| 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. Kent County Council (23 020 660)
Summary: The Council failed to put in place alternative educational provision for Mrs Xâs son when he was unable to attend school because of anxiety. It also delayed in responding to Mrs Xâs complaint. In recognition of the injustice caused by these failings, the Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs X. Hertfordshire County Council (23 021 086)
Summary: We found fault with the Council in its failure to arrange alternative provision for the complainantâs son (Y), when reviewing his Education Health and Care Plan and when communicating with the complainant (Miss X). We also found fault in the way the Council dealt with Miss Xâs complaint. The Council has accepted its fault and recognised the injustice it caused to Y and Miss X. The remedies offered by the Council were not enough. The Council agreed to apologise, to make symbolic payments and to send this decision to its Partnership and Assurance Board to review. Devon County Council (24 007 573)
Summary: We upheld Mr Xâs complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care process regarding his child, Y. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (24 008 764)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Councilâs handling of her sonâs Education Health and Care Plan annual review because she has used her right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal. Her complaint that the Council failed to put in place suitable full-time education for her son is too closely linked to the annual review process and we cannot recommend the Council reimburses her legal fees from the appeal. While it is clear the Council delayed in finalising the Plan this did not cause significant enough injustice which is separate from the outcome of the review to warrant further investigation. Oxfordshire County Council (24 008 777)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Childrenâs Services. That is because the complaint is late. Sunderland City Council (24 000 071)
Summary: Mr B complains the Council treated him differently during a safeguarding enquiry. He considers the Council racially profiled him. I have not found evidence of fault by the Council. Kent County Council (24 003 150)
Summary: Mr X complains about services provided by the Councilâs childrenâs and adolescent services. The Council was at fault for failing to consider the complaint under the childrenâs statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to now consider Mr Xâs concerns through the statutory procedure and will apologise to him for failing to do this originally. London Borough of Harrow (24 008 440)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a blue badge. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision to justify an investigation. Suffolk County Council (23 017 875)
Summary: Ms X complained about the Councilâs failure to ensure suitable support and accommodation was available when she moved to a different council area in a crisis situation involving her daughter. We found the Council was at fault because it did not make the referral when it said it would. The Council has already apologised, and this is an appropriate remedy for the distress experienced by Ms X. We found no evidence the Council told Ms X to move to the new area. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (23 021 476)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not correctly follow policy and procedure when responding to her complaint. Ms X said this caused her to no longer be a foster carer and had a financial impact. She wants the Council to admit it is wrong and fix the issues. The Ombudsman found the Council correctly followed the statutory complaints process but is at fault for delay. Kent County Council (23 017 738)
Summary: Mrs K complained the Council caused delays in the Education, Health, and Care plan process for her son (X) and failed to provide him with a full-time education when he was excluded from school. We found the Council at fault for failing to adhere to the statutory timescales and not providing enough alternative provision for X. It also caused significant delays in its complaints process and failed to respond to some requests from Mrs K. The Council will apologise and make payment to Mrs K to acknowledge the injustice she and X experienced as a result. Surrey County Council (23 019 879)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to deliver his childâs Education, Health and Care Plan provision since February 2022. Mr X also complained the Council failed to complete the Education, Health and Care Plan reviews suitably. We found the Council provided most of the provision from the Education, Health and Care Plan. But, we found the Council failed to ensure some Occupational Therapy and Physiotherapy provision was provided. We found fault with the Council delaying for over 49 weeks outside the statutory timescales in producing an amended Education, Health and Care plan for Mr Xâs child. This avoidable delay caused frustration and distress to Mr X, presented a barrier to Mr X appealing the Education, Health and Care Plan to the Tribunal and caused lost opportunity for Mr Xâs child to have suitable up-to-date provision detailed in their Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X, pay him £500 for the injustice caused to him and £750 for the injustice caused to his child through its delays and £500 for the missed provision. The Council also agreed to provide guidance and training to staff about timescales for completing Education, Health and Care Plan reviews, issuing notification letters and about accurate record keeping. And, the Council agreed to ensure the full Occupational Therapy and Physiotherapy provisions are put in place for Mr Xâs child. Devon County Council (23 021 501)
Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to deliver on its promise of providing extra funding for her childâs education and it has failed to communicate with her effectively with regards to the matter. The Council is at fault and it has agreed to remedy the injustice caused to Ms X and to Y. The Council has also agreed to implement service improvements. Kent County Council (24 007 619)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the education provided for the complainantâs son when Mrs X withdrew him from school. This is because Mrs X appealed the Councilâs decision the school place was suitable. This places the complaint outside our jurisdiction. Hampshire County Council (24 007 808)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Council not writing an Education Health and Care Plan as agreed in an appeal settlement. She has not been caused any significant injustice. Nottinghamshire County Council (24 008 308)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaints about the Council's handling of her daughterâs special educational needs between 2019 and August 2023 because the complaints are late and I have seen no good reasons to exercise our discretion to investigate them. We will not investigate Mrs Xâs concerns about the Councilâs more recent actions because the Council has offered Mrs X £300 and we consider this a suitable remedy for Mrs Xâs injustice. Surrey County Council (24 008 918)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education, Health and Care Plan process for the complainantâs child. The complaint is late, it was reasonable for the complainant to use their appeal rights, and there is no worthwhile outcome we could now achieve. Worcestershire County Council (24 006 317)
