| 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. Essex County Council (23 003 950)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Councils failure to carry out an Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment for Y when she had asked for it in January 2022, follow the statutory timescales for an EHC Plan process and deliver suitable full-time education to Y since September 2022. North Somerset Council (23 008 084)
Summary: There was fault in how the Council handled significant changes to Mrs Cs care package. It had not reviewed this regularly, and did not seek to agree the changes with Mr and Mrs C, nor give MrC proper notice when he was employed to deliver care to his wife. The Council also took too long to review its assessment of their sons care needs. The Councils shortcomings caused Mr and Mrs C distress and uncertainty and it has agreed to remedy this. London Borough of Hackney (23 009 035)
Summary: Mrs B says the Council failed to properly consider her application for a blue badge. During our investigation the Council reviewed the decision and awarded Mrs B a blue badge. There is no need for the Ombudsman to pursue the matter further. Lancashire County Council (23 015 202)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xs complaint about children services actions. The Council has now agreed to follow the Children Act statutory complaints procedure. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (23 015 735)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the failings of the Council in a child protection matter and the Councils response to a court judgement. The failings were considered in a court judgement, and we cannot investigate them. Investigation of the Councils response to the court judgement would not be likely to lead to the outcome Mrs X is seeking, and a financial settlement reflecting the damage to the family found by the judge is a matter where Mrs X has or had a right to pursue court action it would be reasonable to use. London Borough of Newham (23 015 992)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the education provided to the complainants son. The complaint is late. Mr X could have complained sooner and there is no good reason to exercise our discretion to investigate. Middlesbrough Borough Council (23 016 110)
Summary: We cannot investigate Miss Xs complaint about the decision not to fund her daughters school transport. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because the matter has been decided at tribunal. Birmingham City Council (23 017 441)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xs complaint about the Councils handling of her application for a school place under its Fair Access Protocol. We could not add anything to the Councils response or achieve the outcome Miss X wants. North Somerset Council (23 017 746)
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. Leeds City Council (23 003 000)
Summary: Mr X complains about the conduct of panel members considering his daughters admission appeal. Our investigation found no evidence of fault in how the admission appeal was considered. East Sussex County Council (23 004 062)
Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to provide her child, Y, with alternative provision when he was permanently excluded from school. We have found the Council at fault for not providing provision to Y. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused by the fault. Devon County Council (23 005 138)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council is failing in its corporate duty to provide Mr Y with a suitable education. The Councils delay in the EHC Plan review process and the lack of clarity and poor communication regarding the decision not to fund private assessments are fault. This fault has caused Mr Y an injustice. London Borough of Redbridge (23 005 902)
Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council had failed to ensure their son received the provision outlined in his Education, Health and Care plan. The Council is at fault. It did not ensure the provision was in place after introducing a new plan. The Council will apologise, pay for the loss of provision and carry out a review of Education, Health and Care provision. Suffolk County Council (23 015 001)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council has failed to make appropriate educational provision for a child. This is because it is reasonable for the complainant to use their right of appeal to a tribunal. Derbyshire County Council (23 015 927)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xs complaint about poor communication by the Councils Special Education Needs team and a potential data breach. This is because the Council has already apologised to her for the delay responding to her contact and amended its records as requested, which is an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused. Any complaint about a potential data breach is a matter for the Information Commissioners Office. London Borough of Newham (23 011 977)
Summary: In another complaint the Council significantly delayed complying with our recommendation to hold a stage three review panel. We were concerned about the Councils processes as it told us there had been no requests for stage three of the childrens statutory complaint in the last twelve months. We did not find fault with the Council, as in the last twelve months the Council considered many complaints under the childrens statutory complaint procedure and when sending adjudication letters at stage two the Council told the complainants they could ask for a review panel. Shropshire Council (23 015 792)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about children services actions. We cannot investigate issues which a Court decided. And we are unlikely to achieve a significantly different remedy from that offered at stage three of the Councils complaint process. Suffolk County Council (23 015 794)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care of a child. This is because the complaint is made late, and I see no good reason why it could not have been made sooner. The courts are better placed to consider if there has been a breach of a care order. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (23 016 168)
