A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions

Summary: Mrs Y complained that the Council failed to provide her child with a suitable education and delayed completing their Education Health and Care needs assessment. Mrs Y also complained about delays by the Council in responding to her complaint. We have not found fault by the Council regarding the provision of a suitable education or the completion of the Education Health and Care needs assessment. We have found fault, causing injustice, with its handling of Mrs Y’s complaint. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising to Mrs Y, making a payment to reflect the upset caused and a service improvement.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan after an annual review. And that her child, Y, missed education because of illness. There was a delay of four months in issuing a final Education, Health and Care Plan after the annual review. There was also a failure to adequately monitor Y’s education when they were ill for extended periods of time and not in school. A payment and apology remedies the injustice from the delay and uncertainty to Miss X and Y.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide support to her son when he could not attend school due to mental health needs causing distress and lost educational opportunities. Ms X also complained the Council issued an Education Health and Care Plan for her son and failed to include an Education Other than at School package it agreed. The Council’s offer is a suitable remedy to Ms X for missed provision and she has appealed to the SEND Tribunal, so we have ended our investigation into the complaint.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to ensure her child (Y) received the specialist provision set out in their Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council failed to ensure Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) was in place between December 2023 until February 2025. This caused Mrs X distress, frustration and uncertainty and meant Y’s needs went unmet for longer than necessary. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise this.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide the complainant’s child with home to school transport. This is because there is inadequate evidence of fault.

Summary: We upheld Mr X’s complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care process regarding his child, Y. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by apologising to Mr X and paying him a symbolic payment to acknowledge the injustice caused.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled his child’s Education, Health and Care Plan because we cannot investigate any matter connected to a decision that has been appealed to a tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to cease her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because it is reasonable to expect Ms X to ask the tribunal to consider a late appeal of the Council’s decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide the complainant’s child with home to school transport. This is because there is inadequate evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a school admissions’ application appeal. It is unlikely we would find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to put Mr X’s children on Child in Need plans and a Child Protection Plan. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its decision making process, and investigation would not achieve a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about children services’ actions. We have upheld Miss X’s complaint as the Council has now agreed to follow the Children Act statutory complaints’ procedure.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Miss X’s complaint. Investigation by us of the substantive child protection matters underlying the complaint would be unlikely to lead to a finding of fault, and there would thus be no worthwhile outcome from investigating how the Council dealt with the complaint about these matters.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council is at fault in considering child protection action in respect of the complainant’s children. Investigation would not achieve the outcome the complainant wants and is not therefore warranted.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about safeguarding concerns relating to her children. The issues raised are not separable from matters that are being considered in court.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the actions of the Council concerning his family. The matters he complains of are closely linked to matters now subject to court action regarding the care and residency arrangements for a child. A legal bar prevents us from investigating them, both now and permanently after the end of the court action.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about what the Council wrote about Mr X. This matter is closely related to matters that either were or could reasonably have been raised during court proceedings regarding Mr X’s child. A legal bar permanently prevents us investigating these matters.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the actions of the Council’s children’s services in relation to her children. This is because the law prevents us from investigating matters that have been before a court.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to arrange school transport for her son, Y. Mrs X says this has caused her frustration and she has had to arrange her own transport for Y. I have found fault in the Councils actions. We recommend the Council issues Mrs X with an apology, pays her a financial payment and completes service improvements.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed issuing her child Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan within the statutory timescales. The Council was at fault for delay in finalising Y’s EHC Plan. The Council has already apologised for the delay. The Council will also make a symbolic payment to Miss X for the frustration, uncertainty and distress the delays caused. The Council has already put in place an action plan to improve its service.

Summary: Miss X complained about a school admission appeal panel’s decision to refuse her appeal. The admission authority was at fault for failing to record how it made decisions, failing to consider all of the evidence and failing to properly explain decisions. This caused Miss X and Y uncertainty. The admission authority will apologise, arrange a fresh appeal and remind staff of the importance of recording decision making and explaining decisions.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaints about delays in the annual review of her child’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan, the decision to name a specific school within the EHC Plan, or her concerns about the Council’s consultation with schools. This is because Mrs X had a right to appeal to a Tribunal and it was reasonable for her to use that right. For the remainder, an investigation is unlikely to achieve any additional outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs 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 will not investigate this complaint that the complainant’s son was not provided with temporary washing aids. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to act to ensure that the complainant’s daughter’s special educational needs are met. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation, and it would be reasonable for the complainant to use her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) about the content of her daughter’s Education Health and Care plan.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council ignoring his concerns about his child’s welfare since 2015. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s actions in completing a court ordered assessment. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider his complaint until the ongoing court proceedings have concluded.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the permanent exclusion of the complainant’s daughter from school. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to properly identify and meet the complainant’s daughter’s special educational needs. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation, and it would have been reasonable for the complainant to use her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability).

