| 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. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (23 012 877)
Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council discharged its duty to secure educational provision for a child who had been excluded from school. The Council was at fault for a delay in issuing an amended education, health and care plan for him, but this did not cause any injustice beyond some frustration for the complainant, for which the Council has already apologised. The Council was also at fault because it failed to recognise it had issued an earlier version of the education, health and care plan, but we cannot investigate the consequences of this because it is outside our jurisdiction. We have therefore completed our investigation. London Borough of Bromley (23 014 748)
Summary: Ms H complained about the Councilâs handling of the Education, Health, and Care plan process for her daughter (X). She said this caused her distress and a delay in X receiving the support she needed. We found the Council at fault for failing to adhere to the statutory timescales and it communicated with Ms H poorly as no caseworker was allocated. The Council will apologise and make payment to Ms H to acknowledge the injustice this caused her and X. Essex County Council (23 017 735)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Councilâs failure to provide her son Y with a school placement, to arrange full-time education and to deliver special educational provision included in Yâs Education Health and Care Plan. Mrs X appealed to the SEND Tribunal. Some of the issues complained about are part of her appeal and others are closely linked to the appeal. Surrey County Council (24 000 260)
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. St Paul's School for Girls, Edgbaston (24 003 021)
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. Holy Family Catholic High School (24 003 216)
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. Kent County Council (24 003 496)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs Schools Admissions Appeal Panelâs failure to provide his 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. St Paul's School for Girls, Edgbaston (24 004 394)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Schools Admissions Appeal Panelâs failure to provide his child with a place at this School. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused them to lose out on a school place. Devon County Council (23 009 448)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not properly consider her requests for an assessment from its disabled childrenâs service for both her children. The Council did not properly assess Miss Xâs daughter, delayed in its assessments for both children, and did not properly investigate Miss Xâs concerns about racist language during an assessment. This caused delays in Miss Xâs son receiving short breaks, and uncertainty about whether her daughter was correctly assessed as not being eligible for short breaks. It also caused the family avoidable distress and time and trouble. The Council agreed to apologise, carry out an independent assessment for Miss Xâs daughter, and pay a financial remedy. It will also issue reminders to its staff. Royal Borough of Greenwich (24 001 294)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about safeguarding Miss Xâs child. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to consider it now. Norfolk County Council (24 001 326)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr Xâs complaints about the Councilâs report for court or the conduct of a social worker because these matters happened during court proceedings. Social Work England is better placed to consider Mr Xâs complaint about an individual social workerâs professional practice. South Gloucestershire Council (24 001 347)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council conducted a virtual meeting. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Dorset Council (24 001 528)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about a social workerâs evidence to the court during court proceedings because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been considered in court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so. Wokingham Borough Council (23 009 556)
Summary: Ms X complains the Council delayed in securing a suitable educational placement for her son, Y, who has an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and it failed to advise her she could appeal the placement named in Yâs EHC Plan. The Council is at fault for not meeting the statutory timescales when arranging annual reviews for Y and finalising his EHC Plans, it delayed in consulting with suitable settings after his placement broke down, it failed to provide Y with the provision in his EHC Plan when he was unable to attend school and it failed to communicate with Miss X effectively. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused by these faults and it has also agreed to make service improvements. Staffordshire County Council (23 011 122)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to amend her son, Yâs, Education and Health Care Plan within statutory timescales, to provide a personal budget and appropriate education for him between December 2022 and September 2023. We find there was a delay in issuing an amended Plan following an annual review and failure to provide the provision in Yâs Education and Health Care Plan. The Council has agreed to apologise and make financial payments to remedy the injustice caused to Y and Mrs X. London Borough of Bromley (23 014 466)
Summary: Mrs F complained that the Council delayed issuing her sonâs EHC plan, causing him to miss out on provision and causing her significant distress. We found fault. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to remedy the injustice. Hertfordshire County Council (23 015 626)
