| 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. Derbyshire County Council (23 003 684)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed completing her childs Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment and then delayed issuing the Education, Health and Care plan. The Council was at fault for the delay. It has agreed to apologise to Miss X and pay her 1,225 to acknowledge the frustration, uncertainty and missed provision caused to her child by the delay. Suffolk County Council (23 005 407)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide suitable education or the provision set out in her two childrens, Child Y and Child Zs Education, Health and Care Plans. Ms X could have complained to us sooner and there are no good reasons we should investigate this late complaint. We cannot investigate a complaint where someone has appealed to the tribunal about the same matter. The Council has already offered a suitable financial remedy for Child Y and Child Zs lost provision and Ms Xs time and trouble which remedies the injustice caused so we have ended this investigation. Gloucestershire County Council (23 006 877)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Councils decision not to reimburse nursery costs. Most of the complaint is out of our jurisdiction as the complainant appealed to tribunal. The Council has offered an appropriate remedy for delays in arranging staff training. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Surrey County Council (23 007 137)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide alternative provision support for her son when he stopped attending school. Mrs Xs appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal limits the scope of our investigation. We found the Council at fault for not considering alternative provision sooner during the period we can consider. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy this injustice. North Lincolnshire Council (23 007 569)
Summary: There was delay by the Council when issuing Ds final EHC Plan after the Tribunal issued its order in February 2023. This caused injustice because D waited longer to receive the specialist provision he was entitled to. Mrs Y also experienced some avoidable time and trouble. Kent County Council (23 008 311)
Summary: Mr D complained the Council has failed to provide his son, E, with a suitable education after his school placement broke down. We find the Council was at fault for how it handled Mr Ds sons education after the placement broke down. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault. Devon County Council (23 008 316)
Summary: Ms X complained about the Councils lack of communication and delay in issuing an amended Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for her son Y after an annual review meeting. The Council was at fault as it delayed four months in issuing an amended EHC Plan for Ys transition to post-16 education, and failed to communicate with Ms X. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and Y and make a symbolic payment to recognise the frustration and distress this caused them both. Hertfordshire County Council (23 011 774)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to arrange alternative provision for her child, W, when they were unable to attend school. Miss X also complained the Council did not secure the provision in Ws Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and about issues in how the Council reviewed Ws EHC Plan. We have ended our investigation. Either we are not allowed to investigate Miss Xs concerns in this case, she complained about them too late, there was no significant injustice or we are not the organisation best placed to consider them. Wokingham Borough Council (23 013 634)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint about post 16 home to school transport. We are unlikely to achieve a significantly different remedy than already offered. Cambridgeshire County Council (23 015 220)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about the Councils handling of his childs Education, Health, and Care plan. This is because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes. In addition, the Council has offered an appropriate remedy to recognise the distress caused by the identified faults. Birmingham City Council (23 015 239)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xs complaint about the Councils decision not to amend her sons Education Health and Care Plan to name a different school or a type of school. That is because she had the right to appeal that decision to the SEND Tribunal. Birmingham City Council (23 015 241)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils failure to arrange alternative provision or provide the support in an Education Health and Care Plan because there is no evidence of fault. Staffordshire County Council (23 015 453)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to identify an appropriate school for the complainants son. This is because he has the right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and it would be reasonable for him to do so. Sheffield City Council (23 017 124)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. Northumberland County Council (23 015 080)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about the Councils alleged victim blaming of Mr Y. This is because the complaint concerns matters that took place more than 12 months ago and it would have been reasonable for Mr X to refer this complaint to us at the time. Cambridgeshire County Council (23 015 556)
Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about a Council officer Mr X says was unprofessional and dishonest in 2022. There is not a good reason for the delay in Mr X bringing the matter to the Ombudsman. Hampshire County Council (23 013 305)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about the Council removing his child from the list of children being considered for a specialist nursery provision in 2022. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Bedford Borough Council (23 014 923)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the support with post 16 transport provided to the complainants son. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (23 014 964)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council arranged school transport for a child who was not attending school. This because the issue has not caused the complainant a significant injustice. Devon County Council (23 015 423)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils decision to stop providing transport for Miss Xs son Mr Y to attend respite care. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Councils actions. Coventry City Council (23 015 049)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of social workers in closing his childs case during a custody application Mr X says they asked him to make. The complaint concerns actions that are not separable from matters subject to court proceedings at the time and subsequently, and we are legally barred from investigating them. London Borough of Havering (23 016 623)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils decision to refer concerns regarding Mrs Xs work with children to the local authority designated officer and the subsequent investigation that took place. This is because the complaint concerns events that took place more than 12 months ago and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate events that took place this long ago. Cumberland Council (23 014 980)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Councils involvement with the complainants family. This is because the Councils actions were in connection with matters which have been considered in court, and this places them outside our jurisdiction. Kent County Council (23 015 407)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker. This is because these actions related to the production of a report for the Court. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (22 014 055)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council assessed a child for an Education Health and Care plan. This is because the issues raised are not separable from those appealed to a tribunal. The ICO are better placed to consider other matters. Surrey County Council (23 007 968)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to carry out an Education, Health and Care Plan needs assessment for her daughter, Y, in line with the timescales and failed to communicate with her. Ms X also complained the Council did not respond to her request for an occupational therapist report. The Council was at fault for failing to complete the needs assessment in line with the guidance. The Council will complete the needs assessment and make a symbolic payment to remedy the frustration caused to Ms X. Hertfordshire County Council (23 016 075)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled Mr Xs application for a school place. This is because the Council was acting on behalf of an academy school. We have no powers to consider complaints about academies. London Borough of Southwark (23 006 512)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not arrange a suitable care package for her two children, who have additional needs, following an accident which required her admission to hospital. Miss X said the stage two investigation did not consider all the issues and evidence. Miss X said the Council did not fully address her concerns at the stage three meeting. Miss X said the Councils actions caused distress for her and her children. There was fault in the way the Council did not adhere to the statutory timescales in the complaint process. The Council already accepted fault in the handling of the care of Miss Xs children and offered to pay a remedy to acknowledge the distress this caused. Miss X did not suffer any significant further injustice by the delay. The Council should complete its previous offer to Miss X to apologise for the distress and make a financial payment. Halton Borough Council (23 015 027)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Councils failure to act against a school. This is because the law prevents us from investigating complaints about what happens in schools. Oxfordshire County Council (23 015 319)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in its involvement with the complainants grandchildren. This is because we would not add anything significant to the investigation already carried out under the statutory procedure for complaints about childrens services. London Borough of Newham (23 017 623)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils decision to temporarily cease financial support Mrs X was receiving on behalf of her children. This is because the complaint concerns events that took place more than 12 months ago and it would have been reasonable for Mrs X to have brought this matter to us at the time. Cheshire East Council (23 003 607)
Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council looked for a new educational placement for his adult daughter, Ms Y. Mr X also complained about how the Council reviewed Ms Ys Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan, about how it amended the EHC Plan and about its failure to secure the provision in Ms Ys EHC Plan. The Council was at fault. Mr X also complained about the supported living placement the Council identified for Ms Y. The Council was not at fault in how it decided the placement could meet Ms Ys needs but was at fault for moving Ms Y to the placement without a sufficiently lengthy transition or an up-to-date care and support plan. The faults caused Mr X and Ms Y significant injustice. To remedy that injustice, the Council should apologise to Mr X, pay him a total of 9500, issue Ms Ys amended EHC Plan and make improvements to its practice. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (23 004 687)
