| 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. Suffolk County Council (23 005 778)
Summary: Miss X also complained the Council has refused to provide an Education Other Than At School (EOTAS) package for her daughter and is wrongly trying to force her into a school setting. Her daughter has been unable to access education in a school setting for several years and has not received a suitable education. Leeds City Council (23 002 078)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council took too long to issue her sons Education, Health and Care Plan and that communication from the Council was poor. We found fault because there was a significant delay issuing the plan which affected the education on offer to her son. Ms X suffered avoidable frustration and distress in getting the issues resolved and her son missed out on the education he should have received. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Ms X, issue reminders to relevant staff and consider reviewing some of its procedures. London Borough of Hillingdon (23 004 223)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide an education and specialist provision in line with her son, Fs Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan since March 2023 when his named placement could no longer meet his needs. She said it also failed to issue Fs amended EHC Plan following an annual review. The Council was at fault. It agreed to apologise and make payments to recognise the impact on Fs education and the distress and uncertainty caused to Mrs X. It will also carry out service improvements. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (23 004 272)
Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her son, Y, the Council failed to provide some provision set out in Ys Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and failed to provide alternative education. The Council was at fault for not providing Ys speech and language provision, not making a decision on a reassessment of Ys needs and delay in making a decision to maintain Ys EHC Plan following the annual review. The Council will apologise, pay Mrs X 1000 for the lost provision and uncertainty caused and put service improvements in place for the faults identified. Surrey County Council (23 007 307)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide her daughter Y with suitable alternative education from November 2021 until July 2022. We find fault with the Council for delay in issuing the Education, Health and Care Plan and for failing to arrange alternative provision for Y, causing Mrs X frustration and distress. We have agreed a financial remedy for the injustice. Northumberland County Council (23 008 776)
Summary: Mr X complained about poor communication, delays, and a lack of transparency within the Councils SEN team regarding his sons EHC plan and arrangements for a school place. The delay in the EHC Plan process and failings in the Councils communication with Mr X is fault. This fault has caused Mr X an injustice. Norfolk County Council (23 008 888)
Summary: X complained the Council failed to provide the signing support provision in their Education Health and Care Plan. We have found fault by the Council, causing injustice, in failing to deliver this support, and also in failing to communicate sensitively with X about its proposal to remove the provision and properly consider its Equality Act duties. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising to X, making a payment to reflect the distress and uncertainty caused and the impact of the missed provision. Surrey County Council (23 009 459)
Summary: Mr X complained about the Councils significant delay in issuing a final amended Education, Health and Care Plan for his daughter after an annual review. We found the Council issued an appropriate remedy in its final complaint response to him. But we found further fault as it took an additional two months to issue a final plan after this. The Council has agreed to remedy the remaining injustice with a small symbolic payment. Somerset Council (23 013 237)
Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mrs Bs complaint about her daughter's special educational needs support. Since we received the complaint, the Council has commissioned an independent investigation to reconsider the issues Mrs B has raised. If Mrs B remains dissatisfied after this reconsideration, she can contact us again. Oxfordshire County Council (23 015 538)
Summary: We cannot investigate Ms Xs complaint the Council did not consider her request for a personal budget. That is because the matter is not separable from her tribunal appeal. Surrey County Council (23 015 727)
Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed carrying out an Education Health and Care needs assessment. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by offering to make a payment to the complainant to remedy the injustice this caused. West Sussex County Council (23 016 582)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to an appropriate remedy for the delay. Birmingham City Council (23 016 927)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Chair of a schools Interim Executive Board. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We have no powers to investigate complaints about the internal management of schools. Liverpool City Council (23 016 938)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the home to school transport provided to the complainants child. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and an investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Southampton City Council (23 017 179)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs Xs complaint about the cost of an occupational therapists report as its part of a Tribunal appeal. And there are no good reasons to disapply the late complaint rule about her claim the Council failed to provide sensory support. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (23 003 632)
Summary: Mr X complained about the actions of the Council, NHS and schools involved with his disabled child, W. The Council was at fault for delay in responding to Mr Xs complaint. This caused him avoidable frustration. To remedy this, the Council will pay Mr X 250. The Councils complaint response was suitably independent and thorough, so I have not investigated the substantive matters Mr X complained to the Ombudsman about. Devon County Council (23 010 183)
