| 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. Portsmouth City Council (23 020 737)
Summary: We cannot investigate Miss Xs complaint that the Council failed to obtain an Occupational Therapy report as a part of an Education, Health and Care needs assessment of her child, Y. This is because Miss X has made an appeal to the SEND Tribunal about the content of Ys Education, Health and Care Plan, and the law says we cannot investigate. Surrey County Council (23 011 639)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to issue an amended Education Health and Care plan. This is because it is unlikely, we could add to the investigation carried out by the Council. Any injustice caused to the complainant regarding comments the Council made about her is not significant enough to justify our further involvement. Surrey County Council (23 012 490)
Summary: Mrs X complained about delay in issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan for her son and about the failure to provide a suitable education from February 2022. Mrs X says this caused distress and affected the development of her sons social and communication skills. The final plan was issued 18 weeks late which is fault and, based on what we currently know, the Council failed in its duty to provide suitable education for one term. A suitable remdey for the injustice caused is agreed. London Borough of Wandsworth (23 018 427)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xs complaint as it is outside our jurisdiction. We cannot look at complaints about what happens in schools. The rest of Miss Xs concerns need to be put to the Council before we will consider them. Essex County Council (23 020 295)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xs complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and pay her 100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more. Surrey County Council (23 020 325)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to an appropriate remedy for the delay. If Miss X wants to challenge the content of her sons Education Health and Care Plan, then it is reasonable for her to appeal to a tribunal. West Berkshire Council (23 020 437)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils school to home transport service. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to result in a different outcome. Bracknell Forest Council (23 020 697)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils child protection investigation and involvement with Mr X and his family. This is because the complaint concerns events that took place more than 12 months ago; it would have been reasonable for Mr X to bring the complaint to us at the time. Blackpool Borough Council (24 001 109)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council released confidential data during a meeting. This is because this is best dealt with by the Information Commissioner's Office. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (23 009 591)
Summary: Mrs Y complains about failures in the annual review process and delays in arranging social care provision for her son, D. We find there was fault in the review process and a service failure arising from the Councils inability to source an appropriate provider to meet Ds need for independent life skills. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (23 010 855)
Summary: Miss X complains the Council forced her to live with her ex-partner who perpetrated domestic abuse towards her and the children. Miss X says the Council did not properly consider her concerns that he was a risk to her and the children, or the impact it was having. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for how it considered Miss Xs allegations, and for failing to reasonably communicate with her about them. The Council has agreed to pay Miss X a financial remedy and carry out service improvements. Hertfordshire County Council (23 011 456)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide suitable education provision to her son while he was unable to attend school. She says the Councils actions caused avoidable distress and uncertainty for her son and her family. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to provide an apology and a financial remedy to Mrs X and to make some service improvements. Bristol City Council (23 015 253)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xs complaint about the Council refusing to allow her child a place in the school year above her cohort. It is unlikely we would find fault. Essex County Council (23 017 992)
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 apologise to Mrs X and pay her 100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more. Oxfordshire County Council (23 018 456)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with matters relating to a childs education and social care provision. This is because the issues raised are not separable from those appealed to a tribunal. Leicester City Council (23 019 037)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils decision to reject Mrs Xs application for home to school transport on behalf of her child with special educational needs. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Councils actions. Essex County Council (23 019 354)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xs complaint about delays in producing an Education Health and Care Plan as the Council has agreed to a proportionate way to resolve the complaint. Gloucestershire County Council (23 020 731)
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. London Borough of Bexley (23 014 095)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council refused to consider her complaint about how it handled her daughter Ys care, that it did not keep her informed about Y and did not try to reunite her with her daughter. The Council was at fault for not considering Ms Xs complaint through the childrens statutory complaints procedure. The Council will apologise for the frustration this caused Ms X and consider her complaint. Blackburn with Darwen Council (23 015 688)
Summary: Mrs B complained about decisions the Council made in respect of social care services for her children. She also complained that the Council had not responded to her complaints since 2021. We found the Council delayed in responding to Mrs Bs complaints at stage one, but Mrs B did not take up the Councils offer of a stage two investigation in May 2022 if she remained unhappy. Rutland County Council (23 018 823)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils decisions regarding Ms X as a foster carer. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement. Suffolk County Council (23 019 028)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council carrying out recommendations made by the Ombudsman because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (23 020 177)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Councils actions in seeking to have Mr and Mrs Xs child adopted. The matters complained of are closely related to matters subject to court action concerning the intended adoption. A legal bar prevents us investigating them. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (23 020 473)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Councils decision to not consider the complainants application for two looked after children to be placed in her care. This is because the issues raised cannot be separated from ongoing court proceedings. Cheshire East Council (23 020 616)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council in relation to the care of the complainants child. This is because the complaint is not separable from matters which have been considered and decided in court. Cumberland Council (24 000 059)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xs complaint about children services actions. We have upheld Ms Xs complaint as the Council has now agreed to follow the Children Act statutory complaints procedure. Suffolk County Council (23 003 322)
