| 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. Lancashire County Council (23 011 148)
Summary: There was fault the Council delayed issuing an Education, Health, and Care plan for Mrs Xâs son. Those delays caused an injustice to Mrs X because she now has uncertainty about the possibility of her son having missed out on the school experience and education they might have had, if but for delays. The Council have already apologised and during our enquiries, it made a suitable offer of a symbolic payment that will remedy Mrs Xâs injustice. Essex County Council (23 013 824)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs 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. Bath and North East Somerset Council (23 014 363)
Summary: The Council failed to ensure that Ms Xâs daughter received the educational provision set out in her Education Health and Care Plan, or consider whether it had a duty to make alternative provision when she was unable to attend school. It has not issued a new Plan following an emergency review, did not properly consider her request for a personal budget, and did not communicate with Ms X properly. The Councilâs shortcomings caused Ms X and her daughter distress, frustration, and uncertainty. It has caused Ms Xâs daughter to miss out on educational provision. Leicestershire County Council (23 013 577)
Summary: Mrs Y complains the Council shared her identity when acting upon concerns she raised about the safety of her grandchildren. We find the Council did not follow its procedures when dealing with the concerns. It should have discussed the concerns with Mrs Y and clarified the extent to which her anonymity could be protected. This caused significant distress which the Council has agreed to provide a remedy for. Derbyshire County Council (23 015 153)
Summary: Miss X complained about the Councilâs decision not to investigate her complaint until she shortened the summary of complaint to two pages. We have decided to discontinue our investigation. The Council has agreed to consider Miss Xâs complaint and this was her desired outcome for our investigation. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (23 016 358)
Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, about assessments made by the Council in response to child protection referrals it received. This is because the complaint is late, there are other agencies better placed to deal with much of its substance, and we cannot achieve most of the outcomes the complainant is seeking. London Borough of Bromley (23 017 012)
Summary: Miss F complained that the Council failed to provide her family with childrenâs social care support and had refused to accept her complaint about this. We found fault in the Councilâs decision not to investigate and respond to the complaint under the statutory childrenâs complaints process. The Council has now agreed to do so. Staffordshire County Council (23 008 035)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council had not secured all the special educational or social care provision in her child, Bâs, Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council was at fault, which meant B missed out on provision they were entitled to. This caused Miss X distress, frustration and uncertainty. To remedy their injustice, the Council will apologise and pay Miss X a total of £5000. To prevent similar fault in future, the Council will issue a staff reminder and identify if flaws in its practice led to some of the fault. The Council will also apologise to the people who have been waiting too long for their complaint responses. Worcestershire County Council (23 009 513)
Summary: Miss B says the Council delayed completing her daughterâs annual review for her education, health and care plan, failed to ensure the alternative provider put in place provision and failed to respond to her communications. The Council delayed completing the annual review, failed to put in place alternative provision following the annual review and failed to respond to some of Miss Bâs communications. An apology, payment to Miss B and introduction of a process to manage annual reviews is satisfactory remedy. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (23 011 298)
Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to comply with statutory timescales during the EHCP process for his son, Y. Mr X also complains about the failure to deliver provision as set out in Yâs EHCP. We have concluded our investigation having made a finding of fault. The Council failed to issue Yâs EHCP within statutory timescales, and failed to deliver all SALT sessions that Y should have received, if not for delay. The Ombudsman is aware of a national shortage of Educational Psychologists that have impacted upon events described in this complaint, and our recommendations have been agreed in line with our standardised approach. Suffolk County Council (23 012 659)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Councilâs handling of her request for an Education, Health and Care Plan for her son, and about its handling of her subsequent complaint. Mrs X says the Councilâs actions caused avoidable stress to her and her son. We found fault by the Council and the Council has agreed to provide Mrs X with an apology and a financial remedy. London Borough of Sutton (23 012 757)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide alternative educational provision for her child when they were unable to attend school. She complained the Council delayed its decision not to do an education, health and care needs assessment, and complained about delays handling her complaint. Mrs X said there was a huge impact on her child of the missed education, and said it caused unnecessary and avoidable distress and frustration. We find the Council at fault, and this caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X to remedy the injustice caused. Essex County Council (23 014 631)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to arrange the speech and language therapy set out in her child, Zâs, Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council was at fault. This caused Miss X avoidable frustration and meant Z missed out on provision they