| Please note: our decisions are published six weeks after they are issued to councils, care providers and the person who has made the complaint. The cases below reflect the caselaw and guidance available at the time of issue and the individual circumstances of each case. Cornwall Council (23 013 768)
Summary: We have found fault with the Council for not delivering suitable alternative educational provision for Mr Xâs son after he was excluded from school. He missed a term of education that affected his learning and behaviour. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice. Central Bedfordshire Council (23 014 112)
Summary: The Council investigated the complainantsâ concern that it delayed in issuing their daughterâs Education, Health and Care Plan, after an annual review, Children Services did not attend this review and services were wrongly withdrawn. The Council accepted fault and provided redress to ensure the complainantsâ daughter received services in accordance with her Plan. The Council also apologised and made a small symbolic payment. We are satisfied that this is sufficient remedy and therefore we are closing the complaint. London Borough of Bromley (23 014 861)
Summary: The Council took too long to notify Mrs B that her sonâs Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan would cease. It did not properly arrange his transition to adult social care in accordance with the law and guidance. The Council failed to maintain the EHC Plan while Mrs Bâs appeal against the decision was outstanding. It took too long to assess his social care needs and to arrange care. The Council caused significant distress, uncertainty and frustration to Mrs B and her son. Mrs Bâs son missed out on the educational provision set out in the EHC Plan. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice it caused. Hampshire County Council (23 020 632)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with matters concerning a childâs education. This is because the issues raised have either been appealed to the SEND Tribunal or are not separable from that appeal. Surrey County Council (24 003 134)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about @. Kent County Council (24 003 230)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about how the Council considered safeguarding concerns she raised about her child living with their father. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. London Borough of Lewisham (24 003 838)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision not to conduct an Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment regarding his child, Y. This is because Mr X appealed the decision to the SEND Tribunal. Hampshire County Council (24 004 149)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with matters concerning a childâs education. This is because the issues raised have either been appealed to the SEND Tribunal or are not separable from that appeal. Hampshire County Council (24 004 495)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with matters concerning a childâs education. This is because the issues raised have either been appealed to the SEND Tribunal or are not separable from that appeal. Liverpool City Council (24 005 353)
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. North Yorkshire Council (23 016 474)
Summary: Miss X complains the Council did not carry out the agreed actions from its stage three review of her complaint and did not provide a remedy for the injustice caused. Miss X says this has caused further distress. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for failing to consider and provide a suitable remedy for the fault found during the statutory complaints process. The Council has agreed to pay Miss X a financial remedy and carry out service improvements. Leeds City Council (24 002 291)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has refused to consider the complainants concerns about the actions of social workers. This is because investigation by the Ombudsman would achieve no worthwhile outcome. Warwickshire County Council (24 003 344)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council blocking Miss Xâs complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation. Lincolnshire County Council (24 003 391)
Summary: We cannot investigate Miss Xâs complaints about the Councilâs actions during court proceedings because the issues complained about have been considered by a court and the law says we cannot investigate. We did not investigate part of Miss Xâs complaint because it is too closely related to the matters considered by a court. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (23 012 421)
Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council not sending her a copy of her childâs education, health and care plan and not providing her child with a suitable education. The Council is at fault for failing to ensure a suitable education was being provided to Mrs Xâs child and for not communicating with her effectively about her childâs plan. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused by the fault. Leicestershire County Council (23 012 792)
Summary: The Council failed to consider whether to review a childâs Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan, or reassess his EHC needs when he moved to its area. The Council failed to provide him with an education for some months. It also did not deal with Ms Bâs requests and contact, or her complaints to it properly. This caused the family distress and frustration, and meant that the child missed out on education. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice it caused. Leicester City Council (23 014 835)
Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council met her son, Zâs, special educational needs. There was fault in how the Council took too long to issue Zâs Education Health and Care plan in 2022, and delays in starting speech and language therapy in 2023. This caused Mrs X avoidable frustration and worry for which the Council agreed to apologise and pay her a financial remedy. It also agreed to review how it manages and monitors special educational needs assessments. Hampshire County Council (24 005 044)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs school admission appeal panelâs decision to refuse the complainantâs appeal for a school place for her son. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Councilâs part. Norfolk County Council (24 002 229)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about children services reply to his complaint. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to have requested a stage three review panel hearing on time. And it is unlikely we would criticise its decision to refuse a late request. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (24 003 147)
Summary: We cannot investigate most of Mr Xâs complaints about the Councilâs actions during court proceedings because the issues complained about have been considered by a court and the law says we cannot investigate. We did not investigate part of Mr Xâs complaint because it is too closely related to the matters considered by a court. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (24 003 258)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the accuracy of a child and family assessment. The Information Commissionerâs Office is better placed. And we are unlikely to achieve a significantly different remedy than the Council provided via its complaintsâ procedure. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (24 003 296)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision not to offer direct payments to Miss X to assist with her childrenâs care needs. The Council acted properly in assessing the childrenâs needs under its criteria and we cannot adjudicate matters of lawfulness, which only a court could decide. Although the Council took too long to carry out its assessment and to deal with Miss Xâs complaint, this did not cause her to lose direct payments. London Borough of Camden (24 004 606)
Summary: We cannot investigate Ms Xâs complaint about her child being removed from her care and an adoption order being made because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been subject to, and decided in, court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so. Kent County Council (23 005 792)
Summary: Ms Mâs son, B, has been out of school for two years without any education because of delays by the Council amending his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. He should have a special school place. The impact on Ms M and her family has been very significant. We have recommended a symbolic financial payment and urge the Council to secure suitable education for B without further delay. London Borough of Wandsworth (23 011 226)
Summary: the Council failed to check arrangements were in place at a mainstream nursery to deliver special educational provision for Mr Fâs daughter G. G did not receive provision for the 15 hours a week she attended the nursery between June 2022 and December 2023. We find fault with the way the Council amended Gâs Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan in anticipation of her transfer to school. Due to a lack of capacity, the Council then applied a blanket policy and failed to consider Gâs individual circumstances which delayed her full-time attendance at a special nursery. We have recommended a remedy for the injustice caused. Milton Keynes Council (23 013 474)
Summary: Ms X complained about the level of support provided by the Council when her child was out of school. Ms X said her childâs education and mental health was negatively impacted. We have not found the Council at fault. Derbyshire County Council (23 014 075)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with matters concerning an Education Health and Care needs assessment. This is because some matters are not separable from an appeal to the SEND Tribunal and further investigation into other matters would not lead to a different outcome. Gloucestershire County Council (23 014 899)
Summary: Mr F complained that the Council failed to provide alternative education provision and social care support to his son. We found delay in starting alternative provision, a delay in issuing the final EHC plan and fault in complaint-handling. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to remedy the injustice this caused. Kent County Council (23 015 577)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly deal with a request for an assessment for an Education Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) for her daughter. She complained when it agreed to provide an EHC Plan, there was a delay in issuing the plan and Y was not provided with an education while out of school. We found there was delay in issuing an EHC Plan following a Tribunal Order and that Y was not provided with a suitable education. We recommended an apology and a payment to reflect the impact. We did not investigate the Councilâs decision not to assess Y. This is because it occurred too long ago and was subject to an appeal. Suffolk County Council (23 016 763)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Councilâs handling of her childâs Education, Health and Care needs assessment. We found fault by the Council in its poor communication with Mrs X and its delay in assessing her child and issuing an Education Health and Care Plan. In recognition of the distress and frustration caused by its faults, the Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment of £500 to Mrs X. Sheffield City Council (23 017 818)
Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to provide her child, Z, with a suitable education when they were out of school for medical reasons. The Council has accepted it was at fault which led to a period of missed provision for Z. It apologised and offered Ms X a financial remedy of £600. We agree with the Councilâs findings and consider this to be a suitable remedy to recognise the injustice caused. Lancashire County Council (23 019 931)
Summary: Mrs M complains about the Independent Appeal Panelâs decision not to admit her children to a primary school. There is no fault in the Panelâs decision. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault. Essex County Council (24 003 140)
