A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions

Summary: There was fault by the Council. It took too long to deal with Mrs B’s complaints to it. It was entitled to decide that it did not have a duty to provide alternative educational provision when her son could not attend school, but it should have reviewed its decision and arranged the provision sooner when it received new information. There was no fault when the Council took two weeks longer than usually allowed to issue a final Education Health and Care Plan. The Council’s shortcomings caused distress and frustration, and meant that Mrs B’s child missed out on educational provision. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B, make symbolic payments, and review its policy on alternative educational provision to make it clearer.

Summary: Miss X complained about delays in her son, Y’s, Education, Health and Care needs assessment. She said Y has been out of school since February 2023 and she incurred significant costs securing educational provision for him. Miss X said this frustrated and distressed her and Y. There was fault in the way the Council delayed completing the needs assessment. This frustrated Miss X and frustrated her right of appeal to the Tribunal. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment and provide guidance to its staff.

Summary: Mrs Y complains the alternative provision offered by the Council was not suitable for her son, D, after he was permanently excluded from primary school. She also complains about delays in reviewing D’s Education Health and Care Plan. We find no fault in the alternative provision initially offered by the Council. However, there was delay in reviewing D’s plan which meant the type of interim provision was not changed as quickly as it should have been. The Council will apologise and pay £200 to Mrs Y in recognition of her delayed appeal rights and £1500 to D for his educational benefit.

Summary: Ms A complained the Council failed to ensure Mrs X’s child received suitable education since September 2023. Ms A also complained the Council failed to complete an Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment of for Mrs X’s child. We found fault for the Council failing to properly consider and act on its Section 19 duty for a total of 19 weeks from January 2024 to July 2024. We also found fault with the Council failing to consider when it should complete an Education, Health and Care Plan Needs Assessment. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £250 for the avoidable frustration and inconvenience its fault caused her. The Council also agreed to pay Mrs X’s child £2,300 for their missed education caused by its fault.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not issue draft and final Education, Health and Care Plans for her child Y within legal timescales, and withdrew special educational provision from Y. I find the Council at fault for missing the legal timescales and withdrawing educational provision which caused injustice in the form of distress and missed provision. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr and Mrs X’s application for post-16 transport. The injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We cannot investigate some of Miss X’s complaint about the content of her child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care Plan because she appealed to a Tribunal. We will not investigate the remaining matters regarding delay and poor communication because the Council apologised, and the remaining injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about whether an Education Health and Care Plan meets a child’s needs as it is reasonable to expect her to appeal to the Tribunal. We will not investigate her complaint about whether specified education provision was given, as it is unlikely we would find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to charge £600 for post-16 school transport for his child. There is not enough evidence of fault in how a transport panel considered Mr X's appeal against the original decision to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more.

Cambridgeshire County Council (24 021 663)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a child and family assessment. We are unlikely to achieve more than the Council has offered and the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s safeguarding enquiries regarding his child, Y. This is because the Council apologised, and an investigation is unlikely to achieve anything further.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing Mr X’s child a blue badge. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to warrant us investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with Mr X and child in need matters involving his children. The Council has already investigated and responded to Mr X’s concerns under all three stages of the statutory complaint procedure. It has apologised and offered remedial action and payment for the injustice caused by the faults identified. We could not add to the Council’s response.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in the course of child protection action and in its response to the complainant’s subsequent complaint. The complaint is late and there are no grounds for us to investigate it now.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of her daughter’s Education, Health and Care Plan in late 2022 and the lack of alternative provision since January 2023. We have found the Council was at fault for the delay in finalising Plans following reviews in October 2022 and March 2023. This caused Mrs X and S avoidable distress, uncertainty and loss of provision from section F of the Plan. The Council has already accepted some of the faults and apologised together with our further recommendations.

