| 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. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (22 017 466)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to arrange a school place or educational provision for her child Y. The Council was at fault as it failed to identify a suitable school for Y, failed to ensure Y received the provision in their Education, Health and Care Plan and has failed to issue a final Plan following Yâs annual review. This caused Ms X distress and frustration, delayed her right of appeal and meant Y has missed out on suitable education provision. The Council has agreed to apologise and make payments to Ms X and Y and to take action to improve its services. Somerset Council (23 014 408)
Summary: Miss Y complains the Council delayed when updating her sonâs EHC plan. As a result, she says he remained in an unsuitable school and eventually received a permanent exclusion. After the exclusion Miss Y says the Council failed to make timely alternative provision available. We find fault causing injustice which the Council has agreed to remedy with the actions listed at the end of this statement. Wokingham Borough Council (23 016 451)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to reimburse costs associated with her daughter, Yâs, Education Other Than At School package. She complained the Council failed to provide any funding from September 2023 until December 2023. Mrs X also complained the Council did not follow the Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) annual review process. Mrs X said this distressed her and she has been left in financial difficulty. She said this impacted Yâs education. There was fault in the way the Council did not make the payments to Mrs X in a timely manner, did not pay her the full amount it should and delays in the annual review process. Mrs X was frustrated and distressed by the Councilâs actions, and impacted financially. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment and remind staff of the Councilâs responsibilities. Liverpool City Council (23 018 774)
Summary: There was a delay issuing Yâs final Education, Health and Care Plan naming his post 16 college placement. This caused avoidable distress, inconvenience and a delay in appeal rights. The Council will apologise, make symbolic payments and review its procedures to minimise the chance of recurrence. Liverpool City Council (23 018 792)
Summary: There was delay by the Council in agreeing and putting in place transport for Yâs college placement and lateness by the taxi the Council commissioned. This caused avoidable distress, inconvenience and missed education. The Council will apologise and make payments. Suffolk County Council (23 020 681)
Summary: We found fault in the way the Council carried out an Education Health and Care needs assessment for the complainantâs (Mrs X) daughter (Y) and in the Councilâs communication with Mrs X. This fault caused Y and Mrs X injustice. The Council agreed to apologise, issue a draft Education Health and Care Plan for Y, re-consider Mrs Xâs request for an Occupational Therapy assessment for Y and make payments to recognise delays and distress. The Council also agreed to carry out some service improvements. West Sussex County Council (24 003 491)
Summary: We upheld Ms Xâs complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care needs assessment process for her child, Y. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Norfolk County Council (24 004 298)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the school transport arrangements for the complainantâs child. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council for us to be able to question its decisions. The Malling School (24 005 450)
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. Telford & Wrekin Council (24 006 275)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about a Councilâs school admissions appeal panelâs decision as it is unlikely we would find fault. Staffordshire County Council (24 006 975)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the Councilâs School Admissions Appeal Panelâs handling of her appeal against the refusal to offer her child a place at her preferred school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault affecting the panelâs decision. London Borough of Newham (23 011 629)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council communicated with the complainant. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Essex County Council (23 015 769)
Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council responded to a concern he raised in relation to his son, after a childcare arrangement broke down. There was no fault in the Councilâs initial decision to take no action. It took a decision it was able to take and there is no obvious flaw in the way it made this decision. Nor was there any fault in how it carried out its duties as part of the child and family assessment process after it received more information. There was fault it delayed completing that assessment, and this delay caused Mr X an injustice. However, I find there is no significant unremedied injustice remaining. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (23 018 403)
Summary: we have discontinued our investigation to allow the Council to complete its complaints process. Cumberland Council (24 004 841)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Councilâs decision not to consider her complaint whilst there are ongoing court proceedings. Wakefield City Council (24 004 927)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs childrenâs services and its involvement with the complainantâs family. This is because it concerns what happened during court proceedings. Complaints about the conduct of social workers are better considered by Social Work England. Shropshire Council (23 012 650)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to complete her childâs annual review of their Education, Health and Care Plan in the correct timescales. Ms X also complained the Council failed to provide education for her child since September 2021. We found fault with the Council delaying for nearly one year in reviewing Ms Xâs childâs Education, Health and Care Plan. We also found fault with the Council failing to consider if Ms Xâs child needed support from their Education, Health and Care Plan from 26 November 2021 until 21 April 2023 while electively home educated. We also found fault with the Council failing to provide suitable education for Ms Xâs child from 21 April 2023 to 5 February 2024 and failing to provide Speech and Language Therapy from 21 April 2023 to 16 January 2024. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X, pay her £400 for her distress and frustration and £500 for the lost opportunity and potential harm caused through lack of educational support. The Council also agreed to backdate Ms Xâs childâs personal budget from 21 April 2023 to 5 February 2024 and pay Ms X the equivalent of any lost Speech and Language Therapy sessions from 21 April 2023 to 16 January 2024. Dorset Council (23 014 194)
