| 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. Dorset Council (23 019 263)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to secure suitable education provision for her son from late 2022 to mid-2024. She said the Council had not addressed her concerns, or adapted the provision to meet her son's needs. We have found the Council at fault for failing to properly consider its section 19 duty between October 2022 and January 2023. However, on a balance of probabilities, we find this did not cause an injustice. Other parts of Miss Xâs complaint, about later time periods, concern matters which are part of, connected to, or could have been part of, an appeal to the SEND Tribunal. We cannot investigate these matters. We explain why in our decision statement. Surrey County Council (23 020 040)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed issuing and fulfilling an Education, Health and Care Plan for her son, S, causing him to miss out on his education. It has also caused the family emotional and financial distress. The Council has accepted it is at fault, apologised and offered a financial remedy. The Ombudsman agrees the Council is at fault and considers the proposed remedies are in line with our guidance on remedies. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (24 000 378)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide his child with a suitable fulltime education. Mr X said there has been an impact of the missed education, and it has also impacted his childâs mental health. Mr X said it caused unnecessary distress. We do not find the Council at fault. Oxfordshire County Council (24 002 176)
Summary: The Council failed to arrange alternative provision for several months when Ms Xâs child, Z, was no longer able to attend their school. The Council also significantly delayed finalising Zâs Education, Health and Care Plan following their annual review. The Councilâs faults have caused four months of missed provision for Z and caused uncertainty and distress to Ms X. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X £1,450 and carry out service improvements. Staffordshire County Council (24 002 728)
Summary: Mrs C complained the Council did not follow statutory timeframes for completing an annual review and it communicated poorly throughout the process. We have found the Council at fault for failing to issue a final Education, Health and Care Plan following an annual review. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs C and make a symbolic payment of £300. Hertfordshire County Council (24 003 282)
Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council provided a suitable education for son, Z, and how it met her needs as a carer. There was fault in how the Council failed to make a decision following a review of Zâs Education Health and Care plan, failed to keep his education under review, reduced his hours of education in early 2024, failed to assess Miss Xâs needs as a carer and how it communicated with her. This caused Z to miss out on some education and caused both Miss X and Z avoidable distress. The Council agreed to apologise and pay Miss X a financial remedy. St Hilda's C of E High School, Liverpool (24 004 668)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the School admission arrangements and the way they were applied. Mrs X also complained the admission appeal panel failed to properly consider her appeal for a school place for her child, Y. The School was not at fault and the panel properly considered her appeal. Devon County Council (24 007 420)
Summary: Mr X complained about the Councilâs delay completing Ms Yâs child, Zâs Education, Health and Care needs assessment. We find the Council at fault. This impacted Zâs education and caused distress and uncertainty for Ms Y. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms Y. Isle of Wight Council (24 011 063)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the contents of an Education Health and Care Plan and the education provision in place for Miss Xâs child. This is because she has used her right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal.. Leeds City Council (24 012 646)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about comments made by a caseworker regarding parental responsibility. This is because the issue has not caused a significant enough injustice to warrant investigation and because we cannot achieve the outcome that the complainant seeks. City of Doncaster Council (24 014 438)
Summary: We cannot investigate Miss Xâs complaint as it is made on behalf of a public body. The law prevents us from considering such complaints. London Borough of Harrow (24 008 754)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council has not taken action to ensure that he and his wife have the respite care for their child that the family is entitled to. The Council was at fault because of its failure to commence a stage two statutory investigation under the Children Act 1989. This caused Mr X distress, worry, uncertainty, and frustration. The Council should take action to remedy the injustice caused to Mr X by the fault and to avoid it happening again in future. Staffordshire County Council (24 010 611)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the conduct of individual Council employees in late 2022. This is because Miss Xâs complaint is late and does not cause significant injustice to warrant us investigating. Buckinghamshire Council (24 011 455)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the conduct of an Initial Child Protection Conference. The faults in procedure were unlikely to have affected the outcome, so any injustice caused to Mrs X is not enough to warrant our further involvement. Devon County Council (24 015 191)
Summary: Mr X complained about the Councilâs handling of his complaint about his son, Yâs, care. He complained the Council has not considered the complaint after a long delay. Mr X said Y has not received the enabling support specified in his Education, Health and Care Plan. There was fault in the way the Council did not complete the statutory childrenâs complaint procedure and delayed communicating this. The Council has not considered the complaint and Mr X was put to time and trouble to complain. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment and progress the childrenâs statutory complaint process. Reading Borough Council (24 002 853)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide support for her disabled child. Miss X said this impacted her mental and physical health. She said she was promised support and did not get it. We have discontinued our investigation into this complaint. This is because the Council will address this complaint through the statutory complaints procedure. Shropshire Council (24 004 931)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council took too long to offer her child, Y, suitable respite care. The Council was at fault for not considering Miss Xâs complaint through the childrenâs statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to apologise and investigate the complaint at stage two of the statutory procedure. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (23 017 786)