needed. To remedy Miss X and Zâs injustice, the Council should apologise and pay Miss X a total of £1650. The Council should also remind its complaints staff that they should consider whether to offer a complainant a remedy when they uphold their complaint. Essex County Council (23 018 669)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to make alternative education provision for her son while he was unable to attend school. She says the Councilâs actions caused avoidable stress and meant her son missed out on his education. We found fault by the Council and the Council has agreed to provide an apology and a financial remedy to Mrs X. Buckinghamshire Council (23 021 230)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged fault in the content of a draft policy document. This is because the Council has made a reasonable response to the matter our intervention would not lead to a different outcome. East Sussex County Council (23 021 262)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about inaccurate information being included in Section D of his childâs Education, Health, and Care (EHC) plan. This is because an investigation would not lead to any further findings or outcomes as the Council has appropriately remedied the injustice caused by the fault accepted. Essex County Council (23 021 379)
Summary: We upheld Miss Xâs complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care process regarding her child, Y. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (24 000 953)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not involving Mr B in the process for his childâs Education Health and Care Plan. This is because an Ombudsman investigation would not lead to a different outcome and there is not enough evidence of fault. Kent County Council (24 001 100)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education Health and Care Plan process. The complainant has appealed to a tribunal and so the content of the plan is not something we can consider. Any injustice caused by delay in issuing the plan cannot be quantified until the outcome of the appeal is known. Derbyshire County Council (23 014 508)
Summary: Mr X complained about the way the council dealt with child protection proceedings. We find the Council at fault for failing to provide copies of plans, failing to follow its policy around identification and not advising Mr X of how long he would need to leave the family home. However, we are satisfied with the action the Council has taken to remedy this. Warwickshire County Council (23 019 862)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B and Mr Câs complaint about the Council allegedly not taking the appropriate action when Mr Câs son sustained two injuries while in the care of his mother and her partner. This is because we could not add anything significant to the investigation the Council has carried out. Kent County Council (24 000 860)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs section 7 report for court. The law prevents us from investigating what happened in court, which includes the content of the Councilâs report. Leicestershire County Council (22 016 458)
Summary: The complainant (Mr X) said the Council had delayed issuing an Education Health and Care Plan for his son (Y) following his Annual Reviews. We found fault in the Councilâs actions following the Annual Reviews of Yâs Education Health and Care Plan in 2022 and 2023. We also found fault in the Councilâs failure to apply the principles of good administrative practice when carrying out its duties for children with the Education Health and Care Plans. The Councilâs fault caused injustice to Mr X. The Council agreed apologise to Mr X and make a payment to recognise his distress and uncertainty. Staffordshire County Council (24 000 114)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision to refuse Miss Xâs application for free school transport for her daughter. We have seen no evidence of fault by the Council. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (23 006 082)
Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about the lack of support they experienced from the Council as registered foster carers since 2017. They said it caused them avoidable distress. We found the Council was not at fault in how it supported Mr and Mrs X. However, the Council was at fault for the frequent social worker changes, and it agreed to apologise for the frustration and confusion this caused to Mr and Mrs X. Dorset Council (23 013 878)
Summary: Mr B complained about the conduct of the Council during an initial child protection investigation and conference. He also complained the Council allowed a vulnerable person to live at his property for three months. There is no evidence the Council acted with fault which caused Mr B injustice. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (23 019 736)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint the Council used inaccurate records at court. This is because we cannot investigate what happened in court. Devon County Council (23 020 449)
Summary: Ms C complained about the Councilâs failure to refund deductions of child benefit from her special guardianâs allowance back to May 2019, following the publication of our public interest report on a similar complaint. We consider the Council should deal with the complaint first through the statutory complaints procedure. Leicestershire County Council (24 000 299)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs child protection actions concerning Mr Xâs family. This would be unlikely to lead to a different or worthwhile outcome from that already achieved as the result of the Councilâs investigation. We would be unlikely to establish the claimed injustice was the sole result of failings by the Council. The Council has also agreed to correct any factual inaccuracies in its records and to refer Mr X to the Information Commissionerâs Office if he remains dissatisfied when it has done that. Cheshire East Council (24 000 635)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Councilâs childrenâs services involvement with the complainant family. This is because the complaint concerns the commencement of court proceedings or matters that have been raised, or could reasonably have been raised, in court. London Borough of Merton (23 000 549)