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. Hampshire County Council (24 008 825)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a safeguarding matter. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault, and we cannot achieve the outcome the complaining is seeking. The Information Commissioner is better placed to consider other matters. Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (24 008 899)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint that the Council sent her a warning letter about the number of complaints she submitted. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and further investigation is unlikely to achieve any additional outcome. Milton Keynes Council (24 009 012)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Special Guardianship Order allowance paid to the complainant. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Councilâs part. Essex County Council (24 009 926)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Councilâs response to a safeguarding matter. The complaint is made on behalf of a public body and so it is outside our jurisdiction. London Borough of Wandsworth (24 008 815)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the circumstances in which a foster placement came to an end, and about the subsequent standards of care investigation. This is because investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome. Birmingham City Council (24 009 087)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council submitted false information to the Agency Decision Maker, leading to the deregistration of the complainant as a foster carer, because investigation would achieve nothing significant. Cheshire East Council (24 012 826)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about school admissions. Mr X has used his right of appeal and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants. An investigation is not therefore justified. Lancashire County Council (23 018 075)
Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide their child, Y, with a suitable alternative education and delayed in completing their assessment for an Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council delayed in completing Yâs assessment and arranging an increase in Yâs tuition. It was not at fault for its efforts to arrange a suitable alternative education for Y from July 2023 onwards. Lancashire County Council (23 019 697)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed issuing her Child, Yâs Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan within the statutory timescales and Y did not receive educational provision. The Council was at fault for delay in finalising Yâs EHC Plan and Y missed provision to which they were entitled for four and a half terms. The Council will apologise and pay Ms X for Yâs lost provision. The Council has already put in place actions to improve its services. Suffolk County Council (23 021 147)
Summary: Miss X complains about the time taken by the Council to assess her childâs special educational needs and issue an Education, Health and Care Plan. Miss X also complains of the lack of communication from the Council. The Council has acknowledged it is at fault and the fault caused injustice to Miss X and her family. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused to the family. Kent County Council (24 000 779)
Summary: Mrs E complained the Council delayed finalising her daughterâs Education, Health and Care Plan after an annual review in May 2023. She also complained how the Council handled her daughterâs educational provision when she stopped attending school in February 2023. We find the Council was at fault for its delays in finalising Mrs Eâs daughterâs Education, Health and Care Plan after the annual review. It was also at fault for how it handled Mrs Eâs daughterâs educational provision when she could not attend school. The Council has agreed to my recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault. Oxfordshire County Council (24 002 501)
Summary: There was no delay in the process of reviewing Y and Zâs Education, Health and Care Plans when they moved to Oxfordshire. There was fault by Council officers in telling Ms X that Z would become a looked after child in order to continue to board at school. This caused Ms X and Z avoidable distress. The Council has already taken action to remedy the injustice including an apology, a symbolic payment and training for relevant staff. London Borough of Waltham Forest (24 004 046)
Summary: There was a delay actioning Ms Xâs request for a school place for Y. There was a failure to consider carrying out an early annual review of Yâs Education, Health and Care Plan and a delay in issuing a final amended Plan. Communication was poor. This caused avoidable frustration and distress and delayed Yâs transition back to education in a school. The Council will apologise, make symbolic payments, issue an amended Plan and ensure arrangements are in place for Y to start school. Liverpool City Council (24 004 187)
Summary: We upheld Ms Xâs complaint about the failure to secure occupational therapy provision on her child Yâs Education, Health and Care Plan. The payment of £3900 and apology the Council has offered for two years of missed provision are a partial remedy. The Council will review its commissioning arrangements and arrange for the therapist delivering Yâs provision to receive the specialist training required. Birmingham City Council (24 008 149)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X and Ms Yâs complaint about the Councilâs handling of their sonâs Education Health and Care Plan review. This is because the matter did not cause the complainants significant enough injustice to warrant investigation. Surrey County Council (24 012 689)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about how the Council has dealt with her application for a school place. This is because it is reasonable for Ms X to use her right of appeal to an independent panel. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (23 011 657)
