| 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. Leicester City Council (23 008 799)
Summary: Miss X complained about the Councils handling of her case when she reported concerns about her sons wellbeing at school to the Local Authority Designated Officer. Miss X says the Councils actions caused her considerable avoidable distress. We found some fault by the Council and the Council has agreed to provide an apology and a financial remedy to Miss X. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (23 013 509)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the complainants childrens social worker. This is because we cannot investigate matters which have been considered in court, and cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants. Hertfordshire County Council (23 014 681)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils failure to follow the correct procedures when carrying out a child and family assessment regarding Mr Xs child Y. This is because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Cumberland Council (23 017 097)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault with the Councils decision to suspend an investigation until court proceedings have concluded. Hertfordshire County Council (22 018 018)
Summary: Mr and Mrs Y complained the Council failed to secure the special educational provision set out in their child, Child Zs, Education, Health and Care Plan and communicated poorly with them. The Council was at fault. The Council will apologise and pay Mr and Mrs Y a total of 300 for the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by the delays and pay 3,150 to acknowledge the impact of the missed provision. North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (23 003 683)
Summary: Miss X complained about the Councils failure to provide alternative education and delay in issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan. We have found the Council to be at fault. We have also found fault with the Councils complaint handling. To remedy Miss Xs injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to her to acknowledge her distress and her daughters period of missed education and specialist support. It will also take action to improve its service. Wokingham Borough Council (23 004 717)
Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to deliver Speech and Language Therapy to his son, Y, as per his Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP). We have concluded our investigation having made a finding of fault. Although we have not found fault regarding the Council becoming aware, we found it did not deliver provision as per Ys EHCP. The Council have proposed a suitable remedy and have agreed to complete the actions. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (23 004 958)
Summary: MrsX complained the Council failed to complete her son, Ys, Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment and produce an Educatio, Health and Care Plan in line with statutory deadlines. We found the Council at fault for missing statutory deadlines and for not keeping MrsX updated throughout the process. The Council agreed to apologise to MrsX, make a payment to recognise the injustice caused and act to prevent recurrence. Kent County Council (23 005 537)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council delayed issuing an Education Health and Care plan. This is because the complainant has appealed to a tribunal. The contents of the plan is therefore not something the Ombudsman can consider. Any injustice caused by the delay in issuing the plan cannot be quantified until the outcome of the appeal is known. Hertfordshire County Council (23 008 140)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide education for her child since their exclusion from school in September 2022. Mrs X also complained the Council delayed in find a new school placement for their child. We did not find fault with the Council delaying in finding a new school placement. But, we did find fault with the Council failing to provide education for Mrs Xs child for nearly a full term while it looked for a new school. The Council agreed to provide an apology to Mrs X and pay her 1,800 for her childs missed education. Dorset Council (23 009 232)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council proposed an inadequate and inappropriate Education, Health, and Care (EHC) plan for his child. He also complained the Council was incompetent and unprofessional in its handling of further drafts. We found fault with the Council for delaying production of the EHC Plan. We also found fault with delays in the Councils complaint handling. The Council agreed to make a symbolic payment to Mr X 250 for the impact its fault had on him. Hertfordshire County Council (23 014 472)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education Health and Care Plan process for the complainants daughter. The Council was at fault, but it is unlikely we would recommend an additional remedy. Ms X can appeal to a tribunal, and this can give her the outcome she wants. An investigation by the Ombudsman cannot. Essex County Council (23 014 547)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about matters of educational provision and social care assistance. The complaint about matters before 2023 is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate it now. The complaint about educational provision is not separable from matters where Miss X used her right of appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. There is no evidence Miss X has complained to the Council about matters of social care provision since January 2023 or since the Tribunal hearing. Once she has done so, she would be welcome to return to us promptly about those matters. Peterborough City Council (23 015 819)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xs complaint about how the Council handled her applications for school places for her children. This is because Miss Xs children have now been offered places at her preferred school and so we could not achieve anything more. Oxfordshire County Council (23 017 098)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xs complaint about the Council labelling her child as missing from education. This has not caused sufficient injustice to warrant an investigation. Hertfordshire County Council (23 000 046)