Summary: Mrs X complains about the Councils handling of her childs, Child Y, education. The Council was at fault for not ensuring Child Y received all the provision in their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and associated personal budget from February to October 2022. The Council also delayed or failed to complete EHC Plan annual reviews between 2021 and 2023. The Council has agreed to apologise and make payments to Mrs X and Child Y for the injustice caused by these faults. Kent County Council (23 006 264)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to secure a place for their child at their preferred education placement. We found no fault in the Council not securing the place. But we found fault with its communications about this issue and delay in answering Ms Xs complaint. These faults caused unnecessary distress. The Council has accepted these findings. At the end of this statement, we set out the action it has agreed to remedy this injustice. Cornwall Council (23 008 447)
Summary: The Council has been at fault in failing to provide alternative education to the complainants daughter when she was out of school for medical reasons. We have recommended ways to remedy the injustice caused which the Council has accepted. We are therefore closing the complaint. West Sussex County Council (23 010 680)
Summary: Miss B complained about the education provision made for her child who has special educational needs. We upheld the complaint, finding service failure contributed to Miss Bs child suffering a loss of education provision. The Council has accepted our findings and at the end of this statement we set out the action it has agreed to remedy this injustice. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (23 011 275)
Summary: The Council was at fault because it delayed issuing an education, health and care plan, and because it did not consult with any potential school placements until after it had issued the final version of the plan. However, there is no reason to believe this made any material difference to the situation and so we do not consider it caused an injustice. There was no fault in the way the Council sought to discharge its duty to arrange alternative provision. We have therefore completed our investigation. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (23 014 299)
Summary: We uphold complaints about a delay in the Education Health and Care needs assessment and plan for Z and for the lack of support to address her attendance. We have recommended a remedy for the injustice and to improve services in future. London Borough of Bromley (23 014 720)
Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of her child, Child Y, the Council wrongly refused to provide home-to-school transport to attend the only school named in Child Ys Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council was at fault. The Council said there were closer schools which Child Y could attend but had not named these in Child Ys EHC Plan. The Council will arrange a fresh appeal panel with different panel members to consider the proper tests set out in law and statutory guidance, and if successful pay Ms Xs transport costs. Thurrock Council (23 016 273)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan for her child and then failed to provide the specialist provision in her Plan. Miss X says this affected her and her childs mental health, and she suffered financial loss as she had to obtain professional reports. Miss X also complained about the Councils communication with her. There were faults by the Council with its complaint handling and its poor communication with Miss X. But the Councils faults caused no significant injustice to MissX. Surrey County Council (23 019 569)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xs complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her 100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more. Warwickshire County Council (23 011 191)
Summary: Miss C complained the Council, in providing a remedy for her childrens services complaint, failed to properly consider the lack of support and the impact that had on her. The Council has put in place comprehensive procedural changes with further changes planned. An additional financial remedy and some further actions are required. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (23 019 950)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint about the Councils response to recent safeguarding allegations against her son. The Council upheld it could have supported her son better following the allegations. It has apologised to Mrs X and acted to improve its service. Further investigation by us would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome. It was for the police to investigate the allegations and we cannot investigate the actions of the police. Leicestershire County Council (23 020 197)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Section 7 report and the conduct of a council social worker. We cannot consider complaints about matters that were or could have been discussed in court. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (23 019 619)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged abuse suffered in school, as well as the Council failing to offer alternative education provision. This is because we have no jurisdiction to investigate what happens in schools. Further, the complaint refers to events in 1998 and so is historical. We cannot now collect evidence and investigate alleged fault with accuracy given the passage of time. Somerset Council (23 004 301)
Summary: There was fault the Council did not review an Education, Health, and Care Plan in 2023 for Mrs Xs son. That fault caused Mrs X an injustice through avoidable inconvenience. There was also fault the Council did not arrange additional education provision when it agreed it would do so, while Mrs Xs son was not at school. That fault has also caused Mrs X an injustice because she now has uncertainty about the impact this has had on her sons development. The Council have agreed to remedy Mrs Xs injustice in line with my recommendations. Surrey County Council (23 005 393)
Summary: Mrs B says the Council failed to provide education when it knew her son could not return to his allocated school due to medical reasons. I have found no fault in the Councils decision not to put in place alternative provision. The Council failed to ensure the therapeutic provision the school agreed to put into place was followed up on. An apology, payment to Mrs B and a reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy. Somerset Council (23 009 122)
Summary: There was fault the Council delayed issuing an Education, Health, and Care Plan after a review. That fault caused Ms X distress through avoidable uncertainty about her childs special education provision, and it also delayed her right of appeal. There was also fault the Council did not properly consider education provision for Ms Xs child while they were out of school. That fault caused Ms X an injustice because of distress, and it caused her child an injustice because of missed education provision. The Council have agreed to remedy these injustices in line with my recommendations. Somerset Council (23 011 787)
