| 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. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (22 012 966)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to secure the special education provision set out in Yâs Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. She also complained the Council failed to address concerns about Yâs access to education, or communicate effectively. We have found the Council at fault for failing to conduct an annual review of Yâs EHC Plan, resulting in Y being unable to attend college or receive the provision in the EHC Plan for two academic terms. We have made recommendations to remedy this injustice. There are parts of Mrs Xâs complaint we cannot consider. We explain why in the decision statement. North Northamptonshire Council (23 009 139)
Summary: There was fault by the Council which failed to act in line with the legal timescales in issuing Yâs Education, Health and Care Plan, delayed consulting with school placements and failed to secure educational provision on Yâs Plan or arrange alternative provision. The Council will apologise, make Mr and Mrs X a payment of £500 to reflect their avoidable distress and make Y a payment of £7200 to reflect the loss of a year of education. Halton Borough Council (23 013 297)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to ensure her child, Y, received provision in line with her Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council acknowledges it failed to ensure the school was delivering the provision to Y. We found fault on the Councilâs part. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused by the faults to Y and Miss X. Central Bedfordshire Council (23 015 514)
Summary: The complainant (Mrs X) said the Council failed within its duties to her son (Y) for whom it maintains Education Health and Care Plan. We found fault in the Councilâs delays to issue Yâs amended Education Health and Care Plan following its Annual Review in June 2022 and in its inadequate communication with Mrs X. We also found fault with the Councilâs failure to arrange respite services for Y from June 2023. These faults caused uncertainty and distress. We do not propose to find fault in the way the Council handled alternative provision for Y. Some of the issues Mrs X complained about were or could have been appealed to the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Tribunal or were linked to her appeal. The Council agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment for Mrs Xâs distress and to carry out some service improvements. Lancashire County Council (23 016 607)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed completing the annual review of his son, Mr Gâs Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and did not complete the review in time for Mr Gâs transition to post 19 education. He said the Council delayed agreeing to an alternative use for direct payments and failed to properly respond to his complaints about the matters. The Council delayed in completing the annual review and there were faults in its complaint handling. The Council will apologise to Mr G and Mr X and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice they experienced. West Northamptonshire Council (23 016 921)
Summary: Miss B complained that the Council delayed in issuing an amended Education, Health and Care Plan following an emergency review in November 2022, communicated poorly with Miss B and failed to provide C with any alternative education when he stopped attending school at the end of April 2023. We found fault with the Council. It has agreed to apologise to Miss B, pay her £3,300 and improve its procedures for the future. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (23 017 703)
Summary: We found no fault on Mrs Bâs complaint about the Council failing to provide her daughter with suitable alternative education provision. It had no reason to consider it as she had a part time school timetable, received support, and was assessed by an educational psychologist as part of her Education Heath and Care assessment. The draft Education Health and Care Plan made no provision for her to receive alternative provision. Leeds City Council (23 018 292)
Summary: Ms C complains the Council delayed in assessing X for an Education Health Care (EHC) plan. The Council is at fault for failing to assess X for an EHC plan within the statutory timeframes and update Ms C. To put things right the Council has agreed to make Ms C a symbolic payment and remind staff to keep parents updated when it delays. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (23 018 713)
Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to provide education to Ms Xâs child Y when Y could not go to school for health reasons. The Council also failed to deliver the provision in Yâs EHC plan and failed to issue a final plan following the annual review. The Council took too long to decide Y needed education otherwise than at school and delayed dealing with Ms Xâs complaints. As a result, Y has been without education for 28 months and both Ms X and Y have experienced avoidable distress. The Council has agreed to apologise, provide Y with education, make payments to Ms X and Y, and act to improve its services. Worcestershire County Council (23 019 340)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide suitable support for her child resulting in declining attendance followed by a stop in attendance. Mrs X complained the Council delayed production of her childâs Education, Health and Care Plan. Mrs X also complained the Council delayed providing alternative provision of education for her child and when it did provide this it was unsuitable for her childâs needs. We found fault with the Council for failing to provide suitable education for Mrs Xâs child for most of the period 14 September 2023 to 4 March 2024. We also found fault with the Council for delaying outside the statutory timescales in producing Mrs Xâs childâs Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X, pay her £150 for the frustration and uncertainty caused and £2,000 for her childâs missed education. The Council also agreed to provide guidance and training to staff about recognising contacts showing a child is absent from school, and about considering a childâs individual needs when considering suitable alternative provision of education. West Sussex County Council (23 020 411)