Summary: Mrs Z complains about how the Council administered her sonâs (X) Education Health and Care Plan review. We uphold the complaint when comparing the Councilâs assessment against the requirements of the Special Educational Needs Code of Practice. The Council has agreed to our recommendations. East Sussex County Council (24 005 838)
Summary: The Council was at fault because it failed to ensure Y received all the special educational provision in his Education, Health and Care Plan between September 2023 and July 2024. This caused a loss of educational provision. The Council also failed to issue an amended Plan by the legal deadline. This caused his mother Ms X, avoidable frustration. The Council will apologise, take action described in this statement and make payments to reflect avoidable frustration and missed educational provision. Reading Borough Council (24 008 501)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Councilâs failure to respond during the Education, Health and Care needs assessment process and the decision not to assess Y for an Education, Health and Care plan. The Council has apologised for the poor communication and acted to improve its service. It is unlikely an investigation would achieve anything more. She had a right of appeal to a tribunal about the decisions not to assess Y for an Education, Health and Care plan in 2023 and 2024. Warrington Council (24 010 203)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint the Council failed to review her childâs Education, Health and Care Plan within the legal timeframe. Any fault has not caused a significant enough injustice to justify our involvement. Milton Keynes Council (24 010 243)
Summary: We cannot investigate the Councilâs decision on the placement it would name in an Education, Health, and Care Plan. This is because Mrs X has already appealed the Councilâs decision, and the law does not allow us to investigate here. Nor will we investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about delays in issuing the plan, because there is no significant injustice, and the Council has apologised for delays here. Southend-on-Sea City Council (24 010 511)
Summary: We cannot investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the Council not securing alternative or interim education provision while her child is not attending school. Ms X has used her right to appeal to the SEND Tribunal and because these are matters which are linked to her appeal, the law does not allow us to investigate. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (24 011 245)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education Health and Care needs assessment process. This is because the complaint is made late and it is reasonable for Miss X to have used her right of appeal to a tribunal. Essex County Council (24 011 269)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about 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. Central Bedfordshire Council (24 011 337)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs alleged withholding of Mr Xâs rights to a full mediation after it issued an Education Health and Care Plan for Miss X. The existence of a right of appeal to the Special Needs and Disability Tribunal to resolve the dispute about the appropriate provision for Miss X means Mr X has an alternative remedy available it would be reasonable to use. London Borough of Havering (24 011 649)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education, Health and Care Plan process. This is because it is unlikely we could add anything to the Councilâs response. If Miss X is unhappy with the content of her childâs Education, Health and Care Plan, then it is reasonable for her to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). Central Bedfordshire Council (24 011 711)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the handling of her sonâs education. Miss X has appealed to the First-Tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). This places the complaint outside our jurisdiction. Buckinghamshire Council (24 012 014)
Summary: We cannot investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the process the Council followed to name a school in her childâs Education Health and Care Plan. This is because Miss X has appealed this decision and the law does not allow us to investigate here. Nor can we investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the education provision the Council secured, because this complaint is not separable from her appeal. Liverpool City Council (24 012 202)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council failed to make alternative educational provision for the complainantâs son, and failed to secure the provision set out in his Education Health and Care plan. The fact that she has used her right to appeal places the matters outside our jurisdiction. Southend-on-Sea City Council (24 012 212)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to update the complainantâs sonâs Education and Care plan because the complaint is late and there are no grounds for us to consider it now. We will not investigate her complaint that the Council has not reimbursed her for costs she has incurred because we would not add anything to the response the Council has already made on this matter. Essex County Council (24 014 715)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about 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 (24 015 919)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the arrangements made for her daughter to sit the Kent Test for entry to grammar schools. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs X to use her right of appeal. West Northamptonshire Council (23 015 267)
Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed considering a complaint at stage three of the childrenâs statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint by arranging a stage three panel without further delay. It will also apologise to the complainant for not doing so sooner. Norfolk County Council (24 004 912)
