| 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. London Borough of Lambeth (23 011 449)
Summary: Ms X complains the Council delayed in reviewing her child Dâs Education, Health, and Care Plan, and communicated poorly with the family. There was fault by the Council which caused avoidable distress to D and Ms X. It also delayed D in returning to an educational setting when they wanted to, following a period of Elective Home Education. The Council agreed to pay a financial remedy and re-allocate the familyâs case to a different officer in its Special Educational Needs and Disabilities service. It will also share our decision with relevant staff for discussion and learning from the faults identified. Kent County Council (23 013 236)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed in its duties to provide suitable education and Special Educational Needs support to her child, P. There was fault by the Council which caused P to miss education and SEN support. It also caused avoidable distress for P, and avoidable distress, time, and trouble for Mrs X. The Council agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy, and properly consider Mrs Xâs request for a Personal Budget for Pâs Education, Health, and Care Plan. The Council will also review relevant processes, and issue reminders to staff in its Special Educational Needs Service and Childrenâs Complaints Team. Kent County Council (23 013 257)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed in reviewing and amending her child Dâs Education, Health, and Care Plan, and failed to respond to her complaint about this. There was fault by the Council which caused D to miss some support for their special educational needs. The fault also caused avoidable distress, time, and trouble for Mrs X. The Council agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy. It will also identify any changes needed to its complaint handling process so it does not fail to respond to complaints in future. Salford City Council (23 013 817)
Summary: Mrs X complains that her daughter Y, has not access to a full-time education in a setting that it able to meet her needs. We have concluded our investigation having made a finding of fault. The Council acknowledges fault where there was delay in arranging Yâs admission in July 2023. The Council also acknowledges fault for the period between October 2023 â February 2024, where Y was without alternative provision, nor access to a full-time education until a placement secured. The Council has proposed a remedy which we consider proportionate in the circumstances and has agreed to action this. Birmingham City Council (23 015 247)
Summary: Mrs X complains about the Councilâs failure to carry out an annual review within statutory timescales, and the delivery of Section H provision to her daughter, Y. Mrs X also complains about the Councilâs decision to stop making personal budget payments directly to her. We intend to conclude our investigation having made a finding of fault. We found the Council failed to carry out an annual review when it should have, and failed to inform Mrs X it did not agree with the Tribunalsâ recommendations. We did not find fault for the Councilâs decision to stop making personal budget payments direct to Mrs X, and have not seen evidence that the Councilâs decision impacted the delivery of provision to Y. The Council has agreed to our recommendations. Hertfordshire County Council (23 015 636)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the time taken by the Council to issue a final Education, Health and Care Plan for her child following their annual reviews. As a result the child has not received the support they should have. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise, make payments to acknowledge the distress caused to Mrs X and the loss of her childâs special educational provision. Somerset Council (23 016 241)
Summary: Mrs C complained about delays following an annual review of her sonâs Education, Health and Care Plan. We found the Council was at fault. This caused Mrs C unnecessary distress and frustrated a possible appeal about the content of the plan. Mrs C was also put to unnecessary time and trouble in chasing the Council for a response to her complaint. The Council has accepted our recommendations for the action it should take to remedy this injustice. West Sussex County Council (24 003 598)
Summary: We cannot investigate most of Mrs Xâs complaint because she has appealed the Councilâs decision not to conduct an Education, Health and Care needs assessment of her child to the SEND Tribunal. We will not investigate the remainder of the complaint because an investigation is unlikely to achieve a different outcome. Hampshire County Council (24 003 752)
Summary: We cannot investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the Councilâs failure to provide a full-time education for her son, Y, when he was out of school for health reasons linked to his special educational needs, nor that it did not deliver the provision in his Education Health and Care Plan whilst he was out of school. This is because Ms X appealed the Councilâs decision that the school place was suitable for Y and the missed provision could not be provided outside a school setting. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (24 003 823)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision not to provide alternative school transport arrangements for the complainantâs child. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the matter to justify an investigation. Surrey County Council (24 003 871)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Councilâs actions during her childâs Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan annual review and the content of the final amended EHC Plan. This is because Mrs X has a right of appeal to a tribunal about the content of the amended EHC Plan and it is reasonable for her to use it. A complaint about the Councilâs actions during the annual review process is connected to and could form part of an appeal, so we cannot investigate this. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (24 004 413)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Councilâs conduct during an appeal to the SEND Tribunal. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about the actions of a council during a tribunal appeal. Suffolk County Council (24 004 687)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr Xâs complaint because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been, or are being, considered in court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so. North Yorkshire Council (23 011 751)
