| 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. Cornwall Council (23 009 897)
Summary: Ms Y complained the Council failed to provide all the special educational needs support set out in her childâs Education, Health and Care plan. We have found fault by the Council in failing to deliver the Occupational Therapy and Speech and Language Therapy in the plan, causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising to Ms Y, making a payment to reflect the distress this caused her, and arranging catch-up sessions for the missed provision. Warrington Council (23 011 948)
Summary: we uphold Ms Mâs complaint that the Council failed to arrange alternative provision for B for one term in summer 2022 and took too long to amend his EHC Plan following the March 2022 annual review meeting. However, the Councilâs offer of £2,000 is an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused. South Gloucestershire Council (23 014 098)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the removal of one-to-one educational provision for her daughter. That is because the law says we cannot investigate the actions of schools. We also cannot investigate her complaint the Councilâs Educational Psychologistâs report was flawed. That is because Mrs X appealed to the Tribunal. Kent County Council (23 017 082)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Education Health and Care Plan process for his son. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by an investigation. If Mr X wants to challenge the content of his sonâs Education Health and Care Plan, it is reasonable for him to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (23 020 267)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the content of an Education, Health, and Care (EHC) Plan because Mrs X has a right of appeal to a Tribunal that it is reasonable for her to use. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (23 020 749)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council delayed arranging a personal budget and failed to ensure that Special Educational Needs provision is being met. This is because the Council has taken appropriate steps regarding the personal budget so further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. The complainant has used their right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal and the issue of Special Educational Needs provision is not separable from that appeal. Nottinghamshire County Council (23 021 488)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Councilâs failure to deliver provision in her childrenâs Education, Health and Care Plans. We cannot investigate matters already considered during Tribunal proceedings. The Council has accepted there was a delay arranging provision after the Tribunal process concluded. It has apologised for this and agreed to provide catch up sessions. An investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome. Derbyshire County Council (24 000 067)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Council failing to complete an EHC needs assessment within the required timescales and of failing to provide the full amount of tuition to her child as agreed. This is because an investigation is not likely to lead to any further findings or recommendations as the Council has made appropriate recommendations to remedy the injustice caused by the faults accepted. London Borough of Newham (23 016 521)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainantâs time in care. This is because the events happened too long ago, and I see no good reason to exercise discretion. The Information Commissioner is better placed to consider the complainants concerns about how their information has been stored and how their information requests have been dealt with. Milton Keynes Council (23 020 718)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs failure to provide information in a hardcopy format as the Information Commissionerâs Office is better placed to consider this. London Borough of Redbridge (23 020 830)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of staff during an Initial Child Protection Conference. This is because there are other bodies better placed to consider this complaint. Also, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr B wants. Durham County Council (24 002 292)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X complaint about a decision to allow an adoption because the Court made the decision. Essex County Council (23 011 053)
Summary: Mr X complains about the Councilâs decision not to seek advice from a speech and language therapist when assessing his childâs needs. We found the Council at fault for how it applied the relevant legislation and statutory guidance when making its decision and for failing to issue the Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan within statutory timeframes. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustices caused by the faults. Milton Keynes Council (23 020 733)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the Councilâs failure to review her sonâs Educational Health and Care Plan between 2016 and 2021. This is because we cannot say the issue caused Miss X or her son significant injustice. We will not investigate her complaint about the support listed in her sonâs Plan because it would have been reasonable for her to appeal to the SEND Tribunal. Leicestershire County Council (24 000 350)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the school named in an Education Health and Care Plan. This is because it is reasonable for the complainant to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). Essex County Council (24 000 825)
Summary: We upheld Mrs Xâs 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. Arundel C Of E Primary School (24 001 738)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about a school admissions appeal panelâs decision as it is unlikely we would find fault. Kent County Council (24 001 993)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about what happened to Mr and Mrs Xâs child in a school. 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 in connection with the internal management of schools. Kent County Council (24 002 000)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the Councilâs Schools Admissions Appeal Panelâs failure to provide her child with a place at School Y. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused them to lose out on a school place. Leicester City Council (24 002 206)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss Xâs unsuccessful application for a school place. This is because it is reasonable for her to use her right to appeal to a tribunal. London Borough of Waltham Forest (24 002 284)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the Councilâs handling of an Education Health and Care Plan. This is because the matter is being considered at a Tribunal. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (23 004 539)