Summary: Miss F complained about the way the Council dealt with her request for it to accommodate her son. There was no fault in the way the Council dealt with the request but there was fault in its complaint handling which caused some time and trouble to Miss F. The Council has agreed to apologise. I have ended my investigation into the way a social worker spoke to Miss F as there is not enough evidence to reach a finding. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (23 016 846)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing an appeal for a blue badge. This is because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council which carried out a mobility assessment in accordance with government guidance. It is not our role to question the merits of a properly made decision. Thurrock Council (23 018 258)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about the Councils decision not to consider his complaint about a social worker whilst there are ongoing court proceedings. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Councils decision. London Borough of Sutton (23 018 320)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xs complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Councils decision not to consider her complaint whilst there are ongoing court proceedings. Medway Council (23 007 166)
Summary: Miss X complained about the Councils failure to provide her with support for her special educational needs, as set out in her Education, Health and Care Plan. We found the Council to be at fault. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payments to Miss X and her mother to acknowledge the distress caused by the lack of specialist provision. Derbyshire County Council (23 009 587)
Summary: There was fault the Council delayed issuing an Education, Health, and Care plan for Mrs Xs son. Those delays caused an injustice to Mrs X because of uncertainty about her sons education. The Council has already apologised for those delays. There was also fault the Council did not do enough to consider its duty to ensure Mrs Xs son was being provided education provision, while he was out of school, and this fault has caused Mrs Xs son an injustice. During our enquiries, the Council made a suitable offer of a financial remedy to recognise these injustices. Staffordshire County Council (23 013 365)
Summary: We upheld a complaint about a delay in issuing an amended Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused avoidable distress and a delay in appeal rights. The Council will apologise, make a payment and take action described in this statement to minimise the chance of recurrence. Liverpool City Council (23 014 350)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about Education Health and Care Plan matters. A Tribunal appeal covered most of his complaint. And there is not enough injustice to warrant an investigation for a short period when B may have missed their full provision. London Borough of Bromley (23 015 635)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils decision to place Miss Xs children on a child protection plan. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (23 017 028)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint about the Education Health and Care Plan process for her son. This is because Mrs X appealed to a tribunal and so the case is outside our jurisdiction. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (23 005 790)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to follow statutory guidance and its own policies when it held an Initial Child Protection Conference regarding her child, Y. The Council was at fault for failing to provide Ms X with all the reports for the conference. There was also fault in the Councils record keeping. The Council has already apologised for the faults, and this was sufficient to remedy any injustice caused. London Borough of Lewisham (23 015 287)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about children services actions. We have upheld Mr Xs complaint as the Council has now agreed to follow the Children Act statutory complaints procedure. Reading Borough Council (23 016 917)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Councils childrens services dealt with matters concerning child protection. This is because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council and we cannot investigate matters that have been considered in court. London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (23 018 689)
Summary: The Ombudsman previously recommended the Council respond to Mrs Xs stage two statutory childrens complaint within 65 working days. The Council was at fault for failing to comply with that recommendation. This caused Mrs X frustration for which the Council will pay her 150 and complete the stage two response. The Council will also prepare a database of officers who can carry out stage two investigations to prevent the fault happening again. West Sussex County Council (23 017 291)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils response to the complainants concerns about the welfare of her grandchildren. This is because investigation would not achieve the outcome she is seeking. London Borough of Lewisham (22 017 915)
Summary: Most of Ms Xs complaints are not within our remit because they have been appealed to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal, or they could have formed part of the appeal. There was a failure to complete the annual review process after the review meeting in July 2021 which was fault. This caused avoidable confusion, uncertainty and a delay in appeal rights. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment of 150. Surrey County Council (23 003 624)
