| 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. North Northamptonshire Council (23 006 332)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed in re-assessing her child Dâs Education, Health, and Care needs, and failed to ensure D received a suitable education and special educational needs support. There was fault by the Council which caused D to miss education and special educational needs support. This also caused avoidable distress for D, and avoidable distress, time, and trouble for Mrs X. The Council agreed to pay a financial remedy, and ensure suitable education and special educational needs support is in place for D without delay. It will also review its complaint handling processes and issue reminders to staff who handle complaints. Lancashire County Council (23 007 251)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Councilâs actions in relation to her childâs education, health and care plan and delays in responding to her complaints and other correspondence. We find the Council was at fault. This caused significant stress to Mrs X and her child went without education. To address this injustice caused by fault the Council has agreed to make several recommendations. West Sussex County Council (23 012 587)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide his relative, Z, with suitable education for around two years. We cannot investigate the suitability of the education provided as Mr X appealed to the Special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) Tribunal about this. We cannot investigate his complaint that the Council failed to amend Zâs Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for the same reason. However, the Council was at fault for taking more than a year to respond to Mr Xâs complaint. This fault caused him avoidable frustration and put him to time and trouble. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Mr X £150 and take action to improve its complaint handling. Gloucestershire County Council (23 013 966)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to deliver suitable alternative provision to her son. We have found no fault with how the Council considered its section 19 duty or the alternative provision it delivered. London Borough of Bromley (23 016 427)
Summary: There was fault by the Council. There was a delay in issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan of seven and a half months and the loss of education for a term. The Education, Health and Care Plan has now been issued, with an offer of a school place. A remedy payment remedies the injustice of loss of education, uncertainty and a delay in appeal rights to a tribunal. Worcestershire County Council (23 017 664)
Summary: The complainant (Ms X) complained about the lack of support for her son (Y) during his transition to a post-16 institution and about non-delivery of his special educational provision. We will not investigate whether the Council ensured delivery of Yâs special educational provision as these matters are too closely linked with the appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Tribunal. We did not find fault with the Council for its role in Yâs transition to the post-16 placement. Leeds City Council (23 017 762)
Summary: Ms C complained the Council failed to complete an Education, Health and Care needs assessment and issue a final Plan within the statutory timeframes and it failed to provide her child, X, with access to suitable, full time education. We have found the Council at fault which has caused an injustice. The Council has agreed to make a financial payment to Ms C and issue reminders to its staff to remedy the faults identified. Sheffield City Council (23 021 243)
Summary: We cannot investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the education provided to her child since 2019. Part of the complaint is late and she has appealed to the SEND Tribunal about the content of her sonâs Education, Health and Care Plan and so we cannot investigate this. Essex County Council (24 002 607)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays completing an Education Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment and about the school named in the final EHC plan. This is because the issue of delay has already been considered by the Ombudsman, and it is reasonable for the complainant to use their right of appeal to a tribunal about the school named in the EHC plan. Leicestershire County Council (24 002 842)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has offered an appropriate remedy. An investigation by the Ombudsman would not achieve anything more. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (24 003 121)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Councilâs actions relating to an Education, Health and Care plan. Mr X has appealed to the SEND Tribunal about this, and the law does not allow us to investigate here. Nor will we investigate Mr Xâs other complaints about how the Council communicated with him, because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. London Borough of Lewisham (23 019 302)
Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the support she received as a Care Leaver at stage two of the statutory complaint procedure for complaints about childrenâs services. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Ms X, investigate the complaint, and act to improve its services. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (24 002 741)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the Councilâs childrenâs serviceâs involvement with her family. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Suffolk County Council (24 003 605)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that fault on the Councilâs part caused the complainant to incur legal costs. This is because we could not do so without considering what happened in court, which we cannot do by law. North Yorkshire Council (23 012 820)
Summary: The Council asked Ms X to pay back several hundred pounds from her daughterâs person budget, as it says Ms X could not evidence how all the money was used. Ms X repaid this money to the Council but complained to the Ombudsman. The Councilâs communication with Ms X regarding her daughterâs personal budget and her complaint was poor. In recognition of the frustration caused to Ms X by the Councilâs faults, the Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X £150 and carry out service improvements. Hertfordshire County Council (23 016 196)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Education, Health and Care Plan process. She said the Council had delayed identifying a specialist placement for her son. She also said the Councilâs communication had been poor. We find the Council was at fault. This caused significant distress to Mrs X. To address this injustice caused by fault we recommend the Council apologise, make a symbolic payment and remind staff of the statutory timescales. Leeds City Council (23 017 763)