Summary: Ms C complained about the Councils delays during the Education, Health and Care needs assessments process for her daughter. She also says the Council failed to provide her daughter with alternative provision when she stopped attending school. We find the Council was at fault for its delays in issuing Ms Cs daughters Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault. London Borough of Hillingdon (23 004 882)
Summary: Miss X complained on behalf of a family member, Miss Y. Miss X said the Council failed to consider all the evidence available when it decided not to provide Miss Y with post-16 travel assistance. There was no fault in the way the Council decided not to award Miss Y travel assistance. There was fault in the Councils record keeping. The Council should apologise to Miss X for the uncertainty caused by the fault and carry out a service improvement. Suffolk County Council (23 005 229)
Summary: Mrs B says the Council failed to put in place education for her son, failed to identify a suitable school placement and failed to put in place provision in her sons education, health and care plan. Part of the complaint is outside the Ombudsmans jurisdiction. For that part within the Ombudsmans jurisdiction there is evidence of failure to put in place sufficient education for Mrs Bs son, delay identifying a school placement and delay putting in place special educational needs provision. An apology, payment to Mrs B and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy. Sheffield City Council (23 005 429)
Summary: Ms F complained on behalf of her grandson that the Council failed to plan his transition from childrens to adults services, causing delay in assessment and failure to provide a taxi to school. There was fault in transition planning but this did not cause injustice. The Council failed to book school transport for three days but has now funded this, which remedies the injustice caused. Surrey County Council (23 008 528)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council has failed to identify a suitable school placement or provide a suitable education for her daughter. She also complained the Council delayed in completing a needs assessment and in issuing an Education Health and Care Plan for her daughter. The Councils failure to identify a suitable school placement or provide suitable alternative provision between April 2022 and April 2023 is fault. As is the Councils failure to assess Y needs and issue a final EHC plan within the statutory timeframes. These fault have caused Mrs X and Y an injustice. London Borough of Redbridge (23 010 715)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council conducted the process of assessing Miss Xs childs special educational needs and drawing up and Education Health and Care Plan. Most of the points of complaint are not separable from the content of the Plan, and Miss X has had the right to appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal it would be reasonable to use to secure the provision she is seeking. The only separable matters are the formatting of text in the Plan and late documents for an earlier review of the Plan, which do not create sufficient potential injustice on their own to warrant our involvement. Worcestershire County Council (23 014 387)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils handling of an Education Health and Care Plan. This is because it is late and there is no good reason to investigate now. Surrey County Council (23 015 123)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education Health and Care Plan issued to the complainants child. This is because the complainant has appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). This places the matter outside our jurisdiction. Nottinghamshire County Council (23 014 231)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Councils Local Authority Designated Officer dealt with a concerns raised about the complainant. This is because the complaint is made late and I see no good reason to exercise discretion and consider it now. Buckinghamshire Council (23 014 903)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker because the complaint concerns the social workers opinions as stated in a report for a court. The matters complained of are therefore not separable from matters subject to court action. Sheffield City Council (23 014 968)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint about the Council refusing to renew her sons Blue Badge. This is because the Council has reviewed its decision and issued the Blue Badge. This is a satisfactory outcome, and we could not achieve anything more. London Borough of Croydon (23 015 051)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xs complaint about children services actions as we are unlikely to achieve the outcome she seeks. Isle of Wight Council (23 015 145)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils refusal to consider Mr Xs childrens services complaint. The complaint is about the Councils actions as part of court proceedings, and matters that are inextricably linked. Herefordshire Council (23 015 320)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils involvement relating to children in Mr Xs family. The matters are all inextricably linked to court proceedings. Royal Borough of Greenwich (23 015 466)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a Council social worker in relation to an investigation regarding Ms X and the Councils decision to make a LADO referral. This is because the complaint concerns events that took place more than 12 months ago and it would have been reasonable for Ms X to refer this complaint to us at the time. Birmingham City Council (23 007 017)