Summary: Miss X complained about the Councilâs delay in reviewing her childâs Education Health and Care plan and its withdrawal of support during the school year 2022 to 2023. Miss X said the lack of support severely affected her childâs education and wellbeing and so she wanted it reinstated. We found there was avoidable delay by the Council. As the Council had completed the review, it agreed to make a symbolic payment to Miss X of £600 in recognition of the distress, time and trouble she was caused by its delay. Blackburn with Darwen Council (23 016 769)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide a suitable education or follow proper process to review her sonâs Education Health and Care Plan after they moved to the Councilâs area. The Council offered suitable interim educational provision for Y pending a reassessment of his EHC Plan. However, the Councilâs failure to complete the reassessment of Yâs needs and issue a final EHC Plan is fault. This fault has caused Mrs X and Y an injustice. Devon County Council (23 018 122)
Summary: On the evidence available, there was fault by the Council. The Council did not put in the place the alternative educational provision that it agreed to do. A payment, in addition to the apology already given, remedies the injustice caused to the family. Worcestershire County Council (24 000 499)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the education provision for Ms Xâs son. Much of the complaint is late and it was reasonable for Ms X to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability. Even if we did investigate, it is unlikely we would achieve the outcome Ms X wants. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (24 000 541)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council carried out an annual review of a childâs Education Health and Care plan. This is because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council and because the complainant has used, or could have used, their right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal. West Sussex County Council (24 000 989)
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. Cheshire East Council (24 001 531)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Councilâs failure to provide free school meals for her child, Y, between 2018 and 2020 when they were too unwell to attend school. This is because the complaint is late and there is no good reason to investigate now. Maidstone Grammar School For Boys (24 003 392)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Schools Admissions Appeal Panelâs failure to provide his child with a place at this School. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused them to lose out on a school place. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (23 019 282)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about reports the Council prepared for court. The law prevents us investigating what happens during court proceedings. London Borough of Hackney (22 008 497)
Summary: Miss B complained the Council delayed providing her daughter with home to school transport. We find the Council was at fault for the way it dealt with Miss Bâs appeal for home to school transport. It was also at fault for how it dealt with Miss Bâs complaint about the matter. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault. Cornwall Council (22 014 215)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide an education and special educational provision for her child when she deregistered them from the school roll. She also complained about delays reviewing an education, health and care plan. Ms X said this caused unnecessary distress and frustration, and her child missed out on education. We find the Council at fault, and this caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Ms X, and improve its service. Kent County Council (23 010 465)
Summary: Mr C complained about the Councilâs delays during the Education, Health and Care needs assessment process for his son. He also complained the Councilâs communication was poor and its handling of the consultation process was flawed. We find the Council was at fault as it delayed issuing Mr Câs sonâs Education, Health and Care Plan. It was also at fault for its communication with Mr C and its handling of the consultation process. Finally, it significantly delayed responding to Mr Câs complaint. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault. Oxfordshire County Council (23 010 626)
Summary: There was service failure and fault in failing to complete an Education, Health and Care needs assessment on time, a failure in the admissions process, and a failure to consider alternative provision when a child was unable to attend school fulltime. This led to loss of education and placed additional pressures on the family. The Council will apologise, make a financial payment and carry out service improvements. Surrey County Council (23 013 005)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide the support set out in her sonâs Education Health and Care Plan and failed to provide the Education other than at School (EOTAS) provision he needed. There was fault that warranted a remedy. Somerset Council (23 015 943)
Summary: Miss C complained the Council was slow to identify a different school for her child, and amend their Education, Care and Health Plan after agreeing to do so. We upheld the complaint, finding the Council delayed taking these actions for over twelve months. During this time Miss C experienced distress and her child could not receive a full-time education. The Council has accepted these findings and at the end of this statement, we set out the action it has agreed to take to remedy this injustice and improve its services. Southampton City Council (23 018 683)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint, about the Councilâs failure to complete a remedy agreed during a previous investigation. This is because we are satisfied the Council completed the remedy as it was agreed, and any complaint about ongoing matters must be made afresh. Essex County Council (24 000 664)