Summary: There was fault in the way the Council handled a transfer of an EHC plan and in its failure to secure alternative education when a child was unable to attend school due to ill-health. The Council will apologise, make symbolic payments, and carry out service improvements. The complaint is upheld. Surrey County Council (24 000 870)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about procedural fault in reviewing an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan). This is because the complainant has appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). By law, this prevents us from considering the content of the EHC Plan, and the procedural fault cannot be separated from the matter appealed. Kent County Council (24 002 308)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaints about the Councilâs childrenâs social care involvement regarding her children. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman. In addition, Miss X could take some of her complaints to the Information Commissionerâs Office and Social Work England. Essex County Council (24 002 518)
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. Holy Family Catholic High School (24 004 928)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (23 019 237)
Summary: Mrs M complains the Council has not provided overnight respite care for her children since August 2022. We uphold Mrs Mâs complaint. The Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment to acknowledge the impact on Mrs M and her family. Devon County Council (23 020 238)
Summary: We will not investigate most of Mr Xâs complaint because the issues complained about are over 12 months old and the complaint is therefore late. We will not investigate some of Mr Xâs complaint because it is reasonable to expect him to take the matter to the Information Commissionerâs Office. East Sussex County Council (24 002 465)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay by the Council telling Mr X of the death of the mother of his child. The Council has confirmed that its position opposing contact between Mr X and his child did not change after the death and has not changed. This means Mr X did not lose any opportunity to seek contact, which would always have been available only by approaching a court. There is therefore not enough injustice caused by any fault to warrant investigation by us. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 003 044)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker in relation to the care of the complainantâs child. This is because the complaint is not separable from matters which were, or could have been, considered in court. Essex County Council (23 011 007)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to follow the statutory time limits for dealing with her sonâs Education, Health and Care needs assessment and issuing his Education, Health and Care Plan. On the evidence provided we intend to find fault with the Council for delay and have recommended a symbolic payment for the distress and frustration caused to Mrs X. London Borough of Haringey (23 015 198)
Summary: Ms X complained that the Council failed to respond or help when her son was unable to attend school, even though he had an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. Ms X also complained about the delay in finalising the amended EHC Plan. We have found fault causing injustice. The Council has accepted the recommended ways to resolve this. Somerset Council (23 016 780)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to review her childâs Education, Health and Care Plan in the statutory timescales. Ms X also complained the Council failed to provide education for her child since December 2022. We found fault with the Council delaying review of the Education, Health and Care Plan by six months outside the statutory timescales. We also found fault with the Council failing to ensure Ms Xâs child received a suitable education, or the educational provision in their EHC plan, from 15 March 2023 to 5 July 2023 and from 28 September 2023 to 19 January 2024. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her £350 for the frustration and inconvenience caused. The Council also agreed to provide Ms X with a payment for any provision she funded from April 2023 to 5 July 2023 and provide her with a payment of £3,250 for her childâs missed education. Somerset Council (23 017 635)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide direct payments on time to fund the support set out in her sonâs Education Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan). We found there was repeated delay by the Council in making Yâs direct payments. We also found the Council attempted to reduce Yâs EHC Plan support without regard for its legal duties under the SEN Code of Practice. We recommended the Council apologised, made a payment to Mrs X and reviewed its processes and procedures with a view to preventing the reoccurrence of the same issues. Cambridgeshire County Council (23 019 553)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council took too long to complete an Education, Health and Care Plan assessment for his child, Z. The Council was at fault for delay in issuing the final Plan. This caused Mr X avoidable uncertainty and frustration and meant Z missed out on special educational provision. To remedy their injustice, the Council will apologise and make payments to Mr X. Milton Keynes Council (24 002 191)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to provide a child with suitable education provision for six years. Some elements of the complaint are made late, and some are not separable from matters that either have been or reasonably could have been appealed to a tribunal. Essex County Council (24 004 553)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs assessment of Miss Xâs and her childâs care needs in 2023. Further investigation by us would be unlikely to find that the childâs inability to leave their bedroom or the family house, or the childâs separation anxiety was a direct result of fault by the Council. Nor would we be likely to recommend more than the fresh assessment the Council has already offered. Hampshire County Council (24 004 808)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault and so we cannot question the panelâs decision. London Borough of Wandsworth (24 005 085)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the education provided to the complainantâs daughter and the school admissions process. We have no powers to consider complaints about what happens in schools. Miss X can appeal the decision not to offer her daughter a place at her preferred schools. Both schools are academies, and we have no powers to consider complaints about admissions to this type of school. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (24 005 103)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the withdrawal of a school place. This is because the Council was acting on behalf of an academy school. We have no powers to investigate when this is the case. North Yorkshire Council (23 016 027)
Summary: Miss X said the Council carried out a flawed child and family assessment which caused distress and worry. We found fault in how the Council carried out the assessment which caused Miss X injustice. To put matters right, the Council agreed to apologise to Miss X and add her views to the assessment report. Norfolk County Council (23 018 529)
Summary: There was no fault in how the Council involved and responded to Mr X during a Child in Need plan. The Councilâs actions were in line with its guidance. Nor was there any fault in how it responded to Mr Xâs complaints about the same matter. East Sussex County Council (23 020 149)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the lack of services and clubs to provide support for a child. This is because the complaint is late, and I see no good reason why it could not have been made sooner. Somerset Council (23 013 243)