Summary: Mrs Y complains on behalf of Miss X about the way in which the Council managed her familyâs move into the Councilâs area in April 2023. She said that because of the Councilâs failures the family suffered avoidable distress and the children missed education and crucial social services support. We found the Council was at fault in how the Council managed the social care and special education needs support for the family. The Council agreed to our recommendations on what it should do to remedy the injustice its actions caused Miss X and her family. Derbyshire County Council (23 011 962)
Summary: Miss X complains about missed education, and the Councilâs actions in failing to find a suitable full-time placement for Y. We have concluded our investigation having made a finding of fault. The Council failed to ensure Y received a full-time education from May 2022 â April 2024. Further, we found fault for a period of inaction in sourcing a placement for Y between March 2023 â May 2023. As Miss X has appealed to the Tribunal, any further complaint regarding the Councilâs actions in sourcing a placement for Y are out of our jurisdiction. The Council has proposed a remedy in acknowledgement of fault and injustice identified in this complaint and we consider the Councilâs offer to be fair and proportionate in the circumstances. Bracknell Forest Council (23 014 798)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the delay in receiving remedies the Council agreed to pay to her and her son, S, in August 2021. The Council was at fault. It did not realise it had not completed the actions it committed to in August 2021 until Mrs X made her complaint. It also did not have a personal budget procedure in place which delayed the payments. This caused Mrs X and S injustice and at the end of this decision statement we recommend what actions the Council should take to put things right. Worcestershire County Council (23 015 086)
Summary: Mrs Y disagrees with the Councilâs decision to refuse to provide transport assistance for her son, F, to attend the college named in his Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan. She says F attends the nearest suitable college to his home address, but the Council says there is one closer. We find the Council failed to explain the implications of naming Mrs Yâs preferred college in Fâs EHC plan. We also find the Council failed to properly consider whether the other college offered a course at the required level for F. The Council will implement the remedial actions listed at the end of this statement. Devon County Council (24 003 470)
Summary: We upheld Ms Xâs complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care needs assessment process for her child, Y. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Devon County Council (24 003 508)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about special education provision. This is because Mrs X has already appealed to a Tribunal about the Councilâs decisions here, and her complaint is not separable from the matters the Tribunal will consider. West Sussex County Council (24 003 664)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs actions during his childâs Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan annual review and the content of the final amended EHC Plan. This is because Mr X has a right of appeal to a tribunal about the content of the amended EHC Plan and it is reasonable for him to use it. A complaint about the Councilâs actions during the annual review process is connected to and could form part of an appeal, so we cannot investigate this. Devon County Council (24 003 670)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision not to provide alternative education provision for Miss Xâs son. This is because Miss X appealed the Councilâs decision not to issue an Education, Health, and Care Plan and the substance of her complaint is not separable from her appeal. Nor will we investigate her complaint about any delays in the Council giving her this decision, because there is not a significant enough injustice to warrant an investigation. East Sussex County Council (24 004 045)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the school named in an Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because it is reasonable for the complainant to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). Northumberland County Council (24 004 544)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision her children do not qualify for free home to school transport. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council. Archbishop Beck Catholic College (24 005 157)
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 by the panel for us to be able to question its decision. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (23 011 758)
