| 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. Surrey County Council (23 006 050)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her child (Y) with occupational therapy provision as set out in his Education, Health and Care plan, delays in considering a request for a Personal Budget and poor complaint handling. We found the Council at fault which caused injustice to Y and Mrs X avoidable frustration, uncertainty, and distress. The Council should apologise and make symbolic payments to Mrs X to reflect the injustice caused. Essex County Council (23 008 542)
Summary: The Council was at fault for a year-long delay in deciding Mrs Xâs daughterâs special educational needs support. Although it began delivering some support before the end of the delay period, there was still a significant delay to some of the support Mrs Xâs daughter needed. The Council should now deliver missed support and should offer symbolic payments to Mrs X and her daughter to recognise their injustice. Essex County Council (23 018 404)
Summary: Ms X complained about the time taken by the Council to assess her childâs special educational needs and issue an Education, Health and Care plan. Ms X also complained about the standard of communication she received from the Council. As a result, Ms Xâs child still does not have a final Education, Health and Care plan. We found the Council was at fault for delays in completing the assessment of her childâs needs and issuing a final Education, Health and Care plan. We also found the Council at fault for its level of communication with Ms X. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise, make payments to Ms X to recognise the delays and distress caused, issue the child with a final Education, Health and Care plan and reimburse Ms X for the private Educational Psychologist report she paid for. Surrey County Council (24 000 272)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in the Education, Health and Care needs assessment process. It is unlikely an investigation by us would achieve anything more. Worcestershire County Council (24 000 743)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the Councilâs failure to provide support set out in an Education Health and Care Plan. It is unlikely we would find fault. London Borough of Bexley (24 000 902)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs actions in respect of the complainantâs daughterâs special educational needs. This is because the complaint is late and there are no grounds for us to consider it now. Leeds City Council (24 000 995)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in failing to issue the complainantâs sonâs Education Health and Care Plan on time, and in the way it communicated with him. This is because our intervention would not lead to a different outcome. We cannot investigate his complaint about the content of the Education Health and Care Plan because he used his right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability), and this places the matter outside our jurisdiction. Manchester City Council (24 000 975)
Summary: We cannot investigate some of Miss Xâs complaint, including the Councilâs conduct during court proceedings or social work reports made for court, because the law says we cannot investigate matters considered by court. We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaints about the Councilâs organisation of contact between her and her child because court proceedings are ongoing, and it is reasonable for Miss X to raise those concerns with the court. Leicestershire County Council (24 000 184)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with child protection matters. This is because we cannot add to the investigation carried out by the Council and an investigation would not lead to a different outcome. London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (24 000 251)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to provide Miss Xâs son with a virtual blue badge. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The injustice to Miss X is not significant enough to warrant an investigation and there is also not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 000 672)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs involvement in Mr Xâs childrenâs case. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Councilâs actions, and we could not achieve the outcomes Mr X seeks. Kent County Council (23 009 845)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to complete an annual review of her child, Yâs Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan following a review meeting in January 2023, failed to provide an education or the provision in their Plan since January 2023 and significantly delayed responding to her complaint about the matters. The Council was at fault. It agreed to make a payment of £5,925 to Mrs X to recognise the injustice caused to her and Y and issue Yâs amended EHC Plan. Durham County Council (23 011 112)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed completing an Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment and issuing a final EHC Plan for her child, Y. Miss X said this meant Y lost out on education and support and the matter caused her distress. There were some faults by the Council with how it dealt with Yâs EHC Plan process. This caused injustice to Miss X. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused. Essex County Council (23 012 821)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed issuing her child, Y with an Education, Health and Care Plan, failed to provide a suitable education from November 2022 until July 2023, and failed to provide the provision in their Plan from September 2023. The Council was at fault. It will apologise to Ms X, pay her £7,950 to recognise the injustice caused to her and Y and provide the missing provision. Hertfordshire County Council (23 013 632)