Summary: Mr X complains the Council incorrectly deducted an amount equivalent to Child Benefit from his Special Guardianship Allowance. Mr X also says in addition the Council changed the amount paid to him in 2021. Mr X says this has caused him financial loss. We have found fault in the actions of the Council for deducting the amount of child benefit received from the Special Guardianship Allowance. The Council has agreed to issue an apology and repay the amount deducted back to September 2017. Kent County Council (24 005 920)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Councilâs decision not to consider her complaint whilst there are ongoing court proceedings. Lincolnshire County Council (24 011 676)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about a social workerâs assessment of her family. This formed part of ongoing court proceedings and we are legally prevented from investigating it. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (24 012 738)
Summary: We cannot investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the Councilâs alleged failure to adhere to contact arrangements ordered by a court. There has been further court action in the past year and the alleged failure either has or could reasonably have been raised as part of the proceedings. London Borough of Bromley (24 015 518)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs involvement in the care of Ms Xâs grandchild. This is because it is a complaint about the start of court proceedings or what happened in court. It is also made late. Derbyshire County Council (24 012 136)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the decision to refuse to carry out and Education Health and Care Needs Assessment, and about the Councilâs response to subsequent correspondence. The complainant has used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and this places the complaint outside our jurisdiction. London Borough of Redbridge (24 012 099)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has been at fault in supporting the complainantâs wife in removing his children from the family home on false grounds and in denying him contact with them. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Councilâs part, and investigation would not achieve the outcome the complainant wants. North Yorkshire Council (24 007 549)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the handling of her sonâs education. Miss X had the right to appeal to the First-Tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). Miss X has used that right which places most of the complaint outside our jurisdiction. There are some issues we could investigate, but it is unlikely we could add anything to the Councilâs response. Also, the injustice from matters which are in our jurisdiction is not significant enough to warrant an investigation. Essex County Council (24 010 861)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about 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. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (23 013 927)
Summary: Miss X complains about the Councilâs failure to tell her there was no place available for her child at their preferred school until the day before they were due to start there and a lack of alternative education provision. The Council has agreed to take further action to remedy the injustice caused to Miss X and her child by its poor communication. There is no evidence of fault by the Council in its handling of alternative education provision for Miss Xâs child. Kent County Council (23 016 095)
Summary: Miss D complained the Council failed to provide the provision in her daughterâs Education, Health and Care Plans issued in 2022 and 2023. She also complained the Council failed to complete an annual review of her daughterâs Education, Health and Care Plan. We find the Council was at fault for failing to provide the provision in Miss Dâs daughterâs Education, Health and Care Plan issued in 2023. It also failed to complete an annual review in line with statutory timescales. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault. Surrey County Council (23 018 910)
Summary: Miss 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 or how it responded to Miss Xâs application. North Yorkshire Council (24 000 697)
Summary: We upheld a complaint the Council delayed in completing an education, health and care assessment of Mr Eâs child. We also found fault in its failure to ensure the child had access to a full-time education for two terms while it completed its assessment. These faults caused injustice as a loss of education provision and distress. The Council has accepted these findings. At the end of this statement, we set out the action it has agreed to remedy Mr Eâs injustice and make service improvements. Medway Council (24 000 805)
Summary: Miss Y complained the Council failed to complete an Education Health and Care assessment for her child, Z, within legal timescales, which caused unnecessary frustration and uncertainty. We found there was fault which caused injustice. The Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment to Miss Y to reflect the injustice caused. Durham County Council (24 002 874)
Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to provide her son (X) with a full-time education, provision in his Education, Health, and Care plan, and alternative provision since Autumn 2021. We found part of Mrs Bâs complaint was late, and there was no fault in the process the Council followed to reach its views around Xâs education. It therefore made decisions it was entitled to make. Mrs B also had appeal rights to the SEND Tribunal available to her throughout, which she should have exercised. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (24 005 317)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not complete an annual review of her son Yâs Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan in line with the statutory guidance after a review meeting in May 2023, and delayed issuing an amended final EHC Plan until December 2023. The Council was at fault. The Council will apologise to Mrs X and pay her £200 to recognise the frustration caused to her by the delay. Lancashire County Council (24 006 267)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not meet the statutory deadline for issuing an amended Education, Health and Care Plan for her daughter which caused distress when preparing to move to a new school. We find the Council at fault for missing the deadline and not clearly responding to Miss Xâs concerns which caused distress, uncertainty and frustration. The Council will make a symbolic payment to Miss X to remedy the injustice caused. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (24 006 582)