Summary: We have found the Council at fault for the way it handled Mrs Xâs daughterâs (Yâs) Education Health Care (EHC) Plan process and for failing to deliver alternative provision when Y stopped attending school. The fault caused the EHC Plan to be delayed and Y to miss education for a year causing the family avoidable distress. The Council agreed to take action to remedy Mrs Xâs injustice. Suffolk County Council (23 013 427)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council has not provided any education or provision set out in the Education and Health Care Plan for his son, Y. The Council has acknowledged fault and offered an appropriate financial remedy for Yâs missed education and provision and the distress caused to the family. We are satisfied this is a satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused. West Northamptonshire Council (23 014 059)
Summary: Mrs M complains the Council delayed its assessment of her sonâs Education, Health and Care needs. It also gave confusing advice and delayed funding 1:1 care her sonâs nursery said he needed. And it did not copy her into all communications, as she had requested. We uphold the complaint. The Council has agreed to our recommendations. East Sussex County Council (23 014 977)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed putting in place alternative provision for her daughter, M after she stopped attending school in September 2023. The Council was at fault. It delayed putting alternative provision in place between September 2023 and February 2024. The Council agreed to make payments to Mrs X to acknowledge the impact this had on Mâs education and for the distress and uncertainty caused. Derbyshire County Council (23 015 141)
Summary: Miss B complained the Council failed to ensure her daughter received the provision in her Education, Health and Care Plan. She also says the Council failed to respond to her complaints within the timescales set out in its complaints procedure. We find the Council was at fault for how it handled Miss Bâs daughterâs education and provision. It was also at fault for its delays in responding to the complaint. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault. London Borough of Wandsworth (23 019 917)
Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to deliver Mr Bâs sonâs speech and language therapy for around two months. It was also at fault for being slow to investigate whether other aspects of his special educational needs support were being delivered. It has already offered Mr B suitable remedies for his â and his sonâs â injustice. It will also take steps to improve its service. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (23 010 632)
Summary: The Council was at fault for paying Miss B a special guardianship allowance at the wrong rate between 2015 and 2021. This meant she missed out on a significant amount of allowance. The Council has agreed to backdate her missed payments. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (23 014 118)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council mishandled child protection enquiries by incorrectly recording sensitive details about him and misrepresenting what happened. We found the Council was not at fault for commencing enquiries. However, it did not follow correct procedure as it did not tell Mr X about the enquiries or the outcome. We found no fault in the Councilâs recording of the enquiries, but there was an error in a later review report which the Council will correct. Staffordshire County Council (23 014 761)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly safeguard his son after he reported concerns to it and has treated him differently to Ms Z based on his gender. We do not find the Council at fault. Leeds City Council (23 017 867)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with child protection matters. This is because some elements are late, and because the Information Commissioner is better placed to deal with other matters. Middlesbrough Borough Council (24 003 424)
Summary: We uphold this complaint that the Council delayed its response under the statutory process for complaints about childrenâs services. The Council has agreed to resolve the matter by providing a suitable remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X. London Borough of Lambeth (24 005 446)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr Xâs complaint about a social workerâs report because it is related to during private law proceedings between Mr X and another party. We have no remit to look at what was decided in court. Thurrock Council (23 013 462)
Summary: Mrs Y complains the Council took too long to offer a school place to her son, D, when she stopped providing home education. She says D missed a significant amount of education due to the Councilâs delay. We find the Council did not comply with the timescales in the statutory guidance and its own policy which caused significant injustice to D. To remedy the injustice caused by fault, the Council has agreed to complete the actions listed at the end of this statement. Suffolk County Council (23 014 454)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to ensure Child Y had access to suitable education and delayed its duties to their Education, Health and Care Plan. Mrs X says this meant Child Y was without education and the agreed support. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for failing to secure alternative provision, for failing to comply with the EHCP regulations, and for its complaint handling. The Council has agreed to make a financial payment in recognition of the missed provision and distress caused. Hertfordshire County Council (24 002 165)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint the Council did not provide alternative provision to her child when they were too ill to go to school. That is because the decision about alternative provision is not separable from her appeal about the content of an Education, Health, and Care plan. Therefore, the law says we cannot investigate. Derbyshire County Council (24 002 555)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the Councilâs failure to provide suitable education for her child or meet his special educational needs. Part of the complaint is late. We have already considered and decided a complaint about the Councilâs actions between June 2022 and September 2023. An investigation of recent matters would not achieve anything more than the remedy offered by the Council. London Borough of Haringey (23 003 749)
Summary: We cannot by law investigate this complaint about the Councilâs child protection involvement with the complainantâs family. This is because all of the issues raised are subject to legal proceedings in court. We have no legal jurisdiction to investigate a complaint in these circumstances. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (24 002 884)
Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about a fostering placement and a child protection investigation following it. Mr X could have approached us sooner, and there is thus no good reason to exercise the discretion available to us to consider these late matters. Essex County Council (24 005 307)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr Xâs complaint that a council officer made offensive comments about people from Scotland. 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 remit to consider matters raised during court proceedings. And also as we cannot achieve the outcome requested. |