Summary: Mrs Y complains on behalf of Miss X about the way in which the Council managed her familyâs move out the Councilâs area in April 2023. She said that because of the Councilâs failures the family suffered avoidable distress and the children missed out on education and crucial social services support. We found the Council was at fault for the delay in transferring some of the educational documents to the new Council and the delay in holding a transfer meeting. The Council agreed to our recommendations on what it should do to remedy the injustice its actions caused Miss X and her family. London Borough of Haringey (24 002 637)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the Councilâs communication with her about her childâs education and welfare, its response to her report of safeguarding concerns and its failure to enforce a court order. There is insufficient evidence of fault and the courts are better placed to resolve any dispute about where Ms Xâs child lives. London Borough of Redbridge (24 003 569)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about children servicesâ actions. We have upheld Ms Xâs complaint as the Council has now agreed to follow the Children Act statutory complaintsâ procedure. Leeds City Council (24 003 880)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the contents of a report. This is because a court ordered the report and therefore itâs preparation and contents fall outside of our jurisdiction Milton Keynes Council (24 004 732)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs involvement with Miss Xâs siblingâs children. The complaint is about matters that have been subject to court proceedings, which the law prevents us considering. Telford & Wrekin Council (24 007 213)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council made changes to the support in place for two children. This is because further investigation would not add to the investigation carried out by the Council. Lancashire County Council (23 011 577)
Summary: Ms X complained about the Councilâs failure to comply with an order of the SEND Tribunal and related matters. We have found the Council to be at fault. It took too long to issue an Education, Health and Care Plan that reflected an order by the SEND Tribunal and that included a personal budget. There was also fault with the way it handled Ms Xâs complaint. To remedy the injustice to Ms X, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment and take action to improve its service. Isle of Wight Council (23 013 215)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to deliver the provisions in his daughter's Education, Health and Care Plan; poor communication and said the Council failed to carry out an annual review in 2023. We find the Council was at fault. This caused significant distress to Mr X and his daughter went without provision. The Council has agreed to make several recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (23 015 293)
Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council handled her daughterâs Education, Health and Care Plan annual review and a request to change school placement. We have found the Council at fault for delays during the annual review process. This caused Mrs X and her daughter avoidable distress. Kent County Council (23 016 225)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to secure all the special educational provision in her child, Zâs, Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council was at fault for not securing some of Zâs provision, for delay in reviewing Zâs Plan, poor communication and inadequate complaints handling. This meant Z missed out on education they should have had, and Mrs X experienced frustration and upset and had to go to undue time and trouble. To remedy their injustice, the Council will apologise to Mrs X and pay her a total of £3,800. North Yorkshire Council (23 016 785)
Summary: We did not find fault with the Council in how it approached its duties for the complainantâs (Mrs X) son (Y) when Y stopped attending school. We cannot investigate whether the Council arranged suitable alternative provision for Y and delivered his special educational provision from the date of issuing Yâs final Education Health and Care Plan in March 2023. Mrs X appealed Sections B, F and I of this plan and the matters complained about are too closely linked with the appeal. Bristol City Council (23 017 332)
Summary: We found fault on Ms Bâs complaint about the Council failing to consider and decide her request for an Education, Health and Care needs assessment for her daughter C within statutory timescales. The 20-week timescale was missed by seven months. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused. Central Bedfordshire Council (23 017 901)
Summary: There was fault by the Council, because it did not properly discharge its duty to arrange alternative provision for a child who was not attending school. It is not possibly to state clearly what material difference this made, but we consider it caused frustration and distress to the complainant and child. The Council has agreed to offer a financial remedy to account for this, and to formally apologise. Nottinghamshire County Council (23 018 143)
Summary: There was delay in updating an Education, Health and Care Plan in time for a transition from school to college; a failure to specify and quantify provision in the Plan; a failure to check special educational provision was in place; and a failure to complete agreed complaint actions. This caused unnecessary distress and let to a young adult missing out on education support at a crucial stage of their transition to adult life. The Council will apologise, work with the family to resolve the problems with the Plan, make a financial payment and carry out service improvements. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 001 560)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about communication and speech and language therapy payments for Miss Xâs child. It now seems likely the Council resolved these matters before Miss X approached us. Further investigation by us would be unlikely to lead to a different or better outcome. Derbyshire County Council (24 003 428)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council conducted an Education, Health, and Care Plan annual review, or how it responded to a request for a personal budget. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Lancashire County Council (24 004 993)