Summary: Ms X complained the Councilâs actions put her son, Y, at risk when he was accommodated by the Council and it did not safeguard him or his sibling, Z, when it decided to return Y home. The Council failed to properly consider Ms Xâs complaint through the childrenâs statutory complaint procedure. The Council will apologise to Ms X and Y, pay them a symbolic amount to recognise the frustration this caused them, and arrange a stage three panel to consider Ms Xâs complaint. Manchester City Council (24 010 937)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision to pursue court action. The law prevents us from investigating the start of court action or what happened in court. Brighton & Hove City Council (24 011 056)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs involvement in Ms Xâs childâs case. The law prevents us investigating what happens as part of court proceedings, and we have no power to change the courtâs decision. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (24 011 281)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs involvement in Mr Xâs childâs case. The law prevents us from investigating councilsâ representations to court. Devon County Council (24 012 632)
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 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. Hampshire County Council (23 009 143)
Summary: Mrs and Mr X complained the Council failed to ensure suitable education and special educational needs support was in place for their child D. There was fault by the Council which caused D to miss SEN provision. It also caused avoidable distress for D, and avoidable distress, time, and trouble for Mrs and Mr X. The Council agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy. It will also review relevant processes and review its complaint handling in this case. Milton Keynes Council (23 009 817)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Councilâs failure to provide her son with a full-time education and support for his special educational needs. We found the Council was at fault. It failed to carry out an annual review and update the Education, Health and Care Plan to reflect his change in circumstances. It also took too long to respond to Mrs Xâs complaint. To remedy the injustice caused by these faults, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mrs X and take action to improve its service. We did not investigate some of Mrs Xâs complaint because it was late. East Sussex County Council (23 013 708)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed providing an Education, Health and Care Plan for her daughter following an annual review. She says the Councilâs actions meant her daughter was out of school and did not receive appropriate educational provision. Miss X says she was unable to work during this period. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to make some service improvements and provide an apology and a financial remedy to Miss X. Essex County Council (24 001 315)
Summary: We upheld Mrs 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. Oxfordshire County Council (24 001 440)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council has failed to adhere to statutory timescales and said there has been safeguarding issues with his sonâs provision. He also said the Council has failed to properly consider his complaint. We find the Council was at fault for failing to consider annual reviews within the statutory timescales. This caused uncertainty to Mr X and delayed his right of appeal. The Council has agreed to make several recommendations to address this injustice caused by fault. Birmingham City Council (24 002 220)
Summary: Mr X complained about the Councilâs decision to provide his son with free home to school transport. Mr X said the Councilâs decision is flawed and it has wrongly relied on the walk from home to school being less than the statutory walking distance. He also complained about the Councilâs policy not being compliant with statutory guidance. We find the Council was at fault for failing to properly consider Mr Xâs sonâs mobility needs and failure in the Councilâs decision letters. This caused distress and uncertainty to Mr X. The Council has agreed to make several recommendations to address this injustice caused by fault. North Northamptonshire Council (24 002 373)
Summary: We upheld Ms Xâs complaints. The Council failed to respond to Ms Xâs request for an early annual review of her child Yâs Education, Health and Care Plan. It also failed to complete the annual review process within legal timescales and delayed responding to her complaints. The Council has already apologised which is an appropriate remedy. Devon County Council (24 007 852)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint the Council failed to send her a decision notice letter providing her with a right to appeal the content of her child, Yâs, Education, Health and Care Plan. Mrs X can ask a Tribunal to consider a late appeal, and further investigation is unlikely to achieve any additional outcome. Hampshire County Council (24 008 877)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the content of her child, Yâs, Education, Health and Care Plan, or about how the Council delivered the content of Yâs EHC Plan to them. This is because Mrs X appealed to a Tribunal, and the law says we cannot investigate. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (24 002 193)
Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Council allegedly failing to refer Mr Xâs family for further help. There is not a good reason for the delay in Mr X bringing the matter to the Ombudsman. Brighton & Hove City Council (24 008 097)
Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Councilâs actions concerning the transition of Mr X and Ms Yâs child. There is no good reason to exercise the discretion available for us to do so. Suffolk County Council (24 008 359)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint the Council failed to act on a safeguarding referral regarding his child. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council decided the matter was not a safeguarding issue. The Council apologised for its poor communication, and further investigation is unlikely to achieve any additional outcome. Luton Borough Council (24 009 268)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about alleged defamatory and inaccurate information sent to the courts up to the present day. An absolute legal bar prevents us considering matters that have formed part of court action. East Sussex County Council (24 007 513)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision to refuse an application for transport to college for the complainantâs daughter. We consider that further investigation will not lead to a different outcome. Staffordshire County Council (23 015 549)
Summary: There was fault in the way a social care assessment was conducted in 2023, this led to delay in putting provision in place. Parents missed out on respite and Y missed out on social activities outside the home. The Council will make a symbolic payment to acknowledge the missed provision. Staffordshire County Council (24 000 632)
Summary: There was delay by the Council in securing provision in a child in need plan under s.2 Chronically Sick and Disabled Personâs Act (CSDPA). This caused injustice to the child and their parent carers. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment for missed provision. The complaint is upheld. |