Summary: Mr D complained the Council caused delay in the Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan process, failed to provide his child (X) with an education, and how it handled his concerns. We found fault by the Council for causing unnecessary delays in the EHC plan process, to arrange educational provision for X, and provide Mr D a refund for agreed provision. The Council will apologise and make payment to Mr D to acknowledge the injustice this caused X and the family.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to arrange suitable education for her child and it is refusing to reimburse costs for the educational provision she arranged privately. The Council was not at fault for the length of time it took to arrange alternative provision and I am satisfied the Council considered all relevant information when deciding what and how much provision was suitable for her child. There is no fault and no injustice to Mrs X or to her child.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to refer her daughter to the complex needs team and failed to make section 19 provision. This has caused Ms X distress and her daughter to miss out on education. The Council is at fault for failing to make a decision on the section 19 duty and providing a written copy of this to Ms X. This has caused uncertainty. I have recommended a remedy.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s actions in relation to her child, Y’s education. The Council was at fault. It failed to provide Y with education for five months after they were permanently excluded from school. It delayed completing an Education, Health and Care needs assessment and subsequently, delayed issuing a final amended Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council also poorly communicated with Mrs X. The Council has already apologised to Mrs X. The Council has agreed to make a further apology to Mrs X and a payment to recognise the education Y did not receive and for the distress and frustration the matter caused her.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about delays in producing an Education Health and Care Plan as the Council has agreed to a proportionate way to resolve the complaint.

Summary: We have upheld Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in completing the reviews of her children’s Education, Health and Care plans. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaints early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council delayed amending and issuing the complainant’s son’s Education Health and Care plan. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council imposing controls on how he can contact the Council. It is unlikely we would find he has been caused any significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a school transport appeal provided by the Council. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more.

Summary: Mrs B complained about the process leading to, and content of, a section 17 family assessment in respect of her son, C. We have found fault because the Council did not arrange a proper assessment visit with Mrs B or allow her the opportunity to comment on negative conclusions reached about her as part of the assessment. We welcome the Council’s offer to meet with Mrs B now and consider if any further changes to the assessment are possible. The Council has also agreed to apologise to Mrs B, pay her £300 and improve its procedures for the future.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to fulfil its duties towards her as a Looked After Child. She said the Council failed to involve her in discussions about her care planning and whether it could continue to accommodate her. Ms X also said the Council’s decision that she was not entitled to a pathway plan, personal advisor, or ongoing support, was wrong. We have found the Investigating Officer’s stage two report failed to fully address identified injustice to Ms X. We have also found the Council at fault for inconsistencies in its adjudication response and for failing to show it properly considered whether it needed consent to support Ms X. The Council has agreed to pay a symbolic financial remedy to recognise Ms X’s lost opportunity to benefit from the support of personal advisors at a critical time. The Council has also agreed to review its decision on whether Ms X should have kept her status as an eligible and relevant child.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling following a safeguarding referral about his child. The law prevents us from investigating anything that is the subject of court proceedings and could reasonably be raised in court.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not fully deliver provision set out in her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan. We found fault because her son did not receive all of the provision linked to his plan in the 12 months after it was first issued. This caused Ms X avoidable distress and frustration. It also meant her son did not access the services he should have done. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X, make a payment to her, organise sessions to catch up on what her son missed and issue reminders to relevant staff.

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to secure alternative provision for her son when he was excluded from school. The Council acknowledged its failure and offered Miss X a remedy in line with our guidance on remedies which Miss X accepted. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mrs F complained about the Council’s handling of her son’s education, health and care plan. There was fault which caused Mrs F to lose her appeal rights and uncertainty and distress in relation to her son’s SEN provision. The Council has agreed to issues the final plan and make a payment to Mrs F to remedy this injustice.

Summary: Mrs D complained the Council failed to provide alternative and special educational needs provision for her son, J, when he stopped attending school. We found fault which caused uncertainty to Mrs D and J. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to remedy this.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council took too long to act when they advised it they could no longer home educate their child, Y. The Council is at fault for delays in consulting with schools, delay in issuing Y’s final Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan, failing to provide Y with the provision in his EHC Plan when Mrs X had advised it she could no longer home educate him and failing to provide a timely response to Mrs X’s complaint and her concerns. This has resulted in Y missing out on a school place in September 2024, he is still at home and the Council expect him to continue to be home educated when Mrs X told the Council in November 2023 she could no longer home educate him, the Council’s actions have impacted upon Y’s education and development and they have caused avoidable distress to Mr and Mrs X. The Council has agreed to provide a remedy payment to acknowledge the injustice caused and to review Y’s education without delay.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for free home to school transport for her child. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr Y’s transfer to a post-16 educational placement. This is because there is either not enough evidence of fault by the Council or of any fault causing significant injustice, and Mr X, the complainant, has also used his appeal rights to the Tribunal.

