| 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. South Gloucestershire Council (23 017 552)
Summary: There was fault by the Council. It took too long to deal with Mrs Bâs 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 Councilâs shortcomings caused distress and frustration, and meant that Mrs Bâs 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. Devon County Council (24 007 013)
Summary: Miss X complained about delays in her son, Yâs, 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. East Sussex County Council (24 009 698)
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 Dâs Education Health and Care Plan. We find no fault in the alternative provision initially offered by the Council. However, there was delay in reviewing Dâs 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. Lancashire County Council (24 011 066)
Summary: Ms A complained the Council failed to ensure Mrs Xâs 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 Xâs 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 Xâs child £2,300 for their missed education caused by its fault. Derbyshire County Council (24 011 336)
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. Buckinghamshire Council (24 016 232)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs handling of Mr and Mrs Xâs 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. Wokingham Borough Council (24 017 714)
Summary: We cannot investigate some of Miss Xâs complaint about the content of her child, Yâs, 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. Norfolk County Council (24 019 501)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about whether an Education Health and Care Plan meets a childâs 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. Kent County Council (24 020 631)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs 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. Essex County Council (24 021 450)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs 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)
Cambridgeshire County Council (24 021 663) Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 019 584)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about a child and family assessment. We are unlikely to achieve more than the Council has offered and the Information Commissionerâs Office is better placed. Buckinghamshire Council (24 019 784)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs safeguarding enquiries regarding his child, Y. This is because the Council apologised, and an investigation is unlikely to achieve anything further. London Borough of Ealing (24 020 033)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing Mr Xâs child a blue badge. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Councilâs decision-making to warrant us investigating. London Borough of Merton (24 020 060)
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 Xâs 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 Councilâs response. Devon County Council (24 020 936)
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 complainantâs subsequent complaint. The complaint is late and there are no grounds for us to investigate it now. West Sussex County Council (24 003 266)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Councilâs handling of her daughterâs 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. Staffordshire County Council (24 008 290)
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. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (24 008 722)
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. Central Bedfordshire Council (24 008 847)
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. Lancashire County Council (24 011 089)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Councilâs actions in relation to her child, Yâs 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. Cambridgeshire County Council (24 019 754)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about delays in producing an Education Health and Care Plan as the Council has agreed to a proportionate way to resolve the complaint. Hertfordshire County Council (24 019 788)
Summary: We have upheld Ms Xâs complaint about the Councilâs delay in completing the reviews of her childrenâs Education, Health and Care plans. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaints early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. City of Doncaster Council (24 020 084)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council delayed amending and issuing the complainantâs sonâs Education Health and Care plan. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Councilâs part to warrant investigation. Hampshire County Council (24 020 379)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs 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. Central Bedfordshire Council (24 020 889)
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. Essex County Council (24 022 307)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs 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. Lancashire County Council (24 022 496)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs 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. East Sussex County Council (24 008 152)
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 Councilâs 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. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (24 008 242)
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 Councilâs decision that she was not entitled to a pathway plan, personal advisor, or ongoing support, was wrong. We have found the Investigating Officerâs 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 Xâs 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. West Northamptonshire Council (24 021 275)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs 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. London Borough of Barnet (24 001 743)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not fully deliver provision set out in her sonâs 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. Birmingham City Council (24 009 988)
Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Miss Xâs complaint about the Councilâs 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. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (24 010 023)
Summary: Mrs F complained about the Councilâs handling of her sonâs 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 sonâs SEN provision. The Council has agreed to issues the final plan and make a payment to Mrs F to remedy this injustice. Somerset Council (24 010 815)
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. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (24 011 315)
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 Yâs 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 Xâs 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 Councilâs actions have impacted upon Yâs 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 Yâs education without delay. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (24 017 140)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Councilâs 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. Nottinghamshire County Council (24 018 884)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs handling of Mr Yâs 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. Essex County Council (24 019 946)
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. Essex County Council (24 020 236)
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. Buckinghamshire Council (24 020 745)
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. Brighton & Hove City Council (24 021 113)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs consultation into changes to its school admission arrangements. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Essex County Council (24 021 175)
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. Essex County Council (24 021 381)
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. Lancashire County Council (24 006 809)