Summary: Mr X complained about the Councilâs delay in dealing with the transfer of his childrenâs Education, Health and Care Plans and failure to respond to his stage 2 complaint. We found there was fault by the Council which caused Mr X distress and led to the loss of educational provision for his children. To put matters right, the Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and make a symbolic payment of £500. Suffolk County Council (24 002 803)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the Councilâs financial remedy it paid her in recognition of her child, Yâs, lost education after they were excluded from school in March 2023. This is because the Councilâs remedy was in line with the Ombudsmanâs Guidance on Remedies and an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve anything further. West Sussex County Council (24 004 041)
Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed completing an Education Health and Care needs assessment. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by offering to make a suitable payment to the complainant to remedy the injustice this cause. Essex County Council (24 004 779)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the delay. Kent County Council (24 005 356)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision not to provide Ms Xâs child with free transport to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Devon County Council (23 018 063)
Summary: Miss X complained about the Councilâs actions in respect of its care of her daughter, Miss Y, and the way in which it dealt with her complaint about the matter. We have not found fault with the Council. Cornwall Council (24 000 684)
Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed considering a complaint at stage two of the childrenâs statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint by allocating to the case to an investigator and issuing its stage two response without further delay. It will also apologise and offer to make a payment to the complainant to remedy the time and trouble they have been too. Milton Keynes Council (24 004 633)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council in connection with the care of the complainantâs children. This is because the complaint concerns matters which have been considered in court, or are not separable from those matters. Buckinghamshire Council (24 005 003)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants. Middlesbrough Borough Council (24 005 818)
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. Lancashire County Council (23 012 824)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her child, Y, with all the provision set out in their Education Health and Care Plan. The Council was at fault as it failed to provide Y with the play therapy, speech and language therapy and teaching assistant support set out in their Plan between September and November 2023. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Mrs X £600 to acknowledge the missed provision and frustration this caused. Somerset Council (23 015 941)
Summary: The Council took too long to issue a final Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan. It also did not properly consider its duty to make alternative educational provision when the child could not go to school for a prolonged period. The Council also failed to communicate with his mother, Ms B properly during this time. The Councilâs shortcomings caused Ms B distress and meant that her child did not receive a suitable education for some time. It has agreed to remedy the injustice. Derbyshire County Council (23 016 294)
Summary: Mrs C complained the Council delayed dealing with her sonâs Education, Health and Care Plan when she moved to its area. We find the Council was at fault for its delays in dealing with Mrs Câs sonâs Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council largely remedied Mrs Câs and her sonâs injustice when it responded to her complaint. It has agreed to our further recommendation to reflect Mrs Câs sonâs missed education and provision for one month. Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (23 017 242)
Summary: There was no fault in how the Council considered its general section 19 duty, to provide alternative education provision for Mrs Xâs son when he stopped going to school. Nor was there any fault in the time it took in issuing a decision it would not make an Education, Health, and Care Plan for Mrs Xâs son. However, the Council was at fault in how it dealt with Mrs Xâs complaint about these matters and that caused her an injustice. The Council have agreed to my recommendation on a remedy for this injustice. Leicester City Council (24 000 037)
Summary: There was fault by the Council when it failed to progress a reassessment of a childâs Education Health and Care (EHC) needs, and issue an amended EHC Plan. The Council also failed to consider what action it should take to make sure the child received the education under his existing Plan, when he was not attending school; and it failed to transfer the EHC Plan in good time when the family moved area. The Councilâs shortcomings meant that the child missed education and caused him and his family distress and uncertainty. It has agreed to remedy the injustice. London Borough of Sutton (24 003 663)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision to refuse her home to school transport application for her child, Y. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. North Yorkshire Council (24 004 231)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the delay. Essex County Council (24 004 336)
Summary: We upheld Mrs Zâs complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care process regarding her child, J. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Herefordshire Council (24 004 654)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about school admissions. This is because we have no powers to investigate complaints about academy schools. Essex County Council (24 007 029)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms 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 to warrant further investigation. West Berkshire Council (23 011 151)