Summary: Mr Yâs family complained the Council failed to provide much of Mr Yâs Education and Health Care Plan since April 2022. We found fault with the Council failing to provide Speech and Language Therapy to Mr Y across two different periods totalling 18 hours of missed provision. We also found fault with the Council failing to provide tuition for Mr Y from February 2023 to September 2023 and for delays in confirming its decision to cease Mr Yâs Education and Health Care Plan. The Council agreed to provide a rebate equivalent to the cost of the missed Speech and Language Therapy input. The Council also agreed to provide a rebate for the privately sourced tuition Mr Y received from February 2023 to September 2023. And, the Council agreed to provide an apology to Mr Y and pay him £100 for the avoidable distress and uncertainty caused by its delays in confirming its decision to cease his Education and Health Care Plan. Hampshire County Council (23 013 726)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the Councilâs response to incidents related to her childâs school transport. An investigation would not lead to a different outcome and we could not achieve what Ms X wants. Manchester City Council (23 019 956)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint. The law prevents us considering matters concerning court action. While some points might be separable from the court action, we cannot achieve what Miss X mostly wants (a Council officerâs dismissal). The Information Commissioner is better placed to consider the alleged confidentiality breach. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (24 001 370)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to reimburse the complainant for costs associated with her childâs education. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council. Leicestershire County Council (23 013 051)
Summary: There was fault by the Council in the way it completed the Stage 3 statutory childrenâs complaint outcomes it had agreed and in failing to consider whether a financial remedy for missed short break provision was merited. The Council will apologise, make a time and trouble payment and now consider a financial remedy. Plymouth City Council (23 013 254)
Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council dealt with safeguarding matters relating to his child and that social workers acted unreasonably. He also complained about matters related to contact and court proceedings. We cannot consider matters related to the courts. However, we found the Council had failed to properly record and take account of important information relating to safeguarding and the Council should have agreed to escalate Mr Xâs complaint when he requested this. We recommended and apology and modest payment. Derby City Council (24 000 150)
Summary: We cannot investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the Councilâs refusal to involve her in her childâs care reviews or communicate with her about her childâs care and wellbeing. The matter has already been considered by a court. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (24 001 156)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the Councilâs actions in its childrenâs services involvement with her family. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Councilâs decision not to consider her complaint until the ongoing court proceedings have concluded. North Northamptonshire Council (22 014 688)
Summary: There was fault the Council did not issue a final Education, Health, and Care Plan for Mrs Xâs son in line with deadlines. There was also fault it did not agree a personal budget for an education otherwise than at school provision alongside that deadline. This caused Mrs Xâs son an injustice because he was without the full education provision due, for an academic term. There was also fault in how the Council handled Mrs Xâs complaint about this. The Council have agreed it will make a symbolic payment to Mrs X to remedy these injustices. London Borough of Haringey (23 011 252)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not provide suitable transport for her son, Y. We have found no fault with the Councilâs actions regarding the provision of school transport for Mrs Xâs son. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (23 013 039)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide alternative education provision for her son, Y, when he could not attend school. The Council is at fault as it did not consider whether it had a duty to provide alternative provision for Y. The Council is also at fault as it did not keep Yâs part time attendance at school under review. The faults by the Council caused uncertainty to Mrs X and caused Y to miss five weeks of education provision. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising to Mrs X and making a symbolic payment of £500 to her for distress and a symbolic payment of £300 for Y. The Council will also reimburse the costs of the alternative provision made by Mrs X during the five weeks period of missed education provision. Devon County Council (23 013 461)
Summary: We found fault with the Council in not delivering some special educational provision included in the complainantâs daughterâs (Y) Education Health and Care Plan and in not responding to the complainantâs (Mrs X) Personal Budget request. This fault caused injustice to Y and Mrs X. The Council has agreed to apologise, make symbolic payments to recognise the impact of the missed provision on Yâs education and to recognise Yâs and Mrs Xâs distress. The Council has also agreed to share this decision with its Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Improvement Partnership Board. Peterborough City Council (23 014 959)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed providing alternative provision for her child, F when he could not attend the named placement in his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and refused an updated Educational Psychologist (EP) assessment. She also complained about annual review delays. The issue of alternative provision and the EP assessment are outside our jurisdiction because Miss X had appealed to the tribunal. The Council was at fault for failing to re-schedule an annual review at the start of 2023 and for complaint delays. It agreed to make a payment to Miss X to acknowledge the frustration and uncertainty caused. Somerset Council (23 015 386)
Summary: The complainant (Mrs X) said the Council had delayed issuing an amended Education Health and Care Plan for her daughter (Y) following its review in September 2022. We found fault in the Councilâs actions following the review of Yâs Education Health and Care Plan. We also found fault in the Councilâs complaint handling. The Councilâs fault caused injustice to Y and Mrs X. The Council has agreed to apologise to Y and Mrs X and make payments to recognise Yâs loss of education and Mrs Xâs distress. The Council has also agreed to prepare an action plan for the improvements in its complaint handling. London Borough of Barnet (23 015 530)