Summary: the Councilâs failure to follow its procedures when responding to consultation from a neighbouring Council about a proposal to name an âintegrated resourceâ in Mrs Mâs son Bâs Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan ended with the Plan specifying provision that was not available. This has caused disruption to Bâs education and considerable uncertainty. We recommended a remedy. Bracknell Forest Council (23 006 255)
Summary: Mrs X complains about the Councilâs failure to provide adequate and timely alternative education provision for her Child, Child Y, when they were unable to attend school from January to July 2023. The Council was at fault for not acting sooner when Mrs X alerted it in early November 2022 of Child Yâs significantly decreased school attendance. The Council delayed responding to Mrs Xâs request for and then completion of an early Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan review for Child Y. The Council has agreed to apologise and make payments to Mrs X and Child Y for the injustice caused by these faults. It will also review its procedures for schools in its area to highlight any pupils who fail to attend school regularly. Hampshire County Council (23 010 728)
Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed to review his daughterâs EHC plan and failed to respond to his communications. We found the Council delayed significantly in completing an annual review of the EHC plan. It has agreed to make a payment to Mr X and to his daughter in recognition of the injustice caused. Telford & Wrekin Council (23 010 156)
Summary: We found fault on Mrs Pâs complaint about the Council failing to follow procedures during its child protection investigation of her family. Previous risk assessments were lost and not passed to the new social worker. It failed to keep evidence of its own investigation of her complaint about a social worker. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused. Cornwall Council (23 011 342)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with matters concerning the contact between the complainant and her children. This is because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council and because it would be reasonable for the complainant to return to court. Essex County Council (23 020 211)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged historic child abuse due to perceived wrongdoing by the Council. This is because the issues being raised our historical and Mr P could reasonably take court action to achieve a remedy. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (23 021 191)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs actions in relation to the placement of a child with the complainant. This is because our intervention would not add anything significant to the investigation the Council has carried out. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (23 021 339)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about evidence in the disputed care of an infant child. The matter is subject to court action and a legal bar prevents us investigating. Derbyshire County Council (24 000 452)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs alleged failure to properly investigate Mr Xâs complaint regarding its involvement with his family. This is because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Warrington Council (24 000 590)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about data protection issues. This is because the Information Commissionerâs Office is better placed to consider Mr Xâs concerns. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (23 000 786)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in failing to address barriers to the complainantâs childâs education and in refusing to reimburse them for costs they incurred. This is because it concerns matters relating to the delivery of education by a school and, as such, falls outside our jurisdiction. Sheffield City Council (23 004 545)
Summary: the Council followed the correct procedure before amending Mrs Mâs son Bâs Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. It is not the Councilâs fault the resource provision specified in the Plan could not admit B. North Yorkshire Council (23 010 551)
Summary: The Council accepted fault in that it failed to provide alternative education for the complainantâs child when the College ended the placement. The Council offered a remedy for the injustice which the complainant considered insufficient. We have recommended actions to add to the Councilâs remedy, which the Council has accepted. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (23 013 311)
Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council handled her application for home to school transport support for her son, Y, in 2023. Mrs X also complained the Council withheld information about Yâs entitlement in September 2022 and would not backdate the transport allowance it later agreed to in September 2022. The Council failed to tell Mrs X about the home to school transport support in 2022, and failed to properly consider and respond to her application for support in 2023. The Council will apologise for the injustice this caused and backdate the support to September 2022. Suffolk County Council (23 013 550)
Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council did not complete the review of her childâs education, health and care plan properly or in a timely fashion causing distress, frustration and uncertainty. We found the Council was at fault in failing to comply with statutory timescales. In recognition of the injustice caused the Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs X. Liverpool City Council (23 013 617)
Summary: Mr F complains about the conduct of an Education Welfare Officer (EWO) who he says was uncaring and unsympathetic. I ended my investigation without making findings. There is insufficient evidence of fault or injustice and nothing worthwhile I could add by investigating further. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (23 014 079)
Summary: The Council was at fault because it delayed issuing an education, health and care plan for a child, and because it delayed accepting a duty to arrange alternative educational provision for her while she was not attending school. The Council has agreed to apologise to the complainant, offer a financial remedy, and provide guidance to its staff on the Councilâs duty to arrange alternative provision. Derbyshire County Council (23 020 554)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the complainantâs daughter suffering an alleged loss of education on account of being out of school. This is because Mrs W has lodged an appeal to the SEND Tribunal and the alleged loss of education is materially connected to a matter subject to that appeal. Essex County Council (23 021 238)