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. Essex County Council (24 000 906)
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. Surrey County Council (24 001 053)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council delayed carrying out an Education Health and Care needs assessment. This is because doing so would not lead to a different outcome. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (24 001 802)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Ms Xâs unhappiness with the Councilâs management of her child Yâs education, health and care plan. This is because the complaint concerns events that took place more than 12 months ago; it would have been reasonable for Ms X to bring the complaint to us at the time. Liverpool City Council (23 021 118)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about historical child protection matters. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint. Central Bedfordshire Council (24 000 498)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about a data breach and about the Councilâs actions in relation to its child protection involvement with her family. This is because the data matter is best considered by the Information Commissionerâs Office and there is no sign of fault in the Councilâs decision not to consider her complaint about its child protection actions whilst there are ongoing court proceedings. Norfolk County Council (24 001 032)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about missed payments by the Council for nursery fees. The Council has confirmed that rather than paying Miss X, it mistakenly paid the nursery directly. There is not enough remaining injustice to Miss X to warrant our further involvement. Royal Borough of Greenwich (24 001 926)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to safeguard the complainant when she was a child. This is because the issues happened too long ago and the complainant could have complained sooner. Leeds City Council (23 017 278)
Summary: Ms X complains about the delay in the Council issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan for Child Y. She also complains about how the Council carried out the Education, Health and Care needs assessment and the Education, Health and Care Plan issued. We find fault with the Council for the delay in issuing Child Yâs Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council has agreed to pay a financial remedy in recognition of the delay and carry out service improvements. Surrey County Council (23 021 318)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about information the Council sent the local planning authority in connection with applications and enforcement action which Planning Inspectors later decided on appeal. There is not enough evidence to show the injustice Mr B claims flows from the Councilâs actions rather than the Inspectorsâ decisions, so the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code and it does not warrant us investigating. Surrey County Council (23 012 689)
Summary: Ms X complained about the Council failure to provide her child, D, with a suitable education when he was unable to attend school due to extreme anxiety. We have not found fault with how the Council responded to his non-attendance. Leicestershire County Council (23 014 369)
Summary: The Council was at fault for causing delays to Mrs Bâs sonâs special educational needs support. It was also at fault for how long it took to respond to her complaint. It has now agreed to make symbolic payments to Mrs B to recognise her, and her sonâs, injustice. West Berkshire Council (23 015 133)
Summary: Miss B complained that the Council, in respect of her daughter C, delayed in producing an amended Education, Health and Care Plan following an Annual Review, finding an alternative placement for her or putting in place alternative education when she was unable to attend school. We found fault with the Councilâs actions. It has agreed to pay Miss B £2000 for the benefit of C and £400 for herself and to improve its procedures for the future. Suffolk County Council (23 016 770)
Summary: Mrs C complained the Council failed to adhere to the statutory timeframes for completing an EHC needs assessment for her son, X. She says X is struggling at school and needs the process completed to ensure they receive appropriate educational support ahead of their GCSEâs. We have found the Council at fault. The Council has agreed to make a payment to remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (23 013 019)
Summary: Mr X complained about the Councilâs investigation under the statutory childrenâs complaints procedure into his concerns about safeguarding referrals relating the care of his children. The Council delayed completing the complaints procedure, which was fault. The Council investigated the complaints properly, but delayed carrying out some of the recommendations which was also fault. The Council agreed to make payments to Mr X to acknowledge the distress, frustration and uncertainty this caused. Derbyshire County Council (23 017 456)