Summary: Ms X complains on behalf of her son, Mr Y, that the Council failed to provide education in accordance with his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan between October 2022 and November 2023. Ms X says the Council ceased her sons EHC Plan without an annual review taking place. Ms X also says the Council has failed to ensure all the provisions in the EHC Plan are in place. Ms X says this has caused both her and her son distress and for her son to miss out on provision he was entitled to. We have found fault in the Councils actions for failing to provide education in accordance with the EHC Plan and recommend a financial payment to Ms X and Mr Y. Leicester City Council (23 016 591)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide suitable school transport to her child. She said the Council failed to properly explain its decision, consider the familyâs circumstances, or have regard for its duties under the Equality Act 2010 when making decisions about transport. We have found the Council acted with fault by failing to properly consider Miss Xâs requests through its transport appeals procedure. We have made recommendations to remedy the injustice this caused. North Yorkshire Council (23 018 615)
Summary: We upheld Ms 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. We did not investigate some of Ms Xâs complaint because Ms X already appealed the matter to the SEND Tribunal and the law says we cannot investigate. West Sussex County Council (24 000 762)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the delay. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (23 013 216)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs handling of Ms Xâs child case. The law prevents us from considering matters that have been considered in court, and it would be reasonable for Ms X to raise her concerns as part of that process. Kent County Council (23 017 176)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker. The matters complained of are not separable from matters that were subject to court action. There is another body better placed than us to consider any potential data breaches separate from court proceedings. Bath and North East Somerset Council (23 006 727)
Summary: Miss B says the Council failed to ensure her daughter received education from 2022 onwards. The Council delayed issuing an education, health and care plan following a needs assessment and delayed issuing a revised plan following a review. That means Miss Bâs daughter missed out on education for half a term. A payment to Miss B, reminder to officers and setting up a process to track annual review actions is satisfactory remedy. South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (23 011 328)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide suitable education for her child, who could not attend school since 2021. Ms X also complained the Council delayed in producing the Final Education and Health Care Plan for her child. We found fault with the Council failing to provide suitable education for Ms Xâs child for repeat periods covering two years. We also found fault with the Council delaying in producing the Final Education and Health Care plan for 70 weeks outside the statutory timescales. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her £750 as a symbolic payment for her distress and frustration caused by the Councilâs delay. The Council also agreed to pay Ms X £6,090 for her childâs lost educational provision and reimburse her £1,176 for educational provision she paid for. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (23 011 682)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council handled reviews of her childâs education, health and care plan. Mrs X said this caused unnecessary distress and frustration. We find some fault with the Council. Part of this fault caused Mrs X injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X. Oxfordshire County Council (23 012 184)
Summary: Ms X complains about missing psychotherapy support for Mr Y, her adult son, during the summer of 2023 and at the start of the academic year in September 2023. We found there was fault causing injustice when the Council failed to retain proper oversight of Mr Yâs support package, and when it failed to consider the request for summer support in a timely manner. Surrey County Council (23 014 302)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council has failed to provide suitable full-time education for her daughter since February 2023 when she was no longer able to attend school. The Council also failed to ensure she received the therapies specified in her EHC Plan. The Councilâs failure to properly consider and record how it satisfied itself Y was receiving a suitable education while unable to attend school is fault. As is the Councilâs failure to complete Yâs Annual Review and issue a final EHC Plan within the statutory timeframes. This fault has caused Ms X and Y an injustice. North Yorkshire Council (24 000 681)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision not to reimburse costs the complainant incurred due to its failure to attend a mediation meeting because there is no evidence of fault in the way it made this decision. Devon County Council (23 021 278)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker during care proceedings, because the issues could reasonably have been mentioned as part of the proceedings. Hartlepool Borough Council (24 000 249)
Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the content of an agreement of expectations because there is not a good reason for the delay in bringing the matter to the Ombudsman. We will not investigate the breakdown of that agreement because it would be reasonable for Mrs X to pursue the matter in court. Hartlepool Borough Council (24 000 753)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a safeguarding referral involving Ms X and the Councilâs subsequent actions. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on which complaints we investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault and other agencies are better placed to consider the complaint. More importantly, we cannot achieve the outcomes Ms X wants, and an investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different result. Kent County Council (24 002 205)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs involvement in court proceedings. The law prevents us from considering what happens in court, and we will not investigate peripheral matters that are reasonable to raise as part of proceedings. London Borough of Bexley (23 004 796)