Summary: We cannot investigate Miss Xs complaint about her children being removed from her care and the Councils actions during 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. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (23 017 662)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint about children services actions. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable. Leeds City Council (22 015 193)
Summary: MsX complained the Council delayed in reviewing her sons Education, Health and Care Plan, misled her about her appeal rights and the provision that could be made and failed to ensure all the specified provision was made. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice. The Council will apologise, make a payment to MsX and carry out service improvements. Warrington Council (22 017 198)
Summary: The complainants representative (Miss X) said the Council failed to provide her son (Y) with adequate education and special educational needs support and transition to adulthood. We found fault in the way the Council carried out Ys Annual Review and his transition assessment. We also found fault with the way the Council made transport arrangements for Y to attend his college. Some of the Councils faults caused injustice to Y and Miss X. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Miss X an equivalent of a mileage allowance for the period the Council should have been providing transport to Y and make payments to Y and Miss X to recognise their distress. The Council has also agreed to carry out some service improvements. Lincolnshire County Council (23 003 150)
Summary: We have discontinued our investigation about Mr Cs complaint that the Council failed to properly consider his daughters best interests when he requested that she start reception at compulsory school age. Devon County Council (23 004 189)
Summary: Ms X complains the Council has failed to conduct an Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment and issue a plan for her son (S) within the statutory timescales. The Council is at fault for delay in issuing the EHC Plan, caused by a delay in obtaining Educational Psychologist advice and failing to provide transitional support to the new school. This has impacted on Ss learning, physical and mental health, and caused distress to Ms X and the rest of the family. Derbyshire County Council (23 004 850)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed assessing her child, W, for an Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council was at fault, which caused Miss X avoidable injustice and meant W missed out on one term of special educational provision. To remedy their injustice, the Council will apologise and pay Miss X a total of 2500. Hampshire County Council (23 004 888)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide alternative education for her child when they were too ill to attend school. Mrs X said the lost education had a significant impact on her child. Mrs X said she suffered unnecessary and avoidable distress and frustration. We do not find the Council at fault. Also, most of the timeframe complained about is outside the Ombudsmans jurisdiction. Royal Borough of Greenwich (23 005 003)
Summary: Mr X complains the Council did not set a suitable personal budget to deliver special educational provision in his sons (Ys) Education, Health, and Care plan, failed to confirm his agreement to the personal budget and delayed reviewing the amount. We find fault which caused Mr X avoidable uncertainty, distress, and inconvenience. The Council should apologise, make a symbolic payment to Mr X, and provide staff reminders. West Northamptonshire Council (23 005 056)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council handled an education, health and care needs assessment for her child. Mrs X said it caused unnecessary and avoidable distress, and delayed her right to appeal the Councils decision. We find the Council at fault, and this caused injustice. We are satisfied the Council has apologised. It has agreed to make a payment to further remedy the injustice. North Lincolnshire Council (23 005 155)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not issue a final Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) after the annual review meeting in December 2022. She complained the Council failed to provide equipment her son, Y, needed to meet his needs. Mrs X said the Council failed to provide the provisions named in his EHCP. Mrs X also said the Council did not respond to her original complaint. She said this has affected her mental health, affected her family financially and impacted Ys health. The Council was at fault. It did not issue the EHCP within timescales. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment and remind its staff of the Councils responsibilities. Lincolnshire County Council (23 005 224)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to properly consider her request for her twins Y and Z to be admitted to reception at compulsory school age. We found fault by the Council in its decision making. It has agreed our recommended remedies. Cheshire West & Chester Council (23 006 133)