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.

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.

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.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consultation into changes to its school admission arrangements. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

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.

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.

Summary: Mrs B complained about how the Council handled care and contact arrangements for her grandchildren. We have not investigated all aspects of the complaint because some matters have been considered by the court. The Council took longer than expected to arrange therapy for Mrs B as recommended by the court. It cannot show that it considered the timing of the therapy during this delay, nor that it explained to Mrs B why it was taking so long. This caused Mrs B significant distress. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B and make a symbolic payment to recognise the impact of the delay.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council has failed to properly investigate her complaints about the Council’s actions following the decision to place her grandson in her care. She also complained the Council has failed to address her concerns or provide an appropriate remedy. We found the Council’s failure to provide support and the use of an inappropriate contact centre are fault. This fault caused Miss X unnecessary distress. To remedy this, the Council will apologise and make a payment to Miss X.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council conducted its statutory children’s complaints investigation. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. We will not investigate some of Mr X’s complaint because the injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement. We will not investigate the rest of Mr X’s complaint because another body is better placed.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s child protection investigation and outcome. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to consider it now.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision-making relating to child protection arrangements for her child. This is because it is unlikely we would find any fault in the way the Council made its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not providing financial support for a young person who declined to leave a supported living placement, which Miss X said led to her organisation incurring a significant financial cost. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council declining to pay Miss X’s organisation to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council sharing information with a family member without his permission. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider his complaint whilst the case is subject to ongoing court proceedings. Also, the substantive complaint is about a data matter which is best considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in declining to include the provision of school transport in the complainant’s daughter’s Education Health and Care plan, and in failing to respond reasonably to her complaint about the matter. She used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and this places the complaint outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council completed an assessment which includes false information about the complainant. The complaint is late and there are no grounds for us to consider it now, and our intervention would not achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to properly consider the complainant’s concerns about the placement of her children with their father. This is because the complaint concerns matters which have been considered and decided in court, or are closely related to such matters.

Summary: Miss X complained that the Council failed to provide education to her son while he was out of school. We have found that the Council was at fault, because it failed to deliver home tuition to Miss X’s son for at least part of 2023. This meant he lost education, and he and Miss X likely suffered distress. The Council has agreed to make symbolic payments to recognise their injustice, and it will take steps to improve its service.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to ensure her child, Y received therapy provision in line with their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan between November 2022 and February 2024. The Council was at fault. It failed to ensure Y received the therapy provision and failed to carry out sufficient oversight or investigation in response to Mrs X’s concerns. The Council agreed to make payments to Mrs X to acknowledge Y’s loss of provision and for the distress caused to her.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to ensure her child, Y, received the provision in their Education, Health and Care Plan and delayed issuing an amended Plan following an annual review in March 2023. The Council delayed issuing the amended Plan following Y’s annual review, and failed to ensure Y’s school was delivering the provision in the Plan once it was issued. The Council also delayed in responding to Mrs X’s complaint. The Council should apologise, make a payment to Mrs X and review its processes.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s delays during the Education, Health and Care needs assessment process for his son. He also complained the Council’s communication was poor during the process. We find the Council was at fault for its delays during the Education, Health and Care needs assessment process and for its poor communication with Mr X. This caused frustration and distress and meant Mr X’s son lost out on special educational provision. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to apologise to Mr X and his son and make payments to reflect the injustice caused.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to secure the special educational provision her in daughter, W’s, Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council was at fault. To remedy their injustice, the Council will apologise to Mrs X and pay her £1400. It will arrange speech and language therapy provision for W. Lastly, the Council will review why it delayed reassessing W’s needs for her EHC Plan and issue a staff reminder.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide Alternative Provision of education for her child, who was out of education from October 2023 to June 2024. We found fault with the Council failing to provide Alternative Provision of education for Ms X’s child from February 2024 to June 2024, totalling one term. We also found fault with the Council’s handling of Ms X’s contacts and complaints through delays outside the complaint timescales and failure to respond to contacts. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X, pay her £100 for the avoidable inconvenience and frustration caused and £1,800 for her child's lost education.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council has failed to provide suitable education provision for her child. The provision in place after the Council issued its amended Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan is not separable from Mrs X’s appeal to a tribunal. It is unlikely we would find fault with the Council in how provision was met before the EHC Plan was amended.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to respond appropriately to an incident in which the complainant’s son’s wheelchair suffered damage. This is because the complaint concerns liability for damage to property. The complainant may pursue the matter in court and it would be reasonable for her to do so.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council fining Mr X for his child’s unauthorised school absence. This is because Mr X had a right to go to a magistrate’s court to contest the fine it would have been reasonable to use.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about an educational psychologist report commissioned as part of the Education Health and Care needs assessment process for her son. This is because Mrs X believes the report led to the wrongful refusal of her application for an Education Health and Care Plan and it would be reasonable for her to appeal against this decision. The Tribunal is better placed to determine whether the report was flawed and it has the power to overturn the Council’s decision, which we do not.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to place his children on child protection plans. Mr X’s inability to appeal the Council’s decision is unlikely to have caused him significant injustice that would justify us investigating the matter further.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a safeguarding enquiry involving his child. We could not add to the investigation and response the Council has already provided to Mr X’s complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about issues involving Mrs X’s child’s attendance at a summer club. The Council’s role in these matters is limited and investigation is unlikely to lead to a finding of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with her children. The law prevents us from investigating anything that is the subject of court proceedings. We also cannot achieve the outcome Miss X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with her child. The law prevents us from investigating anything that has been the subject of court proceedings or could have reasonably been raised in court. We cannot achieve the outcome Ms X wants.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s actions in relation to her child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council was at fault. It delayed providing Y with some provision and has still not secured and delivered other provision as outlined in the EHC Plan. The Council also poorly communicated with Ms X when she complained. The Council has agreed it will make Ms X a symbolic payment to recognise the provision Y has not received and for the distress and frustration it caused to Ms X. The Council will also apologise to Ms X. The Council will provide us with an action plan which explains how it will improve its service to prevent a recurrence of fault. It will also remind staff of the response timescales within its complaints procedure.

