| 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. Northumberland County Council (24 000 306)
Summary: The Council did not properly record its decision-making when deciding Mr Bâs school transport appeals and it failed to provide sufficient detail in its decision letters. There was fault in the way the Council recorded its decision-making. Because of this, Mr B suffered uncertainty. The Council will apologise to Mr B, train staff, and offer Mr B a fresh appeal. Surrey County Council (24 006 085)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr Xâs complaint about alternative provision and the Councilâs decision to refuse a personal budget. It was appropriate for Mr X to appeal to the tribunal if he disagreed with the type of placement specified in the Education Health and Care plan. Birmingham City Council (24 006 540)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a travel assistance request for school transport. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (24 005 668)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alleged data breach because the complainant will be able to complain to the Information Commissioner. London Borough of Lambeth (24 006 297)
Summary: We cannot investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the outcome of care proceedings and the current custody arrangements for her children because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been considered and decided in court proceedings. Hampshire County Council (24 006 429)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs safeguarding decision about school transport provided by Mr X. The decision is within the range we would expect to see in similar circumstances and there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation. Northumberland County Council (24 006 746)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision not to consider his complaint further whilst there are ongoing court proceedings. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council. Devon County Council (24 009 459)
Summary: We cannot investigate the Councilâs response to Ms Xâs complaint about the contents of a report written by Council staff. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We have no remit to consider matters in connection with reports used in court proceedings. Surrey County Council (23 015 720)
Summary: Mrs Y complained about the Councilâs delay in delivering the educational provision in her child, Zâs Education, Health and Care Plan. We have found fault by the Council in failing to: arrange the provision within the required statutory timescales; and agree reimbursement of the payments Mrs Y made for provision in the meantime, causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising, making payments to reflect the impact on Z of the missed provision, upset, frustration and worry caused to Mrs Y, agreeing with and reimbursing Mrs Y for any outstanding provision costs, and making a service improvement. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (23 018 754)
Summary: Ms X complained that the Council failed to act when her son was not attending school. We found some fault causing an injustice. The Council has agreed the recommended ways to remedy this. Therefore, we have completed our investigation and are closing the case. Surrey County Council (23 020 573)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Councilâs delay in issuing a final Education, Health and Care Plan for her son. We have found fault causing an injustice. The Council has agreed to the recommended ways to remedy this. Therefore, we have completed our investigation and are closing the complaint. City of Doncaster Council (23 020 859)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed the issuing of his sonâs EHC Plan, and that the alternative provision offered during the delay did not meet Yâs needs. We found fault causing injustice in relation to both matters complained about. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and make a payment to him, and another for Yâs benefit, to remedy the injustice caused. Dorset Council (24 000 489)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her child, Z, with a suitable alternative education while they were absent from school due to health issues. The Council was not at fault. It considered all the information and decided Z could still access an education at school. There was no fault in the way it reached this decision. Portsmouth City Council (24 002 340)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaints about the Councilâs Elective Home Education teamâs involvement with her children. Part of the complaint is late. For the rest of the complaint, there is insufficient evidence of fault and no additional outcome achievable by the Ombudsman. Suffolk County Council (24 005 591)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs querying of the elective home education Mrs X provides. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement. Birmingham City Council (24 006 232)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision not to carry out an education, health and care needs assessment for her son. This is because it would have been reasonable for her to appeal against the decision. We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Councilâs refusal to put in place alternative provision for her son as there is not enough evidence of fault. Kent County Council (24 006 902)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision not to provide home to school transport for his child. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the matter to justify an investigation. London Borough of Southwark (24 002 733)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Council not referring his case to the National Referral Mechanism. It is unlikely we would find this caused him any significant injustice. Warrington Council (24 003 000)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs handling of child protection concerns. The Council has already apologised for an error it made and offered to record Mr Xâs views on its records. We cannot achieve anything further and cannot give Mr X the outcome he wants. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 004 339)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council has dealt with Mrs Xâs grandchildren since they have been placed in care. We could not add to the Councilâs response or make a different finding of the kind Mrs X wants. Nottinghamshire County Council (24 005 452)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Councilâs childrenâs services. This is because there is either insufficient evidence of fault, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or we cannot achieve the outcome that the complainant is seeking. Buckinghamshire Council (24 005 489)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care provided to Mrs Xâs children during a short period of fostering. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement. Portsmouth City Council (24 006 121)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision to significantly increase the threshold before mileage can be claimed as expenses. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Bristol City Council (24 006 263)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs response to a complaint about the actions of Childrenâs Services. This is because our intervention would not add to the investigation which has already been carried out, or lead to a different outcome. London Borough of Havering (23 013 680)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs failure to remove information regarding Mr X from its records. This is because the complaint relates to personal data and is best placed for the Information Commissionerâs officer to deal with. Somerset Council (23 012 310)
Summary: The Council failed to provide Mr Bâs son, Y, with any education for over two years, and has failed to provide sufficient education since January 2024. It also failed to issue an amended Education, Health and Care Plan since it was decided changes were needed in February 2023. The Council has agreed to make payments to Mr B and Y and take action to improve its service. Kent County Council (23 015 355)
Summary: Miss X complained about the Councilâs failure to issue a draft amended Education, Health and Care Plan and related matters including lack of provision, poor communication and complaint handling. We found the Council to be at fault. To remedy the injustice to Miss X, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to acknowledge her loss of provision, distress and frustration. Hertfordshire County Council (23 017 346)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed completing reviews of her daughterâs Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) including a delay in the year she was transferring to secondary school causing frustration and uncertainty. The Council took over a year to issue the final EHC Plan and missed the statutory timescale in the transition year. A suitable remedy is agreed. Somerset Council (23 018 083)
Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to consider requests that Mrs X made for reasonable adjustments to her daughterâs school transport provision. It also mishandled her complaints. It has agreed to reconsider her requests and make a symbolic payment to recognise her injustice. Cheshire West & Chester Council (23 021 245)
Summary: Mx X complained the Council failed to ensure their child Y received appropriate education and specialist provision in line with their Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council was at fault for the delay in finalising the Education, Health and Care Plan, in arranging provision following the annual review, and in making a refund to Mx X. This caused Mx X frustration and uncertainty and meant Y missed out on education provision. The Council has agreed to apologise and make payments to Mx X and Y. North Northamptonshire Council (24 006 050)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about educational provision for Mrs Xâs child in the year 2022-23. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to investigate this matter now. Kent County Council (23 009 298)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about inaccurate children services records. The Information Commissionerâs Office is better placed. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (23 017 872)
Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council handled her statutory childrenâs complaint. She said delays had a significant impact on the family and caused distress. We find the Council at fault for delays in complaint handling, which caused injustice. We are satisfied the Council has remedied the injustice caused. Cheshire West & Chester Council (24 006 384)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs response to a complaint about child protection action. This is because investigation would achieve nothing significant. Thurrock Council (24 006 222)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to address disrepair at a childrenâs centre. This is because any injustice caused to the complainant flows from her relationship with a private provider, not the Council. Blackburn with Darwen Council (24 002 751)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainantâs deregistration as a foster carer. This is because another body is better placed than the Ombudsman to do so. London Borough of Wandsworth (24 007 334)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the accuracy of reports written by a council social worker. We cannot consider complaints about matters discussed in court or which could be raised in court. Surrey County Council (23 017 387)
Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council considers school transport applications for children in his village. We do not find fault with how the Council assesses these applications. We find the Council at fault for delays in considering Mr Xâs appeal. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the uncertainty caused. London Borough of Croydon (23 018 004)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Councilâs handling of her child, Yâs, Education, Health, and Care plan. The Council was at fault for delays consulting schools and putting tuition in place for Y, and for its poor communication early on. It agreed to provide a remedy for the term of education Y missed. It also agreed to carry out a review of Yâs plan. Surrey County Council (23 018 241)
Summary: There was excessive delay by the Council in completing an annual review and amending a final Education, Health and Care Plan; in consulting specialist schools so it took two years to identify a place; and in replying to a request for a statutory reassessment. There was also a failure to complete agreed complaint actions. This caused unnecessary time, trouble, frustration, uncertainty and distress and delayed a right of appeal by over a year. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment and carry out service improvements. The complaint is upheld. Hertfordshire County Council (24 001 466)
