investigating his complaint. The Council was at fault. It did not explain to Mr X how it was going to implement the recommendations and it did not address Mr Xs desired outcomes in its investigation process. The Council also delayed investigating Mr Xs complaint by approximately nine months. This caused Mr X distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council has already apologised to Mr X and offered him a symbolic payment which was appropriate. The Council has not provided supporting evidence it actioned the recommendations made during the investigation. It has agreed to provide us with evidence it has actioned the recommendations. The Council will also share the statutory guidance with staff to prevent a recurrence of fault. Birmingham City Council (23 014 159)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the placement of Miss Xs great-grandchild in foster care. This is because it relates to matters that took place in court and is therefore outside our jurisdiction. London Borough of Harrow (23 014 706)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint about the Council refusing a Blue Badge application because it is unlikely we would find fault. Leicester City Council (23 014 982)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr Xs complaint about the Councils child protection involvement with his family because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been subject to court proceedings. We cannot do so. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (23 015 140)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about child protection. The substantive parts of the complaint are historical, and there is not a good reason to investigate them now. Recent events relate to the Councils response to a freedom of information request, and the Information Commissioners Office is best placed to consider this part of the complaint. Blackburn with Darwen Council (23 016 277)
Summary: We uphold this complaint that the Council refused to complete the statutory process for complaints about childrens services. The Council has agreed to resolve the matter by providing a suitable remedy for the injustice the complainant has been caused. West Berkshire Council (22 010 161)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to secure the education and therapy provision set out in Child Ys Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan during the 2022/23 academic year. She also says the Council changed education settings without notice and communicated poorly. We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint about a lack of provision from September 2022 to April 2023. Mrs X lodged an appeal to the SEND Tribunal and the lack of provision is inextricably linked to matters considered at appeal. We have found the Council at fault for a delay in issuing an amended final EHC Plan after the appeal was heard. We have not found the Council at fault for failing to secure provision from when the SEND Tribunal decided the appeal to the end of the 2022/23 academic year. Derbyshire County Council (23 000 833)
Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council reviewed her son, Zs Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and how it secured the provision in Zs EHC Plan between April 2022 and April 2023. We found the Council failed to ensure all the provision was secured for Z. The Council will apologise to Ms X and make a payment to recognise the frustration caused to her and the provision Z did not receive. Bristol City Council (23 001 531)
Summary: Miss X complains the Council delayed completing her daughter, Ys, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan in line with statutory timescales. The Council accepted it was at fault and it also acknowledged it could have communicated with Miss X better. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused by the fault. Surrey County Council (23 003 724)
Summary: Mrs X complains about Council delays in completing her son (Ys) education, health and care needs assessment and Education, Health and Care Plan. We find the Council at fault. It should apologise to Mrs X and make payments to reflect the uncertainty, frustration and distress caused by the delays. Hertfordshire County Council (23 004 742)
Summary: The Council has acknowledged that it took too long to progress Mrs Bs request for an Education Health and Care Plan for her daughter. This caused Mrs B distress and meant that full special education provision for K was delayed. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused. Surrey County Council (23 005 596)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council ignored advice from an Educational Psychologist who suggested her child, Y, should be assessed by an Occupational Therapist (OT). The Council was not at fault because it was entitled to make the decision Y did not require an OT assessment. West Berkshire Council (23 007 689)
Summary: There was delay by the Council in securing special educational provision in an Education, Health and Care Plan which meant a young person received no education for over nine months. The Council will apologise, make symbolic payments for the injustice caused and carry out service improvements. The complaint is upheld. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (23 007 936)
Summary: Miss X complained about the Councils actions in respect of her daughters education. We found there was delay in issuing her daughter's Education, Health and Care plan and the Council failed to ensure her daughter received a suitable education while she was not in school. We recommended an apology and a payment to recognise the impact. North Yorkshire Council (23 008 809)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Councils actions in relation to her childs, Y, Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan). The Council was at fault for not completing an annual review of Y's EHC Plan for several years. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and provide her with a symbolic payment of 250 for the frustration and uncertainty caused to her. The Council will also remind staff to complete annual reviews of EHC Plans in line with legislation and statutory guidance. Lincolnshire County Council (23 010 202)
Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council failed to properly consider her application and appeal for school transport for her daughter when her travel arrangements changed. We have not identified fault with the actions of the Council which caused Mrs B an injustice. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (23 010 532)
Summary: Miss X complained about the Councils decision to refuse free school transport for her daughter. There was fault in how the Council considered Miss X's appeal, but this did not result in a flawed decision. Nonetheless, the Councils fault caused Miss X avoidable frustration, for which it will apologise. The Council will also remind staff of the test they should apply when considering free school transport appeals. Suffolk County Council (23 010 687)
Summary: We uphold Ms Xs complaint about delay in amending her son Ys Education, Health and Care plan, delay in considering her request for education other than at school and a failure to provide alternative provision. This caused avoidable distress, a delay in appeal rights and a loss of suitable education. The Council has agreed an apology and payments to remedy the injustice. Derbyshire County Council (23 013 952)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education Health and Care Plan process for the complainants son. This is because the complainant has now appealed to the SEND Tribunal. This places much of the complaint outside our jurisdiction. The injustice from any delay cannot be properly quantified until the appeals process has finished. Hertfordshire County Council (23 014 179)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education Health and Care Plan process for the complainants child. This is because the complainant has now appealed to the SEND Tribunal. This places much of the complaint outside our jurisdiction. The delay complained about did not cause a personal injustice significant enough to warrant an investigation. Norfolk County Council (23 014 380)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint about the Council failing to make educational provision for her child. A court judgement prevents us investigating this matter between the date of our previous investigation 22 010 900 and a Tribunal hearing in October 2023. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Councils actions since the October 2023 Tribunal to warrant investigation. London Borough of Redbridge (23 014 636)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the delay did not cause a personal injustice significant enough to warrant an investigation. Hertfordshire County Council (23 014 714)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils handling of an Education Health and Care Plan. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Herefordshire Council (21 018 286)
Summary: The complainant (Miss X) said the Council failed to communicate with her effectively about her children who are in care and delayed considering her complaint. We find fault with the Council for not considering Miss Xs complaint under the statutory childrens complaints procedure. This caused delay and injustice to Miss X. We recommend for the Council to consider Miss Xs complaint under the statutory complaints process, make a payment to recognise Miss Xs distress and provide training for the Children Services staff. |