Summary: Miss X complained about how an appeal panel considered her appeal for a place at a school for Y. We have decided to discontinue our investigation as the Council has offered to reconsider Miss Xâs appeal and further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. Suffolk County Council (24 011 316)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about contact arrangements for Miss Xâs children. Any complaint about the Council not adhering to the court order, or request for different contact arrangements is a matter only a court could resolve. London Borough of Harrow (24 012 043)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision to refuse the complainantsâ application and appeal for a Blue Badge for their son. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Councilâs part. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (24 013 568)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the contents of an assessment. This is because the Council intends to seek Mr Xâs views and add them to the case file. Therefore further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Wokingham Borough Council (23 016 971)
Summary: We found fault in the Councilâs failure to provide suitable education for the complainantâs son (Y) from the end of February until mid-June 2023, in its failure to ensure all Yâs special educational provision were delivered to him and in the way the Council dealt with the complainantâs (Ms X) complaint. We did not find fault in the Councilâs personal budget process. The Councilâs fault caused injustice to Y and Ms X. The Council agreed to apologise, make symbolic payments and review its complaint handling. Somerset Council (23 018 961)
Summary: Mrs X complained her son, A, was not provided with a suitable education and therapies during the period he was unable to attend school She also complained the Council, took too long to respond to her complaint. We found the Council was at fault for the delay, a failure to establish what a suitable education was for A and delay in implementing therapies for him. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X and A. Kent County Council (23 020 046)
Summary: Mrs B complained about the Councilâs handling of various matters concerned with their childâs special educational needs. We found fault with the Councilâs delay in issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan and then for amending that plan without proper consultation. This caused injustice to Mrs B as distress and loss of opportunity to comment. The Council has accepted these findings. At the end of this statement, we set out the action it has agreed to remedy that injustice and make a service improvement to prevent a repeat. Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (24 000 692)
Summary: there was delay issuing Ms Mâs son Bâs Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan, and problems with the tuition arranged by the Council when he did not attend school. The Council has completed a thorough investigation and offered a satisfactory remedy. East Sussex County Council (24 001 348)
Summary: Miss F complained on behalf of her adult daughter that the Council had failed to make special educational needs provision for her. We found fault which caused distress and lack of provision. The Council has agreed to apologise and make payments to remedy that injustice. Wiltshire Council (24 001 707)
Summary: Mrs F complained the Council delayed reassessing her sonâs education, health and care needs and failed to put alternative provision in place. We found fault. The Council has agreed to make a payment to remedy the injustice caused. Derbyshire County Council (24 004 229)
Summary: Mr F complained about delay by the Council completing an education, health and care (EHC) needs assessment for his daughter, G. The Council upheld his complaint, apologised and offered a payment of £500 for the time, trouble and distress the delay caused. We have recommended a remedy for the impact on Gâs education. Suffolk County Council (24 011 021)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Council failing to provide a sufficient personal budget that would enable the family to deliver the bespoke education other than at school package as outlined in her childâs education, health and care plan. This is because an investigation would not lead to any worthwhile outcomes. Surrey County Council (24 011 410)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay by the Council issuing an Education Health and Care Plan and the delivery of SEN provision and alternative education. Investigation by us would not be likely to lead to a worthwhile outcome. The Council has already offered a suitable remedy for the injustice caused by the late issue of the Plan for Mrs Xâs child. The childâs inability to engage with the alternative provision offered in the autumn of 2023 means we could not say the Council should have done more. And a legal judgement prevents us considering what educational provision was offered for the child after November 2023. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 011 983)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in declining the complainantâs application and appeals for school transport assistance for her son. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Councilâs part. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (24 013 698)
Summary: Mrs X complained an appeal panel failed to properly consider her appeal for a place at School P. During our investigation, the Council said it would offer Mrs X a fresh appeal. We propose to end our investigation because the Councilâs proposed actions resolve Mrs Xâs outstanding concerns. Hertfordshire County Council (24 013 370)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs historic complaint that she was raped when she was a teenager in the Councilâs care over 20 years ago. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now. West Sussex County Council (24 013 727)
Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the actions of a Council support worker. There is no good reason to exercise the discretion available to do so. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (24 000 331)
Summary: Miss Y complained the Council failed to deliver the special educational provision in her child, Zâs Education Health and Care Plan and provide them with a suitable education. We have found fault by the Council, causing injustice, in failing to: make sure Z received all the special education provision in their Plan and properly investigate Zâs circumstances when they were struggling to attend school. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising to Miss Y, making payments to acknowledge the distress caused and impact on Z, and service improvements. Lancashire County Council (24 001 251)