Summary: Mr and Mrs B complained the Council misrepresented their family in a single assessment and it included factually incorrect data. They also complained the quality of the support the Council provided in practical sessions was poor and the conduct of an officer in two telephone conversations was unreasonable. We do not find the Council was at fault. Thurrock Council (24 004 503)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the way a Council officer spoke with him during a phone call. This is because the Council already apologised and an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve any additional outcome. Oxfordshire County Council (24 004 904)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with a complaint at stage two of the statutory childrenâs complaints procedure. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (23 013 149)
Summary: There was a two-month delay in issuing Yâs amended Education, Health and Care Plan which caused avoidable distress and a delay in appeal rights. The Council will apologise and make Ms X a symbolic payment of £150. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (23 018 495)
Summary: The Council investigated the complainantâs concerns about the lack of education for her daughter. It found some fault in its actions and offered a remedy for the injustice. We endorse the Councilâs findings. But we recommended an increase in the symbolic payment for the loss of suitable alternative education, which the Council has agreed to pay. We are therefore closing the complaint. Essex County Council (24 003 988)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a lack of childcare provision and a lack of replacement care provision in the area. This is because the complaint about childcare provision is made late, and the issue no longer caused the complainant an injustice. There is insufficient evidence of fault with how the Council is managing replacement care provision for adults. Kent County Council (24 004 035)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to provide funding to a school in order for it to meet the needs of a child with special educational needs. This is because the complaint is made on behalf of a public body. Essex County Council (24 004 789)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the delay. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (24 007 845)
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 to warrant further investigation. Suffolk County Council (24 003 983)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council administers personal budgets for short breaks. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (24 005 531)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs involvement in Mr Xâs childâs case. The complaint is about matters that have been considered in court, which the law prevents us from considering. It is reasonable for Mr X to raise all elements of his complaint as part of the ongoing proceedings. Birmingham City Council (24 005 760)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about delay in the Council dealing with his stage two complaint under the statutory childrenâs complaint procedure. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X. Worcestershire County Council (23 014 942)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to secure the full provision detailed in her childâs Education, Health and Care Plan since January 2022. We found fault with the Council failing to provide education for Mrs X child for three terms and four weeks. We also found fault with the Council failing to provide suitable Teaching Assistant support and access to an Occupational Therapy Motor Skills programme for five terms. We also found fault with the Council failing to provide 12 months Farming Provision and 23 months and 3 weeks access to Hydrotherapy. The Council agreed to pay Mrs X £12,750 in recognition of her childâs missed educational provision, including failure to source a Teaching Assistant making other education provided not at the needed standard. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £300 for the frustration and distress caused to her through its delays and handling of this matter. The Council also agreed to provide training to staff about the importance of ensuring provisions detailed in Section F of an Education, Health and Care Plan are quantifiable and specific. North Yorkshire Council (23 016 951)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not provide education or special educational provision to her child when they were unable to attend school. Ms X said this resulted in her child missing education and support they should have received. We have found the Council at fault for not providing suitable provision to her child and for how it handled her complaint. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise, make a payment for the distress caused to Ms X and the loss of education to her child and carry out a service improvement in relation to complaint handling. Cheshire East Council (23 017 017)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide the specialist educational provision in her children, Y and Zâs, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plans when they moved into the Councilâs area. The Council failed to provide the specialist provision in Y and Zâs Plans between September and October 2023 and did not have due regard to the Armed Forces Covenant. The Council will pay Ms X £2,500 to recognise the injustice caused to her, Y and Z and will review how it manages the transfer of Service children with EHC Plans. Surrey County Council (23 018 629)
Summary: The Council was not at fault for refusing to deliver alternative educational provision to Ms Bâs son while he was out of school. It followed correct procedure and considered evidence properly before reaching its decision. However, it was at fault for a short delay in providing support for Ms Bâs sonâs special educational needs. It has agreed to make a symbolic payment to recognise his injustice. London Borough of Bromley (23 020 988)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council took too long to issue her child, W, with an Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council was at fault. This caused Mrs X avoidable frustration for which the Council should apologise and pay her £150. Sunderland City Council (24 000 862)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council advising the complainant it would seek an attendance order if failed to provide an education plan for his daughter who is home educated. The Council has apologised for writing to Mr X who does not live within its area. It has explained it asked for the information and apologised if he felt threatened by the content of the email. While we understand the complainantâs family found the experience stressful, we do not consider there is a significant personal injustice which justifies an investigation. Buckinghamshire Council (24 004 470)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Education, Health and Care Plan process for her son. This is because Mrs X appealed to a tribunal and there are further appeal rights available. The case is therefore outside our jurisdiction. Liverpool City Council (24 006 510)