Summary: The Council was at fault for a delay in deciding what support Mrs Xâs daughter should receive for her special educational needs. It should have done this by October 2022, but did not do it until July 2023. This means there was a corresponding delay to some of the support Mrs Xâs daughter needed. The Council will offer symbolic payments to Mrs X and her daughter to recognise their injustice. Herefordshire Council (23 017 275)
Summary: Mrs F complained the Council had failed to provide education and special educational needs support to her son and about delay in the process of updating his Education, Health and Care plan. We have ended our investigation to allow the statutory childrenâs complaint procedure to be completed. Hertfordshire County Council (23 021 328)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the Council naming a mainstream school for her daughter, Yâs. It is appropriate for Miss X to appeal to the Tribunal about that. The Council offered to pay her £400 to recognise its delay in finalising Yâs annual review and its poor communication, which is appropriate. Birmingham City Council (24 000 110)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision not to award Miss Xâs child Y home to school transport. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Councilâs actions. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (24 000 303)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the process of an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment, and about the Councilâs response to the subsequent complaint. This is because the subject of the complaint is not separable from matters which were, or could have been, subject to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). Cheshire East Council (23 021 315)
Summary: We upheld this complaint, and the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by taking the complaint through the childrenâs statutory complaints procedure and by apologising to Mr X. We did not investigate Mr Xâs substantive complaints about support he received as a looked after child or as a care leaver because the Council agreed to progress the complaint through the statutory childrenâs complaints procedure. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (24 000 038)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Bâs complaint about the contents of a court report and a social worker failing to attend a court hearing without notice. This is because the complaint concerns matters which have been considered in court or are closely related to those matters. Southampton City Council (24 000 199)
Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint from Ms X about a child protection investigation. There is not a good reason for the delay in bringing the matter to the Ombudsman. London Borough of Waltham Forest (23 006 931)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to consider all her evidence when she applied for a blue badge for her son. We do not find fault with the Council, so we cannot therefore criticise the merits of its decision. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (23 010 716)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs childrenâs services involvement with the complainant family. This is because the complaint concerns matters that either were or could reasonably be raised in court. Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (23 011 290)
Summary: Miss Y complains she was not able to progress through the Councilâs fostering payment scheme due to Council fault. After considering the available evidence, we agree with the findings made during the statutory complaints investigation. We do not find further fault and so, in our view, the remedy already provided is proportionate. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (23 021 280)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs actions in respect of the complainantâs son. This is because the complaint is late and there are no grounds to consider it now. Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (23 017 939)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about child protection and safeguarding procedures. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council considered the complaint under the childrenâs statutory complaints procedure. The Trust has already taken action to remedy the complaint about its actions and investigation by us is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. South Gloucestershire Council (23 020 782)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs response time in dealing with Mr Xâs correspondence about compensation. The substantive matter relates to alleged illegal detention in a secure childrenâs home. We decided in case 22 016 477 Mr X had a right to go to court it would be reasonable to use to seek a finding that he had been illegally detained. It follows that Mr Xâs subsequent correspondence with the Council about compensation for the alleged illegal detention is also a matter closely linked to the alleged illegal detention. Mr X has a right to go to court about this matter it would be reasonable to use. Reading Borough Council (22 013 373)
Summary: Ms Y complained about the way the Council dealt with her child, Zâs Education Health and Care plan, special educational needs provision, social care assessments and social care provision. We have found the following faults by the Council: failure to respond to Ms Yâs concerns about section A of Zâs Education Health and Care plan; failure to put Zâs social care support in place; and a failure to deliver all Zâs special educational needs provision in the year 2020/2021. We have also found these faults caused Ms Y and Z injustice. We have not found fault on the other parts of Ms Yâs complaint. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused by apologising to Ms Y and Z, making payments to reflect Ms Yâs distress, and the impact on Z of the missed provision. It has also agreed to contact Ms Y about changes to section A and putting social care support in place and make service improvements. |