Summary: Miss X complained that the Council failed to properly support her granddaughter to find supported accommodation. She also complained about its communication and explanation of processes. We found the Council could have better communicated its processes, there was delay in starting the search for accommodation and some delay finding respite care. We recommended the Council apologised, made a payment to them both and considered providing more information to service users about supported housing applications. Dorset Council (23 013 774)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint that the Council is failing to act against emotional abuse of his children by their mother. Mr X has a right to go to court to pursue his objective of a transfer of residence that it would be reasonable to use as only a court could order this. Where court action has already started, we cannot investigate. London Borough of Camden (23 014 614)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Councils actions while the complainants son was subject to child protection action and legal proceedings. This is because the complaint concerns matters which have been considered in court or are closely related to those matters. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (23 014 620)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils management of a safeguarding referral it received involving Mr Xs child Y. This is because the Council has already satisfactorily remedied any injustice Mr X was put to by this matter. Devon County Council (23 014 356)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a lack of alternative education provision and support by the Council when Miss Xs child had difficulties attending school. There is no good reason to exercise our discretion to consider these late matters because Miss X was aware of them more than a year before she complained to the Council, and she could have complained sooner. London Borough of Bromley (23 014 718)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils alleged failure to ensure Ms Xs child Y received provision set out in his education, health and care plan. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Councils actions. North East Lincolnshire Council (22 016 072)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her son, Mr Y, with the provision set out in his Education, Health and Care Plan. We found fault because the Council failed to deliver some of the services specified in the Plan. Mrs X has suffered avoidable frustration and distress and Mr Y missed out on some of the education he should have received. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X. Part of the complaint is outside the Ombudsmans jurisdiction as we cannot consider the same issues as a Tribunal or any matters which are closely linked. Surrey County Council (23 002 965)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide his child D with suitable education and support for their special educational needs. There was fault by the Council which caused D to miss education and special educational needs support. It also caused avoidable distress for D, and avoidable distress, time, and trouble for their parents. The Council agreed to apologise, issue a final amended Education, Health, and Care plan for D without delay, and pay a financial remedy. It will also issue reminders to its staff, review relevant procedures, and ensure recurrent fault found by the Ombudsman is considered as part of its SEND Improvement Plan. Lancashire County Council (23 003 662)
Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council handled his son, Fs education and his Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan between 2020 and 2023. The Council was at fault. It accepted a failure to ensure F received a suitable education between 2021 and 2023 and it also accepted it delayed completing his EHC needs assessment and issuing his final EHC plan. The Council has already made payments to Mr X. It agreed to make further payments to fully recognise the injustice caused. London Borough of Bromley (23 005 750)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide the Speech and Language Therapy provision detailed in her childs EHC Plan. We have ended our investigation because we found out Mrs X had used her right to appeal to the First Tier Tribunal (Special Education Needs and Disability) about this same matter. The Ombudsman cannot investigate a complaint when a person has appealed to a tribunal. London Borough of Bromley (23 014 019)
Summary: We cannot investigate Miss Xs complaint the Council lied in a court report. We have no jurisdiction to investigate the contents of court reports or what happened in court. London Borough of Lambeth (23 014 267)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xs complaint about post 16 home to school transport. It is reasonable to have expected Miss X to have appealed to the Tribunal. And it is unlikely we would find fault in its decision not to award full home to school transport. Derbyshire County Council (23 014 477)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to meet the complainants daughters special educational needs. This is because the complainant has used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability), or it would have been reasonable for her to do so. Devon County Council (23 015 368)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils actions in relation to Mrs Xs children. The complaint is largely about what happened in court, and Mr X has commenced judicial review proceedings against the Council for the entirety of his complaint. We are prohibited in law from investigating complaints that have been presented before the courts. Reading Borough Council (22 004 569)
Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council handled a change to her sons school transport and that it did not implement the recommendations it made after upholding her complaint. We found the Council delayed in responding to Mrs Xs contact about the transport. The Council agreed to apologise for the uncertainty and frustration this caused to Mrs X. Salford City Council (22 017 500)
Summary: Mrs B, complained the Council did not secure suitable education or education, health, and care provision for her son. Mrs B says because of this, her son did not take any exams and did not gain any qualifications. We found fault with the Council for failing to secure the speech and language provision in her sons education, health, and care plan. Because of this fault, Mrs Bs son missed provision. The Council will apologise to Mrs B and her son for this fault and backdate his personal budget to make up the missed speech and language therapy. Suffolk County Council (23 002 813)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Councils consideration of her request for an Education Health and Care plan (EHC plan). She also complained the Council failed to provide her son with a full-time education while he was out of school. We found there was significant delay in issuing an EHC plan and Y did not receive a full-time education. We recommended an apology, and payments to recognise the impact of the fault we found. Devon County Council (23 006 167)