Summary: The Council was at fault for causing a short delay to a child protection conference, and for not initially visiting Miss Bâs children as often as it said it would. But, in the context of Miss Bâs complaint about how the Council handled her childrenâs case, the areas of fault were limited. The Council took Miss Bâs concerns seriously, fully considered the risk to her children, and followed the safeguarding process set out by the government. Nonetheless, it has agreed to take action to ensure its mistakes are addressed in future. Warrington Council (24 000 191)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker in removing Ms Xâs teenage child from her home. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement. Cheshire East Council (24 000 612)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker in relation to Miss X. There has been recent court action in respect of one of Miss Xâs children, and we are legally prevented from investigating matters that have been or could reasonably have been raised in court. Investigating the content of a phone call where there were no independent witnesses would be unlikely to lead to a finding of fault or to the outcome Miss X is seeking. South Gloucestershire Council (24 003 053)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs alleged failure to provide financial assistance to Mr X in relation to his status as a foster carer. This is because the complaint relates to 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. London Borough of Ealing (22 015 235)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide her daughter with alternative education when she was unable to attend school due to anxiety and bullying. She also complained about the Councilâs complaints process. The Council upheld some parts of the complaint and Miss X has received an appropriate remedy. We do not propose anything further. Hertfordshire County Council (23 005 534)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council placed her child on a reduced timetable in mainstream education since September 2020. Miss X also complained the Council failed to complete the annual review of her childâs Education and Health Care Plan in the statutory timescales. We found fault with the Council failing to keep Miss Xâs childâs reduced timetable under review and for delays in reviewing the Education and Health Care Plan outside the statutory timescales. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss X and pay her £1,050 for her childâs potential lost education and £500 for the avoidable distress and frustration caused. Surrey County Council (23 011 952)
Summary: Mrs C complained the Council failed to provide her son with suitable education for the period January 2022 to April 2023 when he was not attending school or the education provision set out in his education, health and care plan. We have found fault by the Council but consider the agreed action of an apology and symbolic payment provides a suitable remedy. Worcestershire County Council (23 013 808)
Summary: Mrs X complained her daughter missed out on education and special educational need provision as a result of delays caused by the Council. We have found fault with the Council and it has agreed actions to remedy the loss of education and distress caused. Essex County Council (23 014 549)
Summary: The Council failed to carry out an Education, Health and Care Needs assessment for Mrs Pâs child, Q, within the statutory timeframes. This caused distress, frustration and uncertainty to the family. We are satisfied with the service improvements the Council is carrying out to resolve this issue. The Council will apologise and make a payment to recognise the personal injustice to Mrs P and Q. Somerset Council (23 015 677)
Summary: Ms B complained that the Council delayed in providing an amended Education, Health and Care Plan following an annual review in January 2023 and failed to provide suitable alternative education during this period or deal with her complaints in an effective or timely manner. We found fault with the Councilâs actions. The Council has agreed to pay Ms B £2000 for the loss of Câs education and £400 for her own distress and time and trouble. Kent County Council (23 016 931)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays issuing a final Education Health and Care plan for a young person transitioning to post-16 education and refused a request for a personal budget. This is because the delay was not significant enough to justify investigation, and the Councilâs decision not to award a personal budget is not separable from an appeal made to the SEND Tribunal. Birmingham City Council (23 017 415)
Summary: There was some fault in the way the Council decided an application for school transport for a child below compulsory school age. Irrelevant factors were considered and referred to in decision letters. However, I am not persuaded the fault affected the outcome of the application or caused significant injustice. The Council will make service improvements to prevent a recurrence of the fault. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (23 019 623)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about post-16 home to school transport for a young person with special educational needs. Further investigation will not lead to a different outcome. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (24 000 286)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council carried out a review of the complainantâs daughterâs Education Health and Care plan. This is because investigation would not lead to a different outcome and because it is reasonable for the complainant to use their right of appeal to a tribunal. Surrey County Council (24 000 645)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs Child and Family assessment report. The law prevents us from considering the content of reports produced as part of court proceedings. Staffordshire County Council (23 012 995)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed issuing an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for her grandson (C), which means he does not have a place at a Special School. Ms X also said the Councils complaint response has been poor. The Council is at fault for delay in assessing Câs needs and issuing an EHC Plan. This has caused the family uncertainty. |