Summary: Mrs E complains her sonâs school was following an out-of-date Education, Health and Care Plan. We uphold her complaint due to fault by the Council in its actions around this. Mrs E also complains about the schoolâs actions around a teacherâs use of language, inappropriate emails and suspensions of children with special educational needs. Our decision is these are internal management issues within the school, and so not in the Ombudsmanâs jurisdiction. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (24 002 218)
Summary: Miss X complained about the Councilâs delay completing her child, Yâs Education, Health and Care needs assessment. We find fault, causing injustice to Y and avoidable distress and uncertainty to Miss X. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Miss X. London Borough of Hounslow (24 004 194)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Education Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) process for her son. Mrs X has appealed to a tribunal which places much of the case outside our jurisdiction. It is reasonable for Mrs X to submit a further appeal if she wants to challenge the content of her sonâs EHC Plan. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (23 016 383)
Summary: Miss E and Ms F complained how the Council communicated with them as professionals supporting looked after children. They also complained the Council maliciously reported their nursery to Ofsted. We find the Council was at fault as it failed to communicate with Miss E and Ms F properly. It also failed to be open and transparent with them about a referral to Ofsted. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault. Warwickshire County Council (24 004 066)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X complaint about the accuracy of a child protection document. The Information Commissionerâs Office is better placed and it is unlikely we would find fault in a decision to carry out a child protection investigation. Liverpool City Council (24 004 377)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Councilâs decision not to consider her complaint because she does not have parental responsibility for the children involved. Northumberland County Council (24 005 860)
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. Surrey County Council (23 013 826)
Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council considers school transport applications for children in her village. We do not find fault with how the Council assesses these applications. We find the Council at fault for delays in considering Mrs Xâs appeal and for a lack of communication. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to recognise the uncertainty caused, and act to prevent recurrence. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (23 015 461)
Summary: Mr X complained about the Councilâs handling of his child, Fâs Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan during 2023. The Council delayed issuing Fâs amended EHC Plan following two annual reviews during 2023. It also failed to give clear feedback about its decision not to include some provision in the plan. The Council agreed to make payments to Mr X to acknowledge the injustice this caused. Mr Xâs complaint about the decision not to include therapy provision in Fâs EHC Plan is outside of our jurisdiction as he appealed this to the SEND tribunal. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (23 015 502)
Summary: Mr X complained about the Councilâs handling of his son, Fâs Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan when it was transferred over from another council area in September 2023. The Council failed to deal with Fâs EHC Plan transfer in line with relevant law and guidance. This caused Mr X distress and uncertainty and impacted on Fâs education between September and November 2023. Events from November 2023 onwards are outside of our jurisdiction as Mr X has used his right of appeal to the SEND tribunal. Hertfordshire County Council (23 015 960)
Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to deliver her sonâs Education, Health and Care Plan in line with statutory timescales. We find fault with the Council for delay and have agreed a payment for the distress and frustration caused. Hertfordshire County Council (23 020 299)
Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to provide provision for her son Y, causing frustration and distress. We find fault with the Council for delay, and agree with the remedy it has put forward in its complaint response. Hampshire County Council (24 003 777)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs failure to name a special school on a childâs Education Health and Care plan, meaning the child is now without a suitable education. This is because it is reasonable to have expected the complainant to submit a valid appeal to the SEND Tribunal. West Berkshire Council (24 003 970)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about whether the Council has provided suitable education to Y. We cannot investigate this as the Tribunal is deciding what is a suitable education for Y. Ermysteds Grammar School, Skipton (24 005 346)
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 by the panel for us to be able to question its decision. Ermysteds Grammar School, Skipton (24 005 688)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault. Kent County Council (24 005 729)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision her child is not eligible for free home to school transport. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council. Devon County Council (24 006 794)