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. London Borough of Haringey (24 011 580)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council has failed to properly investigate her complaints about the Councilâs 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 Councilâs 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. Westminster City Council (24 018 132)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about how the Council conducted its statutory childrenâs complaints investigation. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. We will not investigate some of Mr Xâs complaint because the injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement. We will not investigate the rest of Mr Xâs complaint because another body is better placed. Nottingham City Council (24 018 998)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs child protection investigation and outcome. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to consider it now. London Borough of Barnet (24 019 568)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the Councilâs 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. London Borough of Bexley (24 020 346)
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 Xâs organisation to warrant investigation. Essex County Council (24 021 505)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Council sharing information with a family member without his permission. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Councilâs 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 Commissionerâs Office. Suffolk County Council (24 020 538)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in declining to include the provision of school transport in the complainantâs daughterâs 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 Ombudsmanâs jurisdiction. Cambridgeshire County Council (24 018 528)
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. Kent County Council (24 020 426)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to properly consider the complainantâs 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. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (24 000 867)
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 Xâs 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. Staffordshire County Council (24 002 043)
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 Xâs concerns. The Council agreed to make payments to Mrs X to acknowledge Yâs loss of provision and for the distress caused to her. Warwickshire County Council (24 002 581)
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 Yâs annual review, and failed to ensure Yâs school was delivering the provision in the Plan once it was issued. The Council also delayed in responding to Mrs Xâs complaint. The Council should apologise, make a payment to Mrs X and review its processes. Cornwall Council (24 004 365)
Summary: Mr X complained about the Councilâs delays during the Education, Health and Care needs assessment process for his son. He also complained the Councilâs 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 Xâs 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. Cheshire East Council (24 008 973)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to secure the special educational provision her in daughter, Wâs, 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 Wâs needs for her EHC Plan and issue a staff reminder. London Borough of Hackney (24 010 632)
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 Xâs child from February 2024 to June 2024, totalling one term. We also found fault with the Councilâs handling of Ms Xâs 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. Devon County Council (24 019 547)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs 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 Xâs 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. West Northamptonshire Council (24 020 696)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to respond appropriately to an incident in which the complainantâs sonâs 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. Wokingham Borough Council (24 020 781)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council fining Mr X for his childâs unauthorised school absence. This is because Mr X had a right to go to a magistrateâs court to contest the fine it would have been reasonable to use. Kent County Council (24 022 223)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs 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 Councilâs decision, which we do not. Lancashire County Council (24 019 702)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision to place his children on child protection plans. Mr Xâs inability to appeal the Councilâs decision is unlikely to have caused him significant injustice that would justify us investigating the matter further. Devon County Council (24 020 587)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs handling of a safeguarding enquiry involving his child. We could not add to the investigation and response the Council has already provided to Mr Xâs complaint. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (24 020 715)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about issues involving Mrs Xâs childâs attendance at a summer club. The Councilâs role in these matters is limited and investigation is unlikely to lead to a finding of fault. West Northamptonshire Council (24 021 015)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the Councilâs 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. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (24 021 357)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the Councilâs 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. London Borough of Redbridge (24 004 652)
Summary: Ms X complained about the Councilâs actions in relation to her child, Yâs, 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. Norfolk County Council (24 007 458)
Summary: We found fault on Mr Yâs 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 Zâs 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. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 010 995)
Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council delayed in its decision to refuse to reassess her son, Yâs, 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. Derbyshire County Council (24 012 164)
Summary: We cannot investigate Miss Xâs complaint that the Councilâs 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. Kent County Council (24 019 050)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs 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. Leeds City Council (24 019 771)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about a delayed Education Health and Care Plan process. It is unlikely we could achieve a significantly different outcome than the Council offered. London Borough of Barnet (24 019 998)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the payment of school transport for Ms Xâs child. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement. Lancashire County Council (24 020 546)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to have appropriate oversight of the school the complainantâs 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 Councilâs part in 2024 causing the complainant injustice to warrant investigation. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (24 001 148)
Summary: Mr X complained that the Council did not deal with child protection issues properly. The Council did not properly assess Mr Xâs circumstances and delayed making a reassessment. Mr X suffered avoidable distress. The Council should pay Mr X £4,724. Torbay Council (24 020 582)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs handling of a safeguarding referral about his child. Further investigation by this office could not add to the response the Council has already provided. Nottinghamshire County Council (24 020 832)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a safeguarding assessment. This is because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome. London Borough of Hackney (25 000 361)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the actions of the Councilâs childrenâs services. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault with the Councilâs decision not to consider Mr Xâs complaint until after court proceedings have concluded. Hertfordshire County Council (23 019 105)
Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to deliver Ms Xâs sonâs 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 sonâs direct payments. |