Summary: We upheld Mrs Xâs 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. Staffordshire County Council (24 000 082)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Councilâs failure to act on a referral to its Autism Inclusion Team in 2022. This is because there is not enough evidence to show the Council received the email or, therefore, that it was at fault for failing to act on it. Norfolk County Council (24 000 200)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision not to consult with a particular school as part of the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. Reading Borough Council (24 000 308)
Summary: We cannot investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the Councilâs failure to consult with her about her child, Yâs, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This is because Ms X has appealed the content of the EHC Plan to the SEND Tribunal, and the law says we cannot investigate. We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the Councilâs complaints process because we cannot investigate the substantive complaint, and therefore an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve any meaningful outcome. Lancashire County Council (23 009 462)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not deal with her fairly during its child protection investigation for her daughter. I have found the Council to be at fault. It failed to call her as agreed to discuss the Initial Child Protection Conference and her concerns about the report as agreed. The Council should apologise for the injustice caused by this and take action to prevent reoccurrence. Kent County Council (24 002 035)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs inaccurate reporting in 2020. This is because the complaint is late and there is no good reason to investigate now. Hertfordshire County Council (23 012 418)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has not properly dealt with her daughter Yâs Special Educational Needs (SEN) properly. The Council delayed issuing a final Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan, did not provide SEN provision and direct payments were delayed. Mrs X suffered avoidable distress and Y lost educational opportunities. The Council should apologise, pay Mrs X £200 for avoidable distress, £2400 for Yâs missed education and provide an action plan. Gloucestershire County Council (23 013 026)
Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council did not deliver alternative provision for her son, Y who was unable to attend school. We have found no fault with how the Council handled Yâs attendance problems and education provision. Medway Council (23 017 327)
Summary: The Council was at fault for a delay in deciding Mrs Bâs sonâs special educational needs support. Its decision â which is yet to be made â is currently five months late and counting. It has agreed to make this decision without further delay, and it will make a symbolic payment to Mrs B to recognise her sonâs likely injustice from the delay so far. Royal Borough of Greenwich (23 017 400)
Summary: The Council was not at fault for deciding it could not properly conduct an educational review meeting for Miss Bâs son without her attendance. It was also not at fault for making a referral to its childrenâs social work team which reflected its concerns about Câs education. Both these decisions were supported by law and guidance and were not obviously unreasonable. Essex County Council (23 021 307)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs 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. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (23 021 404)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs involvement in Mr Xâs childrenâs case. The complaint relates mainly to the Councilâs Section 7 report submitted to court, which the law prevents us from investigating. Other matters Mr X raises are late, and in any event there is insufficient evidence of fault. We do not have the power to change the courtâs decision. Wokingham Borough Council (23 007 972)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed in reviewing her child Dâs Education, Health, and Care Plan and failed to ensure D received a suitable education and support for their special educational needs. There was fault by the Council which caused D to miss education and special educational needs support. It also caused avoidable distress for D, and avoidable distress, time, and trouble for Mrs X. The Council agreed to apologise, ensure the provision in Dâs Education, Health, and Care Plan is in place without delay, and pay a financial remedy. It will also issue reminders to its staff, and ensure it considers our findings about Education, Health, and Care Plan review delays at its SEND Assurance Board. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (23 008 274)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide an education for her child since leaving school and the apprenticeship broke down. We found fault with the Council for delaying reviewing Ms Xâs childâs Education and Health Care Plan for nearly two years outside the timescales. We also found fault with the Council failing to provide both provision in the Education and Health Care Plan and suitable education or training to a child aged between 16 and 18 years old for fifteen months. We also found fault with the Council for poor handling of Ms Xâs contacts and complaints. The Council agreed to complete an annual review for Ms Xâs childâs Education and Health Care Plan and produce a final amended Education and Health Care Plan. The Council also agreed to confirm the education provision it is putting in place for Ms Xâs child. The Council agreed to provide training and guidance to staff about adhering to the review timescales and its responsibility to provide education and training to 16 to 18 year olds. The Council also agreed to Council apologise to Ms X and Y, pay Ms X £400 for the distress and inconvenience it caused and £1,000 for the uncertainty and lost opportunity it caused to Ms Xâs child. Norfolk County Council (23 008 320)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide full-time education, suitable alternative education and provision set out in her child, Child Yâs Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council was at fault. Child Yâs EHC Plan provision was delayed by two months and it did not provide all the special educational provision between March and July 2023. In addition, the Council communication was poor, which all caused Miss X distress and uncertainty. The Council will apologise, pay Miss X £2,200 for the injustice caused to her and Child Yâs missed provision and put service improvements in place. Hertfordshire County Council (23 010 125)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed reassessing her child, Child Yâs Education, Health and Care Plan needs within the statutory timescales and the Council did not provide the reassessment decision. Mrs X also complained the Council communicated poorly with her. The Council was at fault and will apologise for the frustration caused to Mrs X by the delay in informing her if it would reassess Child Yâs needs. Sheffield City Council (23 010 844)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to find a school place for her daughter after a Tribunal Order and she has missed out on suitable education for a significant period. We found the Council at fault as it had not been able to secure a school place or meet its legal duty to provide suitable full time education. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused. North East Lincolnshire Council (23 007 291)