Summary: Mrs F complained about the Councils handling of the Education, Health, and Care (EHC) plan process for her son (X) and said it did not provide all the provision he should have received. We found the Council at fault. It failed to provide the educational provision X was entitled to, caused delays in the EHC plan process and communicated with her poorly. The Council has agreed apologise to Mrs F and make payment to acknowledge the injustice she and X experienced. Surrey County Council (23 008 201)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in issuing an Education Health Care Plan following an appeal to a tribunal. The injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation. Somerset Council (23 008 973)
Summary: The Council is at fault because it has not reissued a childs education, health and care plan, as it agreed to do. As a result, the child has not had the necessary support at school, meaning she has missed lessons. The Council has committed to issuing a reviewed plan within a set period of time. It has also agreed to offer the complainant a sum of money to purchase catch-up provision, and to recognise her frustration at its poor handling of this matter. Hampshire County Council (23 013 798)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainants daughters Education Health and Care Needs Assessment, the content of her Education Health and Care Plan, and the provision subsequently made by the Council. The Council has made an appropriate apology for fault in the assessment process, and it would have been reasonable for the complainant to use her right to appeal against the content of the Education Health and Care Plan. The remaining matters do not fall to be investigated by the Ombudsman. Kent County Council (23 013 885)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a childs education. This is because it is reasonable to have expected the complainant to have used their right of appeal to a tribunal and because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Lincolnshire County Council (23 013 916)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education Health and Care plan process. This is because the matters relate to the Councils actions during a tribunal appeal which places them outside of our jurisdiction. London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (23 013 919)
Summary: A parent complained about the school admission appeal panels decision to refuse her appeal for a school place. But we will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel to justify our involvement. London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (23 013 920)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a school admission appeal panels refusal of an appeal for an infant school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel to justify our involvement. Durham County Council (23 005 961)
Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to properly advise or support her when she took on the care of her two grandchildren after the sudden death of their mother. We have not found fault with the actions of the Council. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (23 014 227)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about child protection. Court action has commenced, and the matters complained of are not separable from matters that have already been or could reasonably be raised in court. Kent County Council (23 014 288)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the education provision for the complainants child. This is because we cannot consider complaints about matters which have been subject to court proceedings. Such matters are outside our jurisdiction. Buckinghamshire Council (23 014 317)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils actions in respect of the complainants daughter. This is because we would not achieve anything significant by doing so. Hampshire County Council (23 014 488)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Councils decision not to accept her complaint because she does not have parental responsibility for the child the complaint relates to. North Yorkshire Council (23 014 881)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils handling of Mrs Xs childrens case. The complaint is about matters the courts ordered on, and so the law prevents us from investigating. There is also insufficient evidence of fault in Mrs Xs assertion the Council has treated her as guilty of an offence. Staffordshire County Council (22 010 984)
Summary: Miss B says the Council failed to ensure her sons special educational needs provision was in place, failed to provide education to her son when she removed him from school, delayed issuing education, health and care plans following reviews and ignored her complaints. There is no evidence of failure to put in place special educational needs provision or of fault in failing to put in place alternative education. The Council delayed issuing an amended education, health and care plan following a review and failed to respond to Miss Bs complaint. Payment to Miss B and introduction of a process to track the progress of amendments following reviews is satisfactory remedy. Brighton & Hove City Council (23 003 459)
Summary: Mrs B says the Council failed to provide education to her daughter, failed to follow the special educational needs code of practice and delayed considering her complaint. The Council failed to consider putting in place alternative provision for Mrs Bs daughter, failed to follow the special educational needs code of practice following an early annual review and delayed considering Mrs Bs complaint. An apology, payment to Mrs B and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy. Devon County Council (23 003 728)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has failed to ensure her son, Y, received an education in line with his Education and Health Care (EHC) Plan, since September 2022. We have found there was a delay by the Council in issuing a decision to maintain the EHC Plan, but this did not cause Mrs X a significant injustice. I have not investigated Mrs Xs complaint about the annual review and lack of provision as we cannot investigate the same issues a Tribunal could have determined. London Borough of Southwark (23 006 925)
Summary: There was fault by the Council. The Council has delayed issuing an amended Education, Health and Care plan after an annual review meeting. There was also service failure, as a terms Occupational Therapy sessions were not provided. A payment or personal budget so Mrs X can organise the sessions, a payment for her distress and finalising the Education, Health and Care plan remedies the injustice. Surrey County Council (23 007 333)