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. Devon County Council (24 003 238)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council refused to reimburse the complainant for costs associated with her appeal to the SEND Tribunal. This is because we cannot consider matters that a tribunal has considered or could have considered. Telford & Wrekin Council (23 014 966)
Summary: Z complained the Council failed to safeguard their child, Child A. Z said the Council did not respond to a safeguarding referral made by Child Aâs school, leaving them without support. Z also complained about poor communication and complaints handling. The Council processed the Prevent referral in line with government guidance and was not at fault. The Council was at fault for poor communication and delayed stage 1 complaints handling which caused Z frustration, uncertainty and time and trouble. The Council has already apologised and offered a symbolic payment for the poor stage 1 complaints handling and reviewed its communication procedures to prevent reoccurrence of the faults. This remedied the injustice caused. London Borough of Redbridge (23 019 680)
Summary: Miss F complained the Council had failed to keep her siblings safe from neglect and harm and as a result has left her brother homeless and her sisters at risk of harm. We found fault by the Council as it had not dealt with this complaint under the statutory childrenâs complaints process. It has agreed to do so now. It will also make a symbolic payment to Miss F to remedy the time and trouble she has been caused and review information about Miss Fâs siblings to determine if safeguarding enquiries are necessary. Milton Keynes Council (23 021 358)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about what the Council may have told Mr X before he sought a Special Guardianship Order. This matter is not separable from matters that formed part of court action, and any failure by his legal representative to explain the options available to him at that time would be a matter he should take up with that person and then approach the Legal Ombudsman if he remains dissatisfied with the response. Gloucestershire County Council (24 003 129)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to properly consider complaints about the care of and contact with the complainantâs children, and that it failed to take action agreed during the investigation of the complaint. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. West Northamptonshire Council (24 003 591)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Councilâs childrenâs services wrote a biased assessment. This is because the complaint is made late, and I see no good reason to exercise discretion and investigate the issues raised now. East Sussex County Council (23 009 164)
Summary: There was delay in putting alternative education in place when a child was unable to attend school due to anxiety and when the Council had âoff-rolledâ the child from their school. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment and carry out service improvements. City of Doncaster Council (23 013 561)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Councilâs failure to provide her son, who has an Education, Health and Care Plan, with a school place or alternative provision when he moved into its area. On the evidence seen so far, we found the Council to be at fault. It took nearly a term to find a suitable school and did not make any interim arrangements to meet her sonâs special educational needs. To remedy the injustice arising from these faults, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to acknowledge her distress and lack of provision. It will also take action to improve its service when children with special educational needs move into its area. Somerset Council (23 014 630)
Summary: Mr X complained about poor communication and a lack of education for his son, F, between March and July 2023 after F moved to the area to live with him. There was evidence of poor communication by the Council and a failure to signpost Mr X to appropriate school admission information causing the matter to drift. It also caused Mr X frustration and uncertainty. London Borough of Wandsworth (24 001 380)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about home to school transport for the complainantâs son. This is because it is unlikely we could add anything to the Councilâs response or achieve the outcome the complainant wants. Suffolk County Council (24 002 039)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint that the Council has failed to provide her daughter with suitable education over the last nine years. Part of the complaint is late. The Council upheld her complaint that it had failed to provide suitable education in the last year and offered her a remedy for this. Since our involvement, the Council has increased its remedy offer to Ms X. The remedy offered is now in line with our remedies guidance. It is unlikely an investigation would achieve anything more or lead to a different outcome. Suffolk County Council (24 002 490)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision to refuse his application for free home to school transport for his son. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. St Bernard's RC Grammar School, Slough (24 003 789)
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 by the panel. London Borough of Barnet (24 003 807)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Councilâs response to a complaint about the alleged actions of a school. The substantive matter complained of concerns the internal affairs of a school. We have no legal power to investigate the complaint. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (24 005 653)
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. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (23 018 856)
Summary: Before our involvement, the Council accepted that it was at fault for several ways in which it failed to properly support Mr B and his family during a child protection investigation. It had already offered him and his family symbolic financial remedies; however, not all these payments adequately recognised their injustice. It has agreed to increase some of the payments, and it will take steps to improve its service. Staffordshire County Council (24 001 160)
Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed considering a complaint at stage three of the childrenâs statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint by arranging a stage three panel without further delay. It will also apologise to the complainant for not doing so sooner. Wokingham Borough Council (24 003 352)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the delay in the Councilâs handling of her complaints under the statutory childrenâs complaints procedure. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Ms X by the fault accepted. Southend-on-Sea City Council (23 006 554)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to ensure her son (B) received an education when he was unable to attend school. She also complained the Council delayed issuing Bâs final Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plans, delayed obtaining relevant assessments, and did not respond to her complaints. We have found the Council failed to properly consider its Section 19 duty at key points in the 2021/22 academic year. We have also found the Council failed to fulfil its Section 19 duty in the 2022/23 academic year. These faults caused a loss of education provision and support for B. We have also found the Council at fault for failing to issue Bâs EHC Plans within statutory timescales and for failing to respond to Ms Xâs complaint. We have made recommendations to remedy the injustice this caused. We have also recommended the Council act to improve its services. West Northamptonshire Council (23 015 382)
Summary: Mrs B complained the Council delayed in completing an Education, Health and Care assessment and failed to meet the statutory timeframe for issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan for her child, X. Mrs B says this caused distress for X and the family. We have found the Council at fault. The Council has agreed to provide staff training and make a payment to remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified. North Somerset Council (23 017 750)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to meet the special educational needs of her child. We upheld the complaint, finding the Council agreed to make alternative provision for the childâs education but then failed to do so, or else refund Mrs X for arrangements she made. This caused a quantifiable financial loss. The Council has accepted this finding and at the end of this statement we set out the action it has agreed to remedy this injustice and make service improvements. London Borough of Wandsworth (24 002 546)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision not to provide Mr Xâs child with home to school transport. This is because an investigation is unlikely to find fault in the Councilâs actions. Nottinghamshire County Council (24 002 694)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council has failed to provide a fulltime education to the complainantâs child. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by making an appropriate financial remedy. It would not be proportionate to investigate further. Devon County Council (24 002 977)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an annual review of a young personâs Education Health and Care plan. This is because most of the issues raised are not separable from an appeal made against the contents of the plan. Other issues have not caused a significant enough injustice to warrant investigation. North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 003 211)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs Home to School transport policy. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman, and Mr X has not been caused a personal injustice. Kent County Council (24 005 139)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault for us to be able to question the panelâs decision. Dorset Council (24 002 505)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about child protection action taken by the Council. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement. London Borough of Croydon (24 002 810)
Summary: We cannot by law investigate this complaint about the adequacy of the Councilâs child protection actions in respect of the complainantâs children, or its role in private custody proceedings. This is because the issued raised have been subject to court action. We have no legal jurisdiction to investigate a complaint where the issues raised are subject to court proceedings. Surrey County Council (24 003 971)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about a child and family assessment. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Councilâs decision not to consider his complaint whilst there are ongoing family court proceedings. South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 004 536)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered Mr Xâs request to change its records and provide him with information. This is because there is another body better placed to deal with his complaint and it would be reasonable for him to make a complaint to that body. Nor will we investigate how the Council communicated with Mr X over this matter because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Birmingham City Council (24 004 567)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Councilâs child protection investigation in relation to the complainantâs child, as well as its decision to initiate care proceedings in court. This is because we have no legal jurisdiction to investigate a complaint where the issues raised are subject to court proceedings. Medway Council (24 006 460)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about data recorded about the complainant and his family by the Council in a assessment document. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is no evidence of fault in the Councilâs actions and the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider. |