Summary: We cannot consider Mr Xâs complaint about an unsuccessful school admission appeal. This is because the law prevents us from considering complaints about admission appeals for academy schools. North Lincolnshire Council (24 003 445)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Councilâs actions in relation to the care of the complainantâs daughter. This is because those actions have been in the context of private law proceedings and therefore fall outside the Ombudsmanâs jurisdiction. West Northamptonshire Council (24 003 517)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs care of a Looked After Child. The Council has agreed to investigate the complaint through the statutory childrenâs complaints procedure. It would not be proportionate for us to investigate. Bristol City Council (23 019 585)
Summary: Miss X complains the Council did not properly deal with educational and special educational needs provision for her daughter Y. The Council did not provide suitable full-time education for Y. Y suffered a loss of educational provision. The Council has offered Miss X an appropriate remedy. Devon County Council (23 020 832)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council did not properly deal with education provision for her daughter Y. The Council is at fault because tutoring provided was not good enough and there has been delay in making further provision. Y suffered loss of education provision. The Council should apologise to Mrs X and Y and pay Mrs X £3000. Milton Keynes Council (23 006 611)
Summary: We have found fault with the Council for failing to deliver the social care provision in Mr Xâs sonâs (Yâs) Education Health Care Plan. This caused Y and his family an avoidance injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice. Central Bedfordshire Council (23 013 269)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council placed her child in an inappropriate school, and failed to provide the provision set out in her childâs education, health and care plan. Mrs X said this caused unnecessary distress and impacted on her child. We cannot investigate the first part of the complaint because it is outside our jurisdiction. We do not find the Council at fault for the second part. Kent County Council (23 013 508)
Summary: Mrs D complained how the Council handled her home to school transport appeal. She says the Council delayed dealing with her appeal. She also says the panel failed to properly consider the unsuitability of the pickup and drop off times from the transport arrangements. We find fault as the panel failed to consider what Mrs D originally wanted to appeal about. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault. Dorset Council (23 015 090)
Summary: Mrs Y complains there were failings in the way the Council provided her grandchild Z with alternative educational provision while carrying out an education health and care needs assessment and Z could not attend school causing distress and loss of educational provision. We found fault as the Council delayed the education health and care needs assessment and issuing a final education health and care plan. The Council has accepted it was at fault and apologised which is suitable action for it to take. We have found no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it considered whether to provided Z with alternative provision. So we have completed our investigation. Surrey County Council (23 016 652)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not deliver suitable alternative provision or found a suitable school placement for her son. We have found fault with the Council for delays in providing alternative education when Mrs Xâs son was out of school. We have also found fault with the Council for not issuing an amended Education Health Care Plan following the annual review. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (23 020 816)
Summary: We cannot investigate Ms Xâs complaint because she appealed to the Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) Tribunal. Lancashire County Council (23 021 345)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed in assessing her child, A, for an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council was at fault which caused Miss X and A frustration and distress and meant A missed out on some special education provision. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Miss X and produce a plan setting out the action it intends to take to address the delays. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (24 004 070)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Councilâs handling of her sonâs annual Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan review. This is because the Council has offered a suitable remedy for the injustice caused by its actions. We cannot look at whether any faults wrongly affected the outcome of the review as Mrs X has used her right of appeal against the revised EHC Plan. Rutland County Council (23 019 690)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to consider whether it owes a duty under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, particularly section 17(6), to provide accommodation. She says that living away from her sonâs school and transporting him daily is causing distress and is unsustainable. The Council declined to carry out an assessment under the Children Act because Miss X and her son do not reside in its area. This is fault as caselaw has established the test is physical presence in the area and going to school would meet this test. Liverpool City Council (24 004 255)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that a social worker was at fault in completing a risk assessment regarding the complainantâs children. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by investigation. Staffordshire County Council (24 005 050)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs involvement in Miss Xâs childâs case. The law says we cannot consider matters that have been considered in court, and we will not consider matters that should be raised as part of proceedings. London Borough of Bexley (23 004 636)
Summary: Miss X complained, on behalf of her son Mr Y, about the support the Council provided for his special educational needs. There was fault in how the Council failed to ensure Mr Y received some of the support in his Education Health and Care plan between May and October 2022 and how it delayed referring him for an adult social care assessment. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr Y and pay him a financial remedy. It also agreed to review how it monitors referrals of young people for adult social care assessments. Rutland County Council (23 013 924)