Summary: The Councils delay completing Child Bs Education Health and Care plan was fault. The Council was also at fault for failing to put the provision in the plan in place following a decision by the tribunal. The Council failed to communicate effectively with Mrs X throughout the process and delayed responding to her complaint. As a result, B missed out on education for over 30 weeks and Mrs X experienced avoidable financial loss and distress. The Council has agreed to apologise, make payments to B and Mrs X and act to improve its services. London Borough of Lewisham (23 008 554)
Summary: Mr X complained about the Councils handling of his application for continued home to school transport for his disabled son. Mr X says the Councils actions negatively impacted the family. We found fault by the Council and the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and consider a new application for travel assistance. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (23 014 589)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils initial decision to reject Mrs Xs application for travel assistance for her child, Y. This is because the Council has already provided a suitable remedy to address the injustice Mrs X and Y experienced due to this matter. Devon County Council (23 012 641)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xs complaint about late special guardianship payments. Investigation by us would not lead to a different or more worthwhile outcome than that following the Councils investigation. Darlington Borough Council (23 013 120)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xs complaint about children services actions. The Council has now agreed to follow the Children Act statutory complaints procedure. Redcar & Cleveland Council (23 013 649)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council safeguarding conference. This is because an investigation would not lead to a worthwhile outcome. London Borough of Bromley (23 014 101)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xs complaint that a social worker did not conduct a fact-finding meeting properly, but humiliated and denigrated her in front of others by aggressive questioning. The potential injustice caused would not be sufficient to warrant our involvement. North Yorkshire Council (23 014 245)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council breached the complainants confidentiality by sharing a confidential document. This is because the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider complaints about data protection. City of Wolverhampton Council (23 014 592)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a data protection breach. This is a matter best considered by the Information Commissioners Office. There is a court remedy if the complainant wants to pursue a claim for compensation. Warwickshire County Council (23 002 458)
Summary: Mrs X complains about the Councils handling of her child, Child Ys special educational needs. There was fault in the Councils handling of Mrs Xs complaints and a failure to secure alternative education provision for Child Y. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and Child Y and make payments to remedy the injustice caused to them both. The Council will also learn from its handling of Mrs Xs complaint and issue guidance to relevant staff. London Borough of Bromley (23 008 212)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to follow the correct procedure for the review of an Education, Health and Care Plan in 2022 and 2023 and failed to meet the statutory timescales. She says the plan contains inaccurate information about her son which is distressing. The Council failed to meet the timescales in both years which is fault. A suitable remedy is agreed. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (23 011 702)
Summary: A parent complained the Council had not taken sufficient action to ensure her child was admitted to her preferred school, or to provide home tuition meantime. But we will not investigate this complaint as there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement. Medway Council (23 012 305)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint about the Councils decision to refuse her application for free school transport for her daughter. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Swindon Borough Council (23 012 987)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint about the Councils delay in issuing her daughters Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise our discretion to consider the matte further. We cannot investigate Mrs Xs complaint about the contents of the Plan as Mrs X has used her right of appeal to challenge it. Leicestershire County Council (23 013 904)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about the Councils decision not to provide his son with free transport to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. West Sussex County Council (23 014 456)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils decision not to issue Mrs Xs child Y with an education, health and care plan. This is because Mrs X has a right of appeal to the SEND tribunal, and it would be reasonable for her to use it. Manchester City Council (23 013 249)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the content of an assessment carried out by the Council. This matter is not separable from current court proceedings. It would also be reasonable for Miss X to raise any concerns in court. Somerset Council (23 013 384)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils handling of a safeguarding assessment. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (23 012 823)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an annual review of a childs Education Health and Care Plan. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to now investigate. Essex County Council (23 006 576)
Summary: Ms X complained that the Council failed to properly assess her familys need for support and refused her request for a personal budget based on incorrect information about their circumstances. We found no fault in how the Council assessed the familys needs and decided they were not eligible for support. Reading Borough Council (23 012 061)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils failure to arrange the provision set out in an Education Health and Care plan. Most of the complaint is late and the Council has provided a remedy in line with our guidance. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. |