Summary: We found fault with the Council for not taking responsibility for the complainantâs (Mr X) sonâs (Y) education when he was out of school, for the delays with Yâs Education Health and Care needs assessment and issuing Yâs Education Health and Care Plan and when dealing with Mr Xâs complaint. The Councilâs fault caused injustice to Y and Mr X. The Council agreed to apologise, to make symbolic payments and to carry out training for the special education and disabilities team and the complaint handling staff. Suffolk County Council (24 005 412)
Summary: Ms F complains the Council has not investigated her complaint that it had failed to make provision for her sonâs special educational and social care needs. I have ended our investigation. This is because it is outside the Ombudsmanâs jurisdiction as Ms F appealed to the SEND Tribunal. Slough Borough Council (24 006 316)
Summary: Mrs X complains there were failings in the way the Council dealt with her sonâs special education needs and carried out an Education Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment causing distress and loss of educational provision. We will not investigate Mrs Xâs concerns about the EHC needs assessment in 2022 to 2023 because the complaint is late. We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaints about the Councilâs decision not to issue an EHC Plan, and when it did, the school setting for Y as Mrs X has the right of appeal against the decisions. So, we have ended our investigation. London Borough of Southwark (24 006 904)
Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to deliver part of Yâs special educational needs support for a period of more than a school term. It should offer him a symbolic financial remedy to recognise his likely injustice. Essex County Council (24 009 658)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision to refuse his application for free school transport for his son. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. Birmingham City Council (24 010 448)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about post-16 transport. The Council changed its original decision and agreed to provide specialist transport. This is the outcome Mrs X wanted. An investigation would not achieve anything more and the personal injustice caused is not significant enough to warrant an investigation. Surrey County Council (24 010 638)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the delivery of provision in her childâs Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. An investigation would be unlikely to add anything to the response Mrs X has already received or achieve a worthwhile outcome. Gloucestershire County Council (24 010 882)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more. Leeds City Council (24 010 901)
Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed carrying out an Education Health and Care needs assessment for a child. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by offering to make a suitable payment to the complainant to remedy the injustice this caused. West Northamptonshire Council (24 011 234)
Summary: We cannot investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the school named in an Education Health and Care Plan because she has appealed to the Tribunal. Manchester City Council (24 011 333)
Summary: We cannot investigate how the Council decided on the placement it would name in an Education, Health, and Care Plan. This is because Ms X had a right to appeal this decision and it would have been reasonable to expect her to use this right. Nor will we investigate Ms Xâs complaint about delays in issuing the plan, because there is no significant injustice remaining that would justify an investigation. London Borough of Sutton (24 011 359)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged delay by the Council in meeting Ms Xâs childâs special educational needs. The complaint is late, and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate these matters now. Even if that were not so, Ms X exercised her right to appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. The content of the childâs Education Health and Care Plan, and how the Council assessed the childâs needs in deciding that content and the school placement, are matters that we could not investigate. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (24 014 972)
Summary: We cannot investigate Ms Xâs complaint about her childâs education and the content of their Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because Ms X has used her right of appeal and so the complaint is outside our jurisdiction. Sheffield City Council (24 006 007)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Councilâs childrenâs services. This is because the law prevents us from investigating what happened in court proceedings. There is insufficient evidence of fault regarding safeguarding decisions made by the Council and further investigation into other matters would not lead to a different outcome. Sunderland City Council (24 011 329)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs actions in respect of Mr Xâs family. Doing so would be unlikely to lead to the outcome Mr X is seeking. The recent child protection decision was one the Council was entitled to take given the nature of the referral it received. Most of the outcomes Mr X is seeking could only be delivered by a court, and the Information Commissionerâs Office is better placed than us to consider data matters. We also lack powers to recommend disciplinary action against staff. Matters dating back significantly more than 12 months are also late, and Mr X could have complained about these earlier matters sooner. West Northamptonshire Council (24 015 873)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the circumstances in which the complainant's child went into the Councilâs care. This is because it does not meet the tests set out in our Assessment Code. We have no remit to investigate matters which are currently subject to or closely linked to court proceedings. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (24 010 347)
Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed considering a request for a reassessment of a childâs Special Educational Needs. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by offering to make a suitable payment to the complainant to remedy the injustice this caused. Lancashire County Council (24 012 089)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the Council failing to request a specific Occupational Therapy assessment as part of the Education, Health and Care Plan process. This is because it was reasonable for Miss X to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). |