Summary: Miss Y complained the Council failed to complete annual reviews of her child, Zs Education, Health and Care plan within the statutory timescales and provide them with a suitable education. She also said the Council failed to communicate properly with her. We have found fault by the Council in failing to complete the review process within the required timescales, failing to provide Z with a suitable education and communicate properly, causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising to Miss Y and Z, making payments to recognise the distress caused and the impact of the missed education. Derbyshire County Council (23 006 824)
Summary: Miss X complained about delays and flaws in how the Council assessed the son, Ys special educational needs. There was fault in how the Council delayed issuing Ys Education Health and Care plan, how it communicated with Miss X and how it responded to her complaints. This delayed Miss Xs right to appeal and caused her avoidable frustration, time and trouble. The Council agreed to apologise and pay Miss X a financial remedy. London Borough of Ealing (23 008 445)
Summary: Ms M complained the Council refused her request for school transport for her son, B. There does not appear to be any basis in legislation or guidance for the Councils insistence Ms M should accompany B on public transport to school. A number of faults, taken together, call the Councils decision into question. The Council has agreed to consider Ms Ms application again. Royal Borough of Greenwich (23 008 552)
Summary: There was fault the Council delayed issuing an Education, Health, and Care plan for Mr Xs son. Those delays caused Mr X an injustice because of avoidable uncertainty about his sons education. There was also fault that special education provision Mr Xs son was due, was also delayed as a result. That too caused Mr X an injustice. The Council have already apologised for these faults, and agreed to my recommendations about how it can remedy Mr Xs injustice here. Luton Borough Council (23 008 729)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council taking too long to make the special educational provision for Ms Xs child ordered by a Tribunal. There is not enough injustice caused by any delay to warrant investigation. London Borough of Ealing (23 008 918)
Summary: Mrs M complained the Council refused her request for school transport for her son, B. The Council does not appear to have properly considered Mrs Ms application or appeal. A number of faults, taken together, call the Councils decision into question. The Council has agreed to consider Mrs Ms application again. Lincolnshire County Council (23 009 013)
Summary: Mrs F complains the Council failed to properly consider her request for her daughter G to be admitted to reception at compulsory school age. We found fault by the Council It has agreed our recommended remedies. London Borough of Ealing (23 009 461)
Summary: Mrs M complained the Council withdrew college transport from her son, B. The Council does not appear to have considered its statutory duties, and its decision to end transport before B successfully completed independent travel training appears irrational. A number of faults, taken together, call the Councils decision to end Bs transport into question. The Council has agreed to consider MrsMs application again. Lincolnshire County Council (23 010 460)
Summary: Mrs A complains the Council failed to properly consider her request for her daughter B to be admitted to reception at compulsory school age. We found fault by the Council. It has agreed our recommended remedies. West Northamptonshire Council (23 010 666)
Summary: Mrs H complained about the Councils handling of her sons education and school placements since 2021. We have decided to discontinue our investigation on the grounds the substantive parts complained about is outside our jurisdiction as the SEND Tribunal have already been considered her concerns. Also, part of the complaint was late or related to what happened in schools which means we cannot investigate. London Borough of Bexley (23 015 397)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has delayed works to expand a school to provide additional places for children with Special Educational Needs. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant seeks. Essex County Council (23 015 457)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about advice from the Council regarding a school place. This is because we could not add anything to the Councils response or achieve anything more. Middlesbrough Borough Council (23 015 728)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils actions while Mr X was a foster carer. This is because the complaint is not separable from matters which could have been considered under the Independent Review Mechanism, which was better placed than the Ombudsman to do so. Hertfordshire County Council (23 015 797)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about safeguarding action taken by the Council. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Councils part, and we would not add anything significant to the investigation the Council has carried out. Kent County Council (23 009 926)
Summary: Ms X complains the Council did not deal with her son Ys Special Educational Needs properly. The Council failed to deliver special educational needs (SEN) provision in Ys EHC Plan, did not complete annual reviews of Ys EHC Plan properly and did not respond to Ms Xs complaints in line with its corporate complaints policy. Ms X and Y suffered a loss of SEN provision and did not receive annual reviews properly. The Council should apologise, pay Ms X 1900 for missed SEN provision, show how Ys EHC Plan is being met, show how annual review requirements will be met and deliver staff training. Nottingham City Council (23 015 650)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the time taken to deal with a request for information. This is because the complaint is best dealt with by the Information Commissioners Office. Leicester City Council (23 003 834)