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 for us to question the panelâs decision. Cambridgeshire County Council (24 005 541)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about school admissions. This is because we have no powers to investigate complaints about academy schools. Kent County Council (24 006 054)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Councilâs Schools Admissions Appeal Panelâs failure to provide her 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. Derby City Council (24 002 040)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the contents of an assessment. This is because the matter is currently being considered by the courts. Nottinghamshire County Council (24 003 323)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with matters concerning a safeguarding matter. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Staffordshire County Council (24 003 757)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about alleged abuse of Mr Xâs child and victimisation of him by social workers. The matters complained of are not separable from matters that have been or could reasonably be raised in court. South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 003 808)
Summary: We cannot by law investigate this complaint about matters the complainant says adversely affected her sonâs wellbeing while he was in foster care. This is because the issues raised by the complainant have already been considered and decided on by a court during the course of care proceedings. Essex County Council (24 003 969)
Summary: We cannot by law investigate this complaint about the Councilâs child protection assessment which informed the a court decision to remove the complainantâs child from his care. This is because the issues raised are subject to active legal proceedings and relate to decisions made by the court. Derbyshire County Council (23 009 634)
Summary: The Council took too long to issue the final Education Health and Care Plan for Mr Dâs son. It did not include Mr D in the production of the Plan and did not consider his comments on the draft Plan. The child was only able to access part time tuition during this time. The Council did not respond to many of Mr Dâs requests for help and took too long to deal with his complaint to it. The Council has offered to remedy the injustice to Mr D and his son, and this is in line with the Ombudsmanâs Guidance on Remedies. Leicestershire County Council (23 009 772)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council took too long to issue an Education, Health and Care Plan for her clientâs daughter, Z. We found fault because there was a significant delay in issuing Zâs plan. This caused avoidable distress and uncertainty for Z and her father, Mr Y. To remedy the injustice caused by this fault, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr Y. Plymouth City Council (23 012 234)
Summary: There was fault by the Council in how it dealt with an application for school transport. It did not take account of the statutory guidance and its policy does not reflect this. The Council took too long to convene the appeal panel and did not call him during the hearing as promised. The Councilâs failings have caused the parent distress, uncertainty, and frustration. The Council has agreed to remedy this. Lancashire County Council (24 001 595)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alternative educational provision for Miss Xâs child. We are legally prevented from investigating what educational provision should have been made for the child after the Council issued a new Education Health and Care Plan that Miss X appealed against, and any period before then is too short for the Council to have had an alternative education duty. Surrey County Council (24 003 348)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs communication with Miss X relating to her sonâs transition to a new school. The Council have considered Miss Xâs complaint and further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome. Norfolk County Council (24 003 620)
Summary: We cannot investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the lack of education. We cannot investigate issues which were or could have been part of a Tribunal Appeal. West Northamptonshire Council (24 003 747)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker before Miss Xâs son travelled to another area alone without permission. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement. Brighton & Hove City Council (24 003 904)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about information about the complainantâs child contained in a report produced by the Council. This is because our intervention would achieve nothing significant. London Borough of Havering (24 004 580)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs involvement in Mr Xâs childâs case. The matter is being considered by the courts, and we are therefore prevented in law from investigating it. Surrey County Council (24 004 715)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs involvement in Ms Xâs childâs case. The law prevents us investigating complaints about what happened in court, and we have no power to overturn a court decision and return Ms Xâs child to her care. Lancashire County Council (24 005 324)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Councilâs decision not to consider his complaint whilst there are ongoing court proceedings. London Borough of Bromley (24 003 631)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a school transport incident in dropping off Mrs Xâs child at her home address, and in suspending her childâs school transport. While the incident was fault, there was fortunately no harm to the child. The Council was also entitled to suspend the childâs school transport at short notice due to the nature of the reported incidents. Investigation is therefore unlikely to lead to a different or better outcome than that resulting from the Councilâs own investigation. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 005 988)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about a Councilâs school admissions appeal panelâs decision as it is unlikely we would find fault. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (23 004 534)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council have not dealt with her son Yâs Special Educational Needs (SEN) properly. The Council did not complete an annual review properly, delayed responding to Mrs Xâs complaint and did not fully complete recommendations arising from its complaint response. Mrs X had her right of appeal delayed, received a late complaint response and did not receive the full remedy agreed in the Councilâs complaint response. The Council should apologise, pay Mrs X £400 for distress and uncertainty, provide an action plan and refer this decision to the Cabinet Member responsible. Kent County Council (23 008 993)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide special educational needs provision for her child D in line with their Education, Health, and Care Plan. There was fault by the Council which caused D to miss provision and caused financial loss to Mrs X because she paid for some provision herself. The Councilâs fault also caused avoidable distress for D, and avoidable distress, time, and trouble for Mrs X. The Council agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy, and review relevant processes. Somerset Council (23 010 462)
Summary: Miss X complained about the Councilâs delays with decision making in respect of her sonâs Education, Health and Care Plan after a review. We found the Council at fault for significant delays. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused. Thurrock Council (23 015 243)
Summary: We have found fault with the Council for how it handled Mrs Xâs son (Y) post-16 education transfer. The Council delayed the Education Health Care Plan review, did not consider its Section 19 duty, and did not deliver alternative education provision while Y was waiting for a suitable post-16 placement. This fault caused Y to miss out on education and special educational need provision. It also delayed Mrs Xâs appeal rights and caused the whole family avoidable distress. Birmingham City Council (23 017 219)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council refused to provide her son, Y, with school transport. Mrs X explained Y has additional needs, attends a special school and it was unsafe for him to walk to school. She said this caused Y and her distress because Yâs behaviours mean he is at risk of running towards vehicles when walking near a road. There was fault in the way the Council did not properly consider Mrs Xâs application and Yâs needs. Mrs X was frustrated by this fault. The Council should apologise, make a financial payment, review the application and provide training to relevant staff. Cambridgeshire County Council (23 018 684)
Summary: Ms M complains about delays by the Council arranging the special educational provision in her daughter Gâs Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. We are satisfied the Council responded appropriately to Ms Mâs complaint. Suffolk County Council (23 018 725)
Summary: Mrs D complained the Council failed to provide the provision in Mr E's Education, Health and Care Plan. We find the Council was at fault for its delays in putting the provision in place. The Council has agreed to our recommendation to address the injustice caused by fault. Suffolk County Council (23 021 216)
Summary: The complainant (Mrs X) said the Council had failed to comply with the statutory timescales for an Education Health and Care needs assessment for her son (Y) and had failed within its communication with her. We found fault in the Councilâs delays and communication. This fault caused Y and Mrs X injustice. The Council agreed to apologise and make payments to recognise distress. Kent County Council (24 002 757)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has excluded the complainant from involvement with his daughterâs case and has declined to accept his subsequent complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Councilâs part. Wakefield City Council (24 003 415)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Councilâs actions prior to and during care proceedings. This is because the law prevents us from investigating the start of court proceedings and what happened in court. Lancashire County Council (23 007 368)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to ensure her son, Y, received all the provision and support set out in his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council delayed putting Speech and Language Therapy provision in place by around two weeks following a SEND tribunal order. It agreed to make a payment to Ms X to acknowledge that missed provision. It took appropriate steps to ensure the other support was in place. The Council was also at fault for a delay in sending its written communication plan after implementing a single point of contact for Ms X. It has already apologised for this, which is appropriate. |