Summary: Mrs M complains the Council failed to make alternative arrangements for her daughter Gs education when she became unable to attend school in September 2021. Mrs Ms appeal to the SEND Tribunal limits the scope of my investigation. For the short period of Mrs Ms complaint I have been able to investigate, there was no fault by the Council. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (23 009 607)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint. We cannot look at a schools actions and there are no good reasons the late complaint rule should not apply to his children services complaint. It is unlikely we would find fault in the Councils LADOs decision not to continue his case. Nottinghamshire County Council (23 009 620)
Summary: the Council failed to ensure Ms Bs son received all his occupational therapy sessions and delayed responding to some of her correspondence. An apology, payment to Ms B and a meeting to discuss the issues is satisfactory remedy. West Sussex County Council (23 011 004)
Summary: Miss X complained about significant delays in the education, health and care plan process for her son. She also complained about the Councils communication and said it refused to make reasonable adjustments. We find the Council was at fault for poor communication and significant delays in the process. This caused significant distress to Miss X and her son went without specialist provision. To address this injustice caused by fault, the Council has agreed to several recommendations. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (23 012 965)
Summary: The Council was at fault because it failed to secure the provision on Ys Education, Health and Care Plan and failed to complete the annual review. This caused avoidable distress, a delay in appeal rights and a loss of educational provision. The remedy in the Councils investigation report was inadequate. The Council will apologise, make payments and take action set out in this statement to minimise the chance of recurrence. London Borough of Newham (23 013 214)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to deliver all the provision is her sons Education, Health and Care Plan affecting his academic prospects. The Council has already accepted fault and provided an appropriate remedy so we will not investigate the matter further. West Sussex County Council (23 016 052)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to an appropriate remedy for the delay. London Borough of Lambeth (23 016 445)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the quality of the educational provision made for Miss Xs child since 2021. We cannot investigate the quality of teaching as this is a matter for a school. Miss X has also had three opportunities since 2022 to appeal to a Tribunal for a change of placement or different provision to be specified in her childs Education Health and Care Plan that it would have been reasonable to use. Miss X has used her most recent right, and we cannot therefore comment on what educational provision should have been made for her child since the date the Council issued the decision Miss X has appealed against. Hartlepool Borough Council (23 002 352)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about the Councils refusal to address his complaint, because the Council has agreed a proportionate remedy. Birmingham City Council (23 011 090)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not involve him in its assessment of him for contact with his daughter (D) and told him he could not have contact with her. He also says the Council delayed in responding to the statutory complaints process. The Council properly investigated Mr Xs complaint and considered the findings and recommendations of the Panel. It is not at fault. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (23 015 754)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council social workers conduct when she was involved with Mr X during his time in care. 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 them now. Shropshire Council (23 016 566)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the residence and contact arrangements for Mrs Xs grandchild. The current arrangements were set by a court and only a court could specify different arrangements. It would therefore be reasonable for Mrs X to go to court to seek changed arrangements. Another body is better placed than us to consider complaints about data disclosure. Devon County Council (23 016 696)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils decision not to award a blue badge for Miss Xs child. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision to warrant investigation. Staffordshire County Council (23 017 913)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils assessment of Mrs Xs familys case and its subsequent court report. The law prevents us from considering the content of councils reports to court and their actions as part of proceedings. Leicestershire County Council (23 016 343)
Summary: We upheld Mrs Xs complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care process regarding her child, Y. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Leicester City Council (23 016 575)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an incident involving the complainants child. This is because the law prevents us from looking at what happens in schools. We cannot look at a claimed lack of alternative education because it is linked to a matter appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). London Borough of Brent (23 016 777)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about social work reports prepared for an Initial Child Protection Conference and for court proceedings. The Council made some change to the first report after Mr X complained, which was appropriate. We cannot consider complaints about reports prepared for court proceedings. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (22 016 681)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not provide her daughter with services outlined in her Education, Health and Care Plan since January 2022. She also complained the Council did not provide her daughter with any education from May to November 2022. We found fault because the Council failed to deliver suitable education. Ms X suffered avoidable frustration and distress in getting the issues resolved and her daughter missed out on education she should have received. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (23 004 502)
Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to provide appropriate education for her son, who has an Education, Health and Care Plan. We find fault by the Council causing an injustice. We have recommended ways to remedy this, which the Council has accepted. Bristol City Council (23 004 786)
Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to deliver alternative provision to Miss Xs daughter. This caused Miss X and her daughter a significant injustice. The Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Miss X to remedy the injustice. Surrey County Council (23 012 841)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to arrange all the physiotherapy her son, Y, should have had. There was fault in how the Council took too long to amend Ys Education Health and Care plans following two reviews and failed to provide all the physiotherapy set out in those plans. This caused Mrs X avoidable frustration, uncertainty, and costs. The Council agreed to apologise, restart Ys physiotherapy, and pay Mrs X a financial remedy. Surrey County Council (23 015 719)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council carried out a review of a childs Education Health and Care plan. This is because the complainant has used their right of appeal to a tribunal. Worcestershire County Council (23 016 330)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint about a short delay in providing alternative education provision as there is no worthwhile outcome achievable. And we cannot investigate the education provided by a school. Buckinghamshire Council (23 016 659)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care of Ms Xs child. This is because the matters complained of are not separable from matters concerning the care of her child which have been subject to recent court action, and they could reasonably have been raised in court. Cambridgeshire County Council (23 016 895)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about a phone call he received from a Council officer. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome and we cannot achieve what Mr X wants. London Borough of Harrow (23 017 669)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xs complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Councils decision not to consider her complaint whilst there are ongoing court proceedings. Rutland County Council (23 010 292)
Summary: Mrs Z complained the Council delayed in providing face to face tuition for her son, Mr X, after agreeing to include it as part of his Education Health and Care Plan. She also complained the Council provided inaccurate information in response to her complaint about this causing frustration. The Council acknowledges fault in both respects and a suitable remedy for the injustice caused is agreed. Leeds City Council (23 010 297)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide suitable education for her child for two years. Mrs X also complained the Council delayed for two years in issuing an Education and Health Care Plan for her child. We found fault with the Council failing to provide suitable education, at varying amounts, for Mrs Xs child for 5 terms. We also found fault for delays in producing the Education and Health Care Plan for 9 months. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her 500 for the avoidable distress experienced because of the Councils complaint handling and uncertainty caused by the delays in production of the EHC Plan. The Council also agreed to pay Mrs X 7,025 for her childs lost educational provision. Surrey County Council (23 010 756)
Summary: I have ended my investigation. The remedy the Council already offered is appropriate for the injustice identified; further investigation would not produce a further worthwhile outcome for Ms X. Leicestershire County Council (23 011 105)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint about a delay in assessing special educational needs. The Council has now agreed action and a proportionate remedy to Mrs X. Essex County Council (23 011 983)
Summary: There was a sixteen week delay in the Council issuing an amended final EHC Plan after an annual review meeting. There was also a failure to resolve the complaint at local level. This caused injustice. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment and consider service improvements. Essex County Council (23 012 630)
Summary: The Council delayed carrying out an Education, Health, and Care Needs Assessment for Ms Xs child, Z. This was due to the shortage of Educational Psychologists. We are satisfied with the service improvements already being carried out by the Council to resolve this issue. However in recognition of the injustice caused to Z and their family, the Council has also agreed to pay Ms X 100 for each month of delay in concluding Zs needs assessment. London Borough of Lewisham (23 016 306)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xs complaint about the Councils decision not to back date a children services short breaks allowance. It is unlikely we would find fault. Leicester City Council (23 017 137)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils failure to make appropriate educational provision for the complainants son and its response to her subsequent complaint. This is because we would not add anything significant to the outcome of the Councils consideration of the complaint. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (23 010 770)
Summary: We found no fault on Mrs Ps complaint about the Council giving her incorrect information before she agreed to foster her two grandchildren who came to live with her in rented accommodation. There is no evidence to support what she claimed was said at this time. Nor do the records made in the following years support what she claimed either. Southend-on-Sea City Council (23 015 785)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about children services actions. We have upheld Mr Xs complaint as the Council has now agreed to follow the Children Act statutory complaints procedure. Wakefield City Council (23 017 380)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xs complaint. It lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and I see no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now. |