Summary: Mr X complained about various actions of the council when it was considering child protection action in respect of his children. We found the Council failed to communicate properly and promptly and failed to take some actions it had agreed to. We recommended an apology and a payment to reflect distress. Medway Council (23 015 845)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils actions in preventing the complainant from regaining the care of her children. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking, and she may take the matter to court. Hertfordshire County Council (23 008 289)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr and Mrs Xs complaint about the Councils handling of their sons Education, Health and Care Plan review or provide a remedy for his missed education between October 2021 and May 2023. This is because part of the complaint is late and the remaining issues fall outside our jurisdiction as Mr and Mrs X have used their right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (23 010 231)
Summary: Miss X complains a school admissions appeal panel failed to properly consider her appeal for a place for her child at her preferred school. The Council presented new information at the hearing. As a result, her child has missed out on a place at the school. Our decision is, while there was some fault in the clerks notes of the appeal hearing, this did not cause Miss X or her son a significant injustice. Buckinghamshire Council (23 015 596)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about information the Council provided about when the complainants child would transfer to secondary school. This is because the Council has accepted fault, set out service improvements and offered a symbolic payment. If we investigated, it is unlikely we would achieve anything more. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (23 017 402)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils offer of a personal budget to Mrs X. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Councils actions. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (23 017 747)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils decision not to award Mrs Xs child Y free home to school transport. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Councils actions. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (23 018 008)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a school admission appeal panel. This is because appeal was for a place at an academy school, and we have no jurisdiction to consider complaints about academies or appeals for academies. Kent County Council (23 001 905)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council removed a Personal Transport Budget (PTB) for her son without notice in October 2022. Mrs X says it took the Council five months to reinstate the PTB. Mrs X also complains the Council failed to respond to her complaint about this. The Council has acknowledged there was a delay and it took four months to complete the review of the PTB. We have found further fault with the Councils request for medical evidence and complaint handling. To remedy the injustice caused to Mrs X the Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and service improvements. Lancashire County Council (23 010 509)
Summary: Mrs B complained about the actions of the Council in dealing with her request for an assessment and services for her daughter from the children with disabilities service and the way in which it dealt with her complaint about those matters. We have found fault with the Council. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B, pay her 500, complete a new assessment and improve its procedures for the future. Suffolk County Council (23 015 460)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint about a children services assessment form. It is reasonable to expect Mrs X to get in touch with the officer contact the Council gave her and we are unlikely to achieve more. London Borough of Southwark (23 015 673)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils response to an incident which took place at the complainants sons school, and the schools subsequent actions. This is because our intervention would not add anything significant to the investigation the Council has already carried out. South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (23 015 686)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils involvement in Mr Xs childs case. The complaint is about matters that were subject to court proceedings, which the law does not allow us to investigate. Surrey County Council (23 006 171)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council has dealt with her son, Ys, Education, Health and Care Plan and alternative provision. She said the Councils actions caused her distress and negatively affected Ys mental wellbeing. We found the Council was at fault for not following the statutory procedure during Ys assessment and failed to provide alternative provision when he stopped attending school. The Council agreed to complete the recommendations set out at the end of this decision to remedy the injustice its actions caused to Mrs X and Y. Surrey County Council (23 006 172)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council has dealt with her son, Mr Zs Education, Health and Care Plan and alternative provision. She said the Councils actions caused her distress and negatively affected Mr Zs mental wellbeing. The Council was at fault for not following the statutory procedure during Mr Zs assessment and failed to provide alternative provision when he stopped attending school. The Council agreed to complete the recommendations set out at the end of this decision to remedy the injustice its actions caused to Mrs X and Mr Z. Devon County Council (23 007 134)