Summary: We found fault on Mr Y’s complaint about the Council failing to provide his son, Z, with suitable alternative education since he stopped attending school. It delayed issuing an Education, Health and Care plan. It failed to show it assessed Z’s needs when he stopped going to school or considered whether he was receiving a suitable education which was reasonably available and accessible. It also failed to show a record of its decision. These caused distress as Z lost education, had the uncertainty about whether it properly considered his situation, and caused frustration and stress. The Council agreed to send an apology, pay for missed education, pay for the distress caused by the delay and other fault, and actions it has now taken.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council delayed in its decision to refuse to reassess her son, Y’s, special educational needs, and delayed in issuing an amended Education, Health and Care Plan following an annual review. We found fault on the part of the Council which caused injustice to Mrs X and Y in the form of distress and delayed access to suitable educational provision. The Council has agreed to make symbolic payments to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council’s actions delayed an Education Health and Care needs assessment. This is because Miss X used her right of appeal to a tribunal and we cannot investigate the actions of the Council during that appeal.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the provision of free to home to school transport. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a delayed Education Health and Care Plan process. It is unlikely we could achieve a significantly different outcome than the Council offered.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the payment of school transport for Ms X’s child. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to have appropriate oversight of the school the complainant’s son attended, and failed to complete a review of his Education Health and Care plan during his attendance. Her complaint about matters before 2024 is late and there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to consider it now. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part in 2024 causing the complainant injustice to warrant investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained that the Council did not deal with child protection issues properly. The Council did not properly assess Mr X’s circumstances and delayed making a reassessment. Mr X suffered avoidable distress. The Council should pay Mr X £4,724.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a safeguarding referral about his child. Further investigation by this office could not add to the response the Council has already provided.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a safeguarding assessment. This is because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the actions of the Council’s children’s services. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault with the Council’s decision not to consider Mr X’s complaint until after court proceedings have concluded.

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to deliver Ms X’s son’s special educational needs support, and for failing to review his direct payments when Ms X asked it to. It has already arranged the support and, without our involvement, offered some suitable remedies for the injustice Ms X and her son suffered. It has now also agreed to make an additional symbolic payment to Ms X to recognise the injustice which may have been caused from its failure to review her son’s direct payments.