Summary: Ms X complained about the outcome of a home to school transport appeal for her son, Y. We found fault because the Council failed to properly record the deliberations by the appeal panels and show how the panels arrived at their decisions to refuse Y school transport. It also failed to provide sufficient detail in its decision letters. This has caused Ms X and Y distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and hold a fresh stage 2 appeal panel. If it decides to award Y with school transport it has agreed to consider whether to make payments to Ms X and Y to recognise the injustice caused by its earlier decisions. So we have completed our investigation. Nottinghamshire County Council (23 008 744)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to complete his daughters education, health and care needs assessment within the statutory deadline. We find the Council was at fault. This caused Mr X and his daughter uncertainty and distress. To address the injustice caused by fault the Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment. The Council is already carrying out service improvements to address the shortage of staff and backlog of cases. Cheshire East Council (23 015 175)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Councils response to a pre-action protocol letter the Council sent Mrs Xs solicitor. That is because Mrs X has started legal proceedings and the matter she complains about forms part of those proceedings. London Borough of Bexley (23 015 208)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils refusal to agree to the complainants request to educate her son at home. This is because it would have been reasonable for the complainant to have used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). South Gloucestershire Council (22 016 231)
Summary: The complainant was concerned that the Council failed to implement the Complaints Review Panels recommendations to carry out fresh assessments of her familys needs. The Council has carried out these assessments, so we do not find fault on this aspect of the complaint. However, the complainant does not agree with the outcome of these assessments. We find that the Council has not had an opportunity to consider the complainants fresh concerns. The Council has agreed to now do so. So, we are closing the complaint. London Borough of Hounslow (23 014 221)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils decision not to issue a Blue Badge for the complainants daughter. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Norfolk County Council (23 014 998)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Councils actions in a child protection matter. The Councils involvement with the complainants children will be considered as part of ongoing legal action, and the law prevents us from investigating such matters. Derbyshire County Council (23 015 179)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the care of the complainants grandchildren. This is because their care has been considered in court and the law prevents us from investigating such matters. London Borough of Waltham Forest (23 017 100)
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 for childrens complaints. Slough Borough Council (23 006 814)
Summary: We found fault on Mrs Fs complaint against the Council about how it processed her request for an Education, Health and Care Plan for her young son. It failed to complete the assessment within statutory timeframes. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused. The draft Plan contained errors and inaccurate information. These failures did not cause her an unremedied injustice. Leicestershire County Council (23 008 735)
Summary: We found fault on Mrs Ss complaint about the Councils decision to suspend her sons special educational needs transport with immediate effect and no warning. It failed to show staff recorded concerns, show these were passed to managers, alerted Mrs S to them, provided a record of a meeting, follow up and review control measures previously discussed, and respond to her initial complaint. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused. London Borough of Barnet (22 007 854)
Summary: The complainant (Mrs F) said the Council had failed to provide speech and language therapy (SALT) for her son (Child X) as included in his Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan. Mrs F also said the Council had failed to provide full-time alternative education for Child X when he was out of school and to follow the right process when considering her Personal Budget (PB) request. We found fault in the way the Council considered Mrs Fs PB request but this fault did not cause her or Child X injustice. We will not investigate other issues of this complaint as the matters complained about were either part of Mrs Fs appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) Tribunal or are too closely linked to the appeal. Rutland County Council (22 013 051)
Summary: Miss C complained the Council failed to ensure her son received full-time education and the Occupational Therapy support set out in his Education, Health and Care plan. Miss C says this had a harmful impact on her sons academic, social and emotional development. We have found fault by the Council in some delay and uncertainty around education provision but consider the agreed action of an apology, symbolic payment and consideration of additional costs provides a suitable remedy. Norfolk County Council (23 009 277)
Summary: We found no fault on Miss Fs complaint about the Council failing to offer her daughter transport to her preferred college. The Councils decision followed its home to school and college transport policy. Her complaint about it failing to name her preferred college in the Education, Health and Care Plan is outside of our jurisdiction. This is because she had the right to appeal this to a statutory tribunal. London Borough of Lambeth (23 004 285)
Summary: Mr C complained on behalf of Miss B that the Council had failed to consider her complaint about childrens services through the statutory complaints procedure, delayed in communicating with her, been unclear about which process it was using and agreed to a remedy which it did not implement. We found significant fault by the Council. It has agreed to complete a proper stage two investigation, apologise to Miss B and pay her 500. It has also agreed to review its complaints procedure for the future. |