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to decline to consider a complaint about the welfare of a child in its care. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

Summary: Miss B complained about the Council’s handling of her daughter’s Education, Health and Care Plan. We have found the Council at fault for a delay in completing the annual review held in May 2023 and its failure to consider a request for a personal budget in this time. These faults have caused Miss B distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make symbolic payments to Miss B and issue a reminder to its staff to ensure they are aware of the Council duty to respond to personal budget requests.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to refuse her request for delayed entry to reception for her summer born twins. We found the Council was at fault because it failed to properly consider whether a delayed entry was in their best interests. This caused Mrs X distress and frustration. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mrs X. It will also take action to improve its service.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the changes the Council made to move its short breaks booking scheme online as there were no activities available for young adults over 18 with an Education, Health and Care Plan, like her son. This meant she could not use her allocated vouchers and had to privately fund activities for her son. We found the Council at fault. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to apologise, reimburse Mrs X for activities privately paid for, and make a symbolic payment to recognise her injustice.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to make alternative education provision for her child and delayed in issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan for her. The Council was at fault as it did not consider if it had a duty to provide alternative education provision when Y struggled to attend school from September 2023, delayed in issuing Y’s final Education, Health and Care Plan and delayed in securing the speech and language therapy provision in the Plan. These faults caused distress and uncertainty to Mrs X and disadvantaged Y. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising to Mrs X and making a symbolic payment of £1100 to acknowledge the distress caused to her and the disadvantage caused to Y.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the content of an Education Health and Care Plan and education provided as Ms X has appealed to the Tribunal. There is not sufficient injustice in a short delay to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss 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 cannot investigate Mrs Y’s complaint about the content and school named in her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. These issues are the subject of a SEND Tribunal appeal. We cannot investigate Mrs Y’s complaint about the adequacy of an educational psychologist report. This is because it is closely linked to the appeal.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council failing to make adjustments for Mr X’s disability in conducting a school admission appeal hearing. This is because Mr X has started court action against the Council regarding these matters and a legal bar thus now permanently prevents us investigating them.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s in-year admissions process. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to reach a finding of fault. If Mr X believes the Council’s admission arrangements are unlawful it is a matter for the Office of the Schools Adjudicator. Mr X’s claim the Council’s actions have led to him suffering a financial loss is best considered by the courts.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss Y’s complaint about changes made to an educational psychologist’s report concerning her child. This is because it is closely linked to her SEND Tribunal appeal about her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide adequate support to her and Mr Y, meaning their needs were not met and causing distress. We do not find the Council at fault for how it considered Mrs X’s complaint as part of the statutory complaints procedure. We will therefore not consider the substantive matter.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly investigate or address her complaints about the Council’s actions following the decision to remove her son from her care. She also complained the Council has failed to provide an appropriate remedy. We found the Council’s delays, poor record keeping, failings in communication and use of an inappropriate contact centre are fault. This fault caused Mrs X and her son unnecessary distress. The Council has agreed to make payments to Mrs X and Y to remedy this injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Miss X’s complaints. The substantive matters in the complaints are closely linked to matters concerning the care of children which are or have recently been subject to court action. We are legally prevented from investigating these matters.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of matters involving his children. We could not add to the Council’s investigation and responses under all three stages of the statutory complaints process. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Summary: Ms X complained that the Council had failed to re-assess her son’s (Y) social care needs, prepare a child in need plan for him and carry out a carer’s assessment for her. We found fault with the Council for its failure to consider Ms X’s complaint through its children’s statutory complaint procedure. The Council’s fault caused injustice to Ms X. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment for Ms X’s distress.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a Council social worker. This is because we would achieve nothing significant by doing so.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to complete his child’s (Y) Education, Health and Care Plan annual review. He also complained the Council did not provide Y with suitable education and with the provisions contained in his Plan after he was excluded from his school and its poor communication with Mr X. There were various faults by the Council which caused injustice to Y and Mr X. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: The Council failed to review Mrs M’s son B’s education, health and care (EHC) plan in 2023 and acknowledged that it missed opportunities to check he was receiving suitable education. However, the evidence available suggests it is unlikely there was a need for the Council to have made alternative arrangements for B’s education.

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council supported his child, Y’s, special educational needs. There was fault in how the Council failed to act when it became aware some of Y’s support was not being provided and in significant delays responding to Mr X’s complaint. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him a financial remedy.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s delay issuing her child, Y’s amended final Education, Health and Care Plan, failed to provide suitable alternative provision while Y was out of school, communicated poorly and delayed responding to her complaint. We find the Council at fault, causing Miss X avoidable distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Miss X, and issue Y’s amended final EHC Plan.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the special educational needs provision made by the Council for Mrs X’s child. We cannot investigate the content of the school’s curriculum. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reacted to the child’s placement breaking down to warrant investigation. And Mrs X’s desired outcome of having her child’s Education Health and Care Plan amended to name tuition at home is something where there is a right of appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal it would be reasonable to use if the Council declines to amend it as she wishes. Investigation by us would be unlikely to lead to any worthwhile outcome.

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: Miss X complained about how the Council manged her savings as a looked after child. There was fault in how the Council delayed transferring Miss X’s savings to her Child Trust Fund account and how it failed to provide Miss X with clear information about her savings. This caused Miss X avoidable distress for which the Council agreed to apologise and pay her a financial remedy. It also agreed to review its policy and practices around savings for looked after children.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about a LADO investigation and the removal of a child they were fostering. There was no fault in the Council’s response to allegations by a child Mr and Mrs X fostered.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s representations to court. The law prevents us investigating the content of court reports.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms 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 and could reasonably be raised in court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about child protection action and alleged failures by the Council. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate it now.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint the Council has failed to properly safeguard her grandchild. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement. We also could not add to the Council’s response.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s actions in its child protection involvement with his child. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider it now. Also, the law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been subject to court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s actions in its child protection involvement with her child. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider her complaint whilst the case is subject to ongoing court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful blue badge application for the complainant’s child. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the delay in the Council responding to her stage two complaint under the children statutory complaints procedure. This is because the Council has already provided an appropriate remedy to recognise the injustice caused by the faults accepted.

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 have found the Council at fault for the delay in securing alternative education provision for Miss X’s daughter when she could not attend school. This caused her to miss a half term of education. The Council has agreed to apologise and make Miss X a payment in recognition of the missed education.

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 son. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council.