Summary: Mrs X complained about delay in issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan, delay following the Tribunal hearing and failure to provide specific provision causing distress and frustration. There was delay in issuing the final Education, Health and Care Plan and some of the provision named in it was not provided. A suitable remedy for the injustice caused by this fault is agreed. Somerset Council (23 013 716)
Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to deliver all of Mr Bs daughters special educational needs support for more than a year. It has agreed to make a symbolic payment to Mr B to recognise his daughters injustice. It will also continue to make symbolic payments to Mr B until the support is in place. Suffolk County Council (23 013 868)
Summary: Ms D complained that the Council delayed for over a year in finalising the Education, Health and Care Plan for her child, E and failed to provide E with any education during this period. We found fault with the Council actions. It has agreed to pay 2,400 for another term of missed provision in addition to the 7,650 already offered. London Borough of Barnet (23 004 664)
Summary: Mr X complained about the Councils actions under its child protection procedures. We found fault because the Council used incorrect wording in assessments, misinterpreted some documentation and did not give Mr X enough time to review paperwork before a child protection conference. This caused Mr X avoidable distress and frustration. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to make an apology to Mr X. Coventry City Council (23 008 406)
Summary: Ms X complains about the Councils handling of her complaints about her sons social worker and the Councils failure to support her son. The Council was not at fault in how it investigated the actions of the social worker. However, it was at fault for failing to investigate Ms Xs additional complaint she made in August 2023. At the end of this draft decision statement, we made recommendations about what the Council should do to remedy the injustice its actions caused to Ms X and her son. Buckinghamshire Council (23 011 627)
Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council handled child protection matters concerning his children. We did not find fault in the Councils decision-making. Lancashire County Council (23 012 485)
Summary: Mr X complained about the Councils failure to provide recommended or adequate support for him from when he was a young child. We found the Council at fault for not properly considering guidance or his individual circumstances when it refused to consider his complaint under the statutory childrens complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused. Cheshire East Council (23 012 870)
Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council signed off installation works of a specialist electrical bath for their child without getting an electrical safety certificate from the contractors. Mr and Mrs X also complained the Council installed the incorrect bath. We found fault with the Council failing to get the correct electrical safety certificate and for delays in making this safe. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr and Mrs X and pay them 500 for the avoidable distress and inconvenience caused. We did not find fault with the Councils installation of the bath or later changing this to a wet-room. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (23 018 871)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils decision to stop Mrs Xs adoption allowance. This is because it is late. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (23 004 680)
Summary: Y complains the Council failed to hold annual reviews when it should have, and about a lack of transitional planning to adulthood. We have concluded our investigation having made a finding of fault by the Council. The Council failed to comply with statutory process causing Y an injustice. We did not find fault with how Direct Payments were ceased but acknowledge that more accountable processes may have mitigated against Mrs X not receiving the letter. Further, we found that the absence of annual reviews was a missed opportunity for further planning and caused avoidable uncertainty for Y in regard to his preparation for adulthood. The Council has agreed to our recommendations. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (23 017 288)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay by the Council in issuing an Education Health and Care Plan. Doing so would be unlikely to lead to a significantly different outcome. Essex County Council (23 019 433)
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 apologise to Mrs X and pay her 100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more. Rutland County Council (23 019 652)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils delay completing the Education, Health and Care plan process. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation. Peterborough City Council (23 019 983)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about unsuccessful school admission appeals. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (23 020 788)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an application for a school place. This is because the complainant has appealed to a tribunal and so the case is outside our jurisdiction. Torbay Council (23 015 297)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about transition planning into Adult Services. The Council has investigated the complaint under the Childrens Statutory Complaint Procedure and upheld most of the complaint. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Surrey County Council (23 019 679)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Councils childrens services. This is because the matters complained about are not separable from matters that either have been considered during court proceedings, or could have reasonably been raised in court. Cheshire West & Chester Council (23 020 208)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils alleged failure to properly safeguard Miss X. This is because the complaint relates to events that took place more than 12 months ago and it would have been reasonable for her to bring the complaint to us sooner. Somerset Council (23 011 497)
Summary: Ms J complained the Council caused delay in the Education, Health, and Care Plan process for her son, failed to provide him with an education for four academic terms when he was unable to attend school, and communicated poorly with her. The Council agreed it was at fault and apologised. We found the Councils apology was not enough. The Council should make payment to acknowledge the injustice its fault caused Ms J and the loss of education X experienced. Kent County Council (23 004 765)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint that she recently became aware of flaws in the actions of the Council over 13 years ago in relation to a child who later went on to attack her son. Given the passage of time, we could not, even on the balance of probabilities, make a causal link between the Councils previous actions and what subsequently happened to Mr Z. Mrs X also complains about the safeguarding actions taken by the Council following the alleged attack on her son and the failure to provide him with any support. This complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion and investigate now. |