Summary: Ms K complained about the Councilâs decision to change her childrenâs school transport arrangements. She said it was not suitable for their needs and she had to transport them at her own expense. While the Council has since made a suitable transport offer, we found the Council at fault for not offering Ms K an appeal when it should have done. This caused her avoidable uncertainty. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused. Derbyshire County Council (23 015 639)
Summary: Ms N complained about the time taken by the Council to issue an Education, Health and Care Plan for her son. She also said the Council failed to ensure X received suitable education when he could not attend his school. We found fault in the Councilâs actions which caused injustice to X and Ms N. The Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment to her and review its processes. Cheshire East Council (23 016 195)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide all the support it should have done for her son, Yâs, special educational needs. There was fault in how the Council took too long to arrange the speech and language therapy in Yâs Education Health and Care plan. This caused Miss X avoidable uncertainty and frustration for which the Council should apologise and pay a financial remedy. Nottinghamshire County Council (23 016 907)
Summary: Ms X complained about delays in issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan. This was due to a shortage of educational psychologists. This is fault. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Ms X to recognise the injustice. Essex County Council (23 018 366)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Councilâs delays in the Annual Review of her daughterâs (Y) Education Health and Care Plan and the Councilâs failing to provide Y with suitable education for many months. We found fault with the Council. We also found fault with the way the Council dealt with Mrs Xâs complaint. The Councilâs fault caused injustice to Y and Mrs X. The Council has already accepted its fault and offered some remedies. We accept most of the remedies offered by the Council. The Council has now agreed a higher payment to recognise the injustice caused to Y be the Councilâs failings within its alternative provision duty. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (24 000 903)
Summary: Miss X complains the Council has failed to issue an Education Health Care Plan for her daughter, Y, within the statutory timescales. Miss X says this has caused her and her family distress and frustration. We have found fault in the Councils actions for failing to issue Yâs Education Health Care Plan within the statutory timescales. The Council has agreed to apologise, issue Yâs final Education Health Care Plan and make a financial payment. Essex County Council (24 001 309)
Summary: Mrs B complained the Council delayed in issuing a final Education, Health and Care Plan following an annual review. We found the Council at fault. The Council has agreed to review its process and make a payment in acknowledgement of the injustice caused to Mrs B. Cumberland Council (24 003 758)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the education and care provision made by the Council for the complainantâs son. The complaint about matters between 2018 and 2022 is late and there are insufficient grounds to consider it now. Matters which took place in 2023 and 2024 are not separable from those about which it would have been reasonable for the complainant to use her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). Hertfordshire County Council (24 006 116)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the wording in a section of her childâs Education, Health and Care Plan. If Ms X disagrees with the content of the plan she has a right of appeal to a tribunal which it is reasonable for her to use. Leeds City Council (24 006 204)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss 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. Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (23 002 919)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs involvement in Miss Xâs childrenâs case. The substantive part of the complaint is late and there is not a good reason for the delay. There is insufficient evidence of fault in more recent events, nor could we provide a meaningful outcome for Miss X as investigation by us will not lead to a different outcome. Nottingham City Council (23 021 066)
Summary: The Council was at fault for refusing to consider Mr Bâs complaint properly under the Children Act 1989 complaints procedure. It will now do so. London Borough of Southwark (24 003 099)
Summary: We cannot investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the Councilâs actions in its child protection involvement with her family because it lies outside our jurisdiction. This is because the matter is subject to ongoing court proceedings. The law says we cannot consider complaints about matters that are being, or have been, considered in court. We have no discretion to do so. Cheshire West & Chester Council (24 003 220)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs involvement with Mr X and his family. Mr X has started private court proceedings and the court can examine the issues he is unhappy about. Nor will we investigate the Councilâs initial involvement in 2022, because this is a late complaint. London Borough of Croydon (24 003 989)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs actions after the death of Miss Xâs parent. The complaint is late and there is no good reason for us to exercise discretion to investigate these matters now. Surrey County Council (24 003 134)
Summary: We cannot investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision not to issue her daughter an Education, Health, and Care Plan. Miss X had appealed this decision therefore we have no jurisdiction to investigate. The Council had offered an appropriate remedy for the delays in making this decision, therefore further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about alternative education provision because there is not enough evidence of fault. Lancashire County Council (21 015 538)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to ensure her son had a phased transition; refused her request for a delayed school start; failed to meet the deadline for Yâs Education Health and Care Plan review and interfered with school matters. Mrs X says this caused distress to her and her family and has created uncertainty about Yâs future education. We did not investigate Mrs Xâs complaints where we cannot achieve a worthwhile outcome and where we do not have jurisdiction. On the transition review, we do not find the Council at fault. |