Summary: There was a failure to provide alternative education and special educational provision in an EHC Plan when a child was unfit to attend school. This caused significant injustice including loss of education and additional stress to the family over an extended period. The Council will apologise, take action to put education in place, offer an assessment of social care needs for a disabled child and parent carer, and make symbolic payments to acknowledge the injustice caused. Sunderland City Council (23 007 572)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs Xs complaint about a possible conflict of interest affecting her sons Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because Mrs X has used her right of appeal against the Plan and the law does not allow us to investigate complaints about any matters which may have affected its content. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (23 009 295)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to issue an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for her son Y, in line with the statutory timescales, and failed to provide an education to him since February 2023. The Council delayed in issuing an EHC Plan for Y and failed to provide appropriate education from May 2023. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X for the avoidable distress caused and pay her 4,800 to recognise the two terms of education Y missed. Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (23 011 540)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council refused to fund parts of her childs Education and Health Care (EHC) Plan detailed in Section F of the plan. We have ended our investigation. This is because while Mrs X could not appeal Section J of the EHC Plan to the tribunal, she could have appealed the specificity of the wording of Section F which informed Section J. The Ombudsman would not investigate a complaint when someone has an appeal right to the tribunal. Additionally, the Council has already resolved the substantive issue in this complaint and no further action by the Ombudsman is needed. Worcestershire County Council (23 013 905)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a request for school transport for the complainants daughter. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. North Northamptonshire Council (23 014 806)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council supported Mrs X when her child was on a child protection plan. Most of the complaint is late and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Torbay Council (23 015 138)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the education provision for the complainants son. We cannot consider complaints about what happens in schools or matters where it is reasonable to appeal to a tribunal. Staffordshire County Council (23 017 147)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xs complaint about the Councils failure to properly record and share its reasons for not agreeing to include special educational needs provision in her child, Ys, Education Health and Care Plan. This is because she has appealed to the tribunal about the support in Ys Plan. North Lincolnshire Council (23 018 293)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X complaint about a school off rolling her child. We cannot look at the Schools actions and we are unlikely to find Council fault. Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (23 014 591)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils social care team and its involvement with Mr X and his family. This is because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome. London Borough of Lewisham (23 015 309)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xs complaint about the Council not awarding an adaptations grant. It is unlikely we would find fault in its decision not to. And we are unlikely to significantly add to the remedy already offered for accepted fault. Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (23 015 437)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils involvement with Mr X when he was in foster care. This is because the complaint concerns events that took place more than 12 months ago and it would have been reasonable for him to bring the complaint to us at the time. Cornwall Council (23 000 171)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her child, Child Y with suitable alternative education while they could not attend school and failed to provide provision set out in Child Ys Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council was not at fault because the Council considered Child Y had a suitable school placement and Mrs X had a right of appeal to the SEND tribunal. The Council was at fault for poor record keeping of a meeting and key decisions. We have already made recommendations to this Council on similar cases, so no further recommendations were needed. Birmingham City Council (23 003 933)
Summary: Ms X complained her child has been out of school for a year and a half and the Council has failed to provide any education suitable for their needs. We found fault with the Council for failing to provide suitable education to Ms Xs child for two full terms and two weeks. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X for its inaction and pay Ms X 3,250 for her childs missed education. Staffordshire County Council (23 015 449)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to implement a mediation agreement. This is because the complainant may use her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and it would be reasonable for her to do so. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (23 015 609)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to make appropriate provision to support the complainants daughters special educational needs. This is because the complaint concerns what happened in a school and falls outside the Ombudsmans jurisdiction. |