Summary: The Council was not at fault for much of how its childrenâs social work team handled her unborn babyâs case. However, there were some failures in risk management and, in particular, record-keeping. There was also a delay to the Councilâs response to one of Mrs Bâs complaints. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B and take steps to improve its service. Hampshire County Council (23 015 499)
Summary: We found fault with the Councilâs early referral to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. This fault caused the complainant (Miss X) injustice by her missing out on the review of her complaint by an independent panel and by delaying the resolution of her complaint. The Council has agreed to send a written apology to Miss X and make a symbolic payment to recognise Miss Xâs distress. Lincolnshire County Council (24 002 099)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs alleged removal of two children known to Mrs X from their family home. This is because this is a matter for the courts. North Northamptonshire Council (23 005 766)
Summary: Ms X complains about delay in completing an Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment, which delayed her child being allocated a school place, and led to missed education. There was a 10 month delay in producing a final EHC Plan and a further 2 month delay in consulting schools. This led to 3 weeks of missed education at the start of the next school year before interim tuition was provided. The delays caused unnecessary distress, uncertainty, time and trouble. The Council will apologise, make a payment to acknowledge the impact of the fault and carry out service improvements. Somerset Council (23 007 119)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her son Y with a suitable education from July 2022 until September 2023. We found fault with the Council for failing to arrange suitable alternative education for Y. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and Y, make a payment in recognition of Yâs lost education and a symbolic payment recognising the significant distress and frustration caused to Y and Mrs X. North Yorkshire Council (23 010 456)
Summary: Mrs X complained the home to school transport arranged by the Council did not wait long enough for her grandchild Y and that it was not meeting Yâs needs. The Council already accepted fault as the transport did not consistently wait the agreed ten minutes for Y. It apologised and made a payment to Mrs X for the time and trouble this caused. This was a suitable remedy. There was no evidence of other fault. London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (23 014 425)
Summary: The Council delayed carrying out an Education, Health, and Care needs assessment and issuing an EHC plan for Mr Xâs child, Y which caused distress to the family. We are satisfied with the service improvements already being carried out by the Council to resolve this issue. The Council will apologise and make a payment to recognise the personal injustice to Mr X and Y. Essex County Council (23 014 507)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not provide her child with an iPad, despite their Education, Health and Care Plan stating they should receive assisted technology. We do not find fault with the actions of the Council. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (23 014 756)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide her son with a full-time suitable education meaning he missed out on education and affected his mental and physical health. The Council failed to evidence why it was in Ms Xâs sonâs best interest to only receive 12 hours per week and it failed to promptly review this and put additional provision in place. A suitable remedy is agreed. Derbyshire County Council (23 021 234)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about how a council officer dealt with two of her complaints. She says the officer failed to investigate her complaints properly. This is because the alleged fault has not caused any significant injustice. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (23 021 330)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council taking court action against Mrs X for the payment of a school attendance fine. The onset of court action has permanently removed our legal power to investigate this matter. Norfolk County Council (23 021 461)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of Council officers regarding the care of the complainantâs children. This is because the complaint concerns matters which have been considered in court, or are closely related to those matters. South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 000 030)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the Councilâs response to her 2018 complaint. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now. Surrey County Council (24 000 220)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X complaints about children services matters. There are no good reasons the late complaint rule should not apply. We cannot investigate the Police, CAFCASS or Court matters and Social Work England are better placed to consider social work professionalism complaints. West Sussex County Council (24 001 080)
Summary: We upheld Mrs Xâs complaint about delays in the Councilâs consideration of her complaint through the childrenâs statutory complaints process. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. We did not investigate Mrs Xâs substantive complaint about the Councilâs social care involvement with her child because the second stage of the statutory childrenâs procedure is almost complete. Luton Borough Council (23 016 496)
Summary: There was no fault the Council means tested a special guardianship allowance that it was due to pay Miss X, meaning she received less than she did previously. The regulations allow for the Council to take this approach and the evidence shows Miss X was aware this could happen. Warwickshire County Council (22 009 689)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide her child with sufficient education and failed to provide the Education and Health Care (EHC) plan support she was entitled to when she was unable to attend school through ill health. We found the Council failed to become involved to ensure Y received a suitable education. When it provided an education, it did not properly consider how the support in Yâs EHC Plan could be met. There was also a failure to properly respond to Miss Xâs complaint. We recommended the Council made a payment and apologised to Miss X and to Y. |