Summary: There was fault by the Council in amending Yâs Education Health and Care Plan, issuing a decision to re-assess his needs, refusing to commission specialist assessments and a failure to ensure he received the therapies and equipment set out in his existing Plan. The Council will apologise, make payments to reflect lost provision and issue Yâs final Plan without further delay. Somerset Council (24 005 839)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision to refuse to name a new educational setting in her childrenâs Education, Health, and Care plans. This is because the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate as she has used her right of appeal. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (24 006 503)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about how the Council dealt with his concerns about a schoolâs complaint handling. This is because the complaint flows from the internal management of a school, which we have no jurisdiction to consider. The law says we cannot consider complaints about the actions of councils in relation to matters that are outside our jurisdiction. Tunbridge Wells Girls Grammar School (24 007 357)
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 for us to be able to question its decision. Lancashire County Council (23 014 590)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs childrenâs social care services as there is not enough evidence of fault. Cheshire East Council (24 000 219)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Councilâs responses to Mr Xâs concerns about his children. The matters complained of are closely linked to matters concerning the residence and contact arrangements for children, which have been subject to court action. A legal bar prevents us investigating them. London Borough of Barnet (24 006 339)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of child protection action relating to the complainantâs family. This is because investigation would not achieve the outcomes he is seeking. Sunderland City Council (24 006 823)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the residence of children. Only a court can decide this matter and it would therefore be reasonable for Miss Xâs family to use their right to go to court. South Gloucestershire Council (23 004 788)
Summary: There was a seven-month delay in reviewing and amending Yâs Education Health and Care Plan which caused avoidable distress, frustration and a delay in appeal rights. Communication with Yâs mother Ms X was also poor. The Council will apologise, make a payment of £250. It will also provide evidence it has reviewed procedures and reimbursed Ms Xâs travel expenses. Derbyshire County Council (23 016 766)
Summary: Miss F complained the Council failed to provide her son with suitable education and the support set out in his EHC plan. We have ended our investigation. This is because Miss F could have used her right to appeal to the SEND Tribunal, which puts it out of our jurisdiction. Leeds City Council (23 020 792)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not issue her child with an Education, Health and Care Plan within statutory time frames and did not provide the provision in the Plan. Mrs X says this caused unnecessary and avoidable distress and impacted her childâs health. We find the Council at fault which caused Mrs X and her child injustice. The Council has agreed to make a payment and apologise to Mrs X. East Sussex County Council (24 005 728)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision not to provide alternative provision for her child, Y, when Y became unable to attend school. We also cannot investigate how the Council delivered the content of Yâs Education, Health and Care Plan to them. This is because Mrs X used her right of appeal to a Tribunal, and the law says we cannot investigate. Birmingham City Council (24 008 526)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about a Councilâs school admissions appeal panelâs decision as it is unlikely we would find fault. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (24 008 924)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the education provided to the complainantâs children. The complaint is late and there are no grounds for us to now consider it. Hampshire County Council (24 003 784)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an assessment carried out by the Councilâs social worker. This is because the assessment was carried out to inform the Court. This places the matter outside the Ombudsmanâs jurisdiction. Buckinghamshire Council (24 006 096)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Councilâs decision not to accept his complaint because he does not have parental responsibility for the children involved. South Gloucestershire Council (24 006 880)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an allegation the Council wrongly shared personal information with a third party. The Information Commissionerâs Office is the appropriate body to consider this complaint. Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (24 009 492)
Summary: We will not investigate the Councilâs responses to Mr Xâs complaint about staff working with his family. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We have no remit to consider matters in connection with reports used in court proceedings. And there is no evidence of a significant injustice arising from fault to warrant investigation in the remaining matters. Reading Borough Council (23 003 875)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council handled the review of her childâs education, health and care plan and her complaint. She said this delayed her right to appeal the plan, caused unnecessary distress and frustration, and cost her time and trouble. We find the Council at fault, and this caused injustice. The Council has made a payment to Mrs X, and has agreed to apologise. The Council has already agreed to add a note to Mrs Xâs file. Bracknell Forest Council (22 013 300)
Summary: Miss X complains the Council did not properly assess her child during the EHCP process and failed to ensure the provision in the EHCP was delivered. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for failing to suitably consider its duty to alternative provision for Child Y. The Council has agreed to pay a financial remedy for the lost education. |