Summary: Miss X complained, on behalf of her son, Mr Z, about the support the Council provided for his special educational needs. There was fault in how the Council failed to ensure Mr Z received all the support in his Education Health and Care plan or the full tuition hours that he should have done. This meant Mr Z went without some of that support. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr Z and Miss X, and to pay a financial remedy. Staffordshire County Council (23 007 574)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to maintain her daughter, Yâs, Education Health and Care plan. We found evidence of fault by the Council because it failed to provide Y with the provision in her Education Health and Care plan, failed to review the plan in accordance with statutory timescales or in response to a change in Yâs circumstances and did not communicate with Mrs X. The Council agreed to apologise and make payments in recognition of the injustice caused to Mrs X and Y. Derbyshire County Council (23 011 999)
Summary: Mrs X complained about a lack of support from the Council when attempting to secure special educational provision for Ms Y. We find the Council at fault for delays in considering Mrs Xâs request and for not clearly communicating its decision. We also find fault with how the Council responded to Mrs Xâs complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X, make a payment to recognise the uncertainty caused, and act to prevent recurrence. South Gloucestershire Council (23 012 209)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council is not providing her son, S, with 1:1 special support as provided in his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. Ms X also says the Councilâs complaint handling has been poor. The Council has failed to consistently provide the support provided in the EHC Plan and has delayed in responding to the complaint. This has affected Sâs ability to access education and caused him and Ms X distress. Nottinghamshire County Council (23 012 571)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council stopped giving her child, Q, free school meals in May 2022. The Council was at fault for stopping the meals. It was also at fault for giving Mrs X confusing information about Qâs eligibility for free school meals. This caused Mrs X avoidable frustration and distress and meant she had to pay for Qâs meals while on an already low income. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Mrs X. It should also issue staff reminders and update its website on free school meals. Royal Borough of Greenwich (23 012 805)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not conduct his daughterâs school admissions appeal correctly. We have found fault because details of the panelâs discussions and decision have not been recorded in sufficient depth. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise and arrange a fresh appeal. Kent County Council (23 012 900)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council carried out an Education Health and Care needs assessment. This is because the complainant has used her right of appeal to a tribunal which places the complaint outside of our jurisdiction. Cheshire East Council (23 014 723)
Summary: The Council delayed finalising Ms Xâs child, Zâs, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan in 2023, failed to make sufficient efforts to find Z a placement in a specialist school and relied on a mainstream school which said it could not meet Zâs needs to provide their education. As a result, Z has not received all the education in their EHC Plan for four terms and this continues to date. To recognise the period of missed education and the uncertainty caused, the Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X £7,200, and pay her £2,000 for each additional term this academic year that Z continues not to receive the education in their Plan. To prevent reoccurrence of fault the Council has also agreed to carry out service improvements. East Sussex County Council (23 015 102)
Summary: We found fault on Mr Bâs complaint about the appeal panel failing to properly consider his appeal against the decision to refuse his son a Year 4 place at his preferred school. We found fault in the decision making by the panel and with the clerkâs record keeping. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused. Buckinghamshire Council (23 016 018)
Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to complete an Education, Health and Care needs assessment and issue a final Education, Health and Care Plan for her child, X, within the statutory timeframe. Mrs B says this has impacted Xâs mental health and limited the support they receive at college. We have found the Council at fault. The Council will pay Mrs B a financial remedy, complete further assessments and update Xâs Education, Health and Care Plan to include social care information. Manchester City Council (23 015 663)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about how the Council has backtracked on financially supporting a Special Guardianship Order for her granddaughter for several years. This is a late complaint. Mrs X could have raised her concerns with the Ombudsman sooner and it is unlikely we would now be able to carry out an effective investigation. We do not consider it appropriate to exercise discretion to investigate Mrs Xâs complaint outside of normal timeframes. London Borough of Hounslow (24 000 297)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision not to issue a Blue Badge for the complainantâs son. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (24 000 580)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the content of an early help assessment completed by a social worker. This is because the complaint concerns matters which may be raised in the course of private law proceedings, or are closely related to such matters. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (24 002 367)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr Xâs complaint about a social workerâs report because it was used in the family court during private law proceedings between Mr X and another party. We have no remit to look at what was decided in court. Warwickshire County Council (23 011 027)
Summary: Mr X complained about the Councilâs consideration of his complaint about a child protection matter under the statutory complaint procedure. Mr X said he suffered distress and there was a harmful impact on both his mental health and his relationship with his son. We found the Council properly investigated Mr Xâs complaint but there was avoidable delay. During our investigation, the Council apologised to Mr X, offered a symbolic payment and made service improvements. We consider this action provides a suitable remedy. |