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. Central Bedfordshire Council (24 006 877)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs 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. Lancashire County Council (23 013 449)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to secure the special educational provision in her child, Wâs Education, Health and Care Plan, when they stopped attending school. The Council was at fault. It was also at fault for delay in holding a review of Wâs Plan and amending it after the review. This meant W missed out on provision they should have had, and Mrs X experienced avoidable upset, frustration and stress. To remedy their injustice, the Council will apologise to Mrs X and pay her £6,650. The Council will also issue a staff reminder, identify why it failed to arrange tutoring for W despite saying it would and tell the Ombudsman of the steps it will take to prevent that failing happening again in future. London Borough of Southwark (23 004 694)
Summary: Miss X complained about failings in respect of special educational needs, health care, safeguarding and social care for two of her children. During the course of our investigation, we found out Miss X had made a judicial review application. As a result, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to consider her complaint. Hampshire County Council (23 017 826)
Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it involved Mr B in his childrenâs social work assessment and support plan. It took reasonable steps to seek his views and involve him in the development of the plan. West Sussex County Council (23 019 373)
Summary: Before our involvement, the Council accepted that it was at fault for a number of ways in which it failed to properly support Mr B while he was in care. It has already offered him an apology and a symbolic financial remedy. It has also agreed to assist him to apply to correct his birth certificate â which it failed to do for the five years he was in care â and will take steps to improve its service. London Borough of Lewisham (24 003 214)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs failure to respond to a children services complaint because it could reasonably be or has been mentioned as part of legal proceedings on a closely related matter. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (24 004 719)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the removal of the complainantâs child from her care. The complaint concerns matters which have been considered and decided in court, and investigation would achieve no worthwhile outcome. Brighton & Hove City Council (24 006 041)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms 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. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (23 015 698)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her son, Y suitable, full-time education, failed to provide all the provision set out in Yâs Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan, completed infrequent annual reviews and stopped Yâs alternative provision in September 2023. The Council was at fault for delay with Yâs annual review in 2023, delayed identifying an educational placement for Y to start in September 2023 and poor handover between staff. The faults caused Mrs X and Y frustration, uncertainty and caused Mrs X avoidable time and trouble. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment and provide evidence it has put in place its suggested service improvements. Hampshire County Council (23 020 857)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint the Council did not provide alternative provision to her son when they were not going 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. Suffolk County Council (24 002 420)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs failure to provide him with an education. There are no good reasons the late complaint rule should not apply for the period from May 2022 to January 2023. And we cannot investigate education provision from January 2023 as Mr X appealed to the Tribunal. Norfolk County Council (24 003 457)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the school named in her childâs Education, Health and Care Plan. Ms X had a right of appeal to a tribunal and it was reasonable for her to use it. Essex County Council (24 004 247)
Summary: We upheld Mrs Xâs complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care process regarding her child. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (24 004 558)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about provision for the complainantâs sonâs special educational needs. This is because the complaint is late and there are insufficient grounds to consider it now. North Yorkshire Council (24 005 366)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs processing of Mrs Xâs in-year applications and appeals for school places. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. West Berkshire Council (24 004 895)
Summary: We found fault in a previous investigation because the Council failed to consider Ms Xâs complaint about a personal budget for her child, via the statutory complaints procedure for childrenâs social care services. The Council agreed to consider the complaint via the statutory procedure, but then failed to do so. Therefore, we opened this investigation to consider further fault causing injustice to Ms X. There was fault by the Council which further delayed Ms X in receiving a response to her complaint via the statutory procedure. The Council agreed to pay a financial remedy to recognise the distress caused by this further delay. Coventry City Council (24 005 506)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs involvement in Miss Xâs case. The complaint is about matters that were decided by a court, and we have no power to investigate or change the courtâs decision. |
