| 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. North Yorkshire Council (23 006 228)
Summary: Mrs Y complained about the way the Council dealt with her childs Education, Health and Care Plan and special educational needs provision. We have found fault by the Council in failing to: make all the provision in the Plan; complete the annual review process within the statutory timescales; and complete the agreed action plan for resolving Mrs Ys complaint. These faults caused injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising to Mrs Y, making payments to recognise the impact of the missed provision and distress caused, taking steps to complete the review process and a service improvement. London Borough of Bromley (23 008 968)
Summary: There was fault the Council delayed issuing a final Education, Health, and Care Plan for Miss Xs daughter in 2022 and 2023. This fault caused Miss X an injustice because of avoidable uncertainty and a delayed right to appeal the Councils final decision. There was also fault in how the Council evidenced its consideration of Miss Xs request for Elective Home Education and then a request for support while home schooling. The Council have agreed to remedy Miss Xs injustice in line with my recommendations. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (23 012 282)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council conducted the process of naming an educational setting in an Education Health and Care Plan for Mrs Xs child. This matter is not separable from the content of the Plan, which was subject to a right of appeal to a Tribunal it was reasonable to use. We are considering the matter of alternative educational provision in another complaint. Derbyshire County Council (23 013 568)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed assessing her child, W, for an Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council was at fault. This caused Mrs X avoidable frustration and uncertainty and meant W missed out on one term of special educational provision. To remedy that injustice, the Council will apologise to Mrs X and pay her a total of 2075. Suffolk County Council (23 017 366)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils child in need assessment. The complaint is late. In addition, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Wiltshire Council (23 018 014)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xs complaint about the Education, Health and Care plan process for her child, Y, and the Councils handling of her complaint. Part of the complaint is late, there is insufficient evidence of fault and we could not add to the Councils response. Nottingham City Council (23 018 087)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils involvement in Miss Xs familys case. The Councils involvement was court-ordered, and the law prevents us from investigating what happens as part of court proceedings. City of Doncaster Council (23 017 611)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Councils Local Authority Designated Officer did not respond to allegations made against Mrs X within a timely manner. This is because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Peterborough City Council (23 018 686)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xs complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Councils decision not to consider her complaint whilst there are ongoing court proceedings. Devon County Council (23 017 941)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a school transport appeal hearing. There is not enough evidence of fault by the panel to warrant further investigation by us. Reading Borough Council (23 017 964)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about information sent to Miss X when she complained to the Council. This is because the Council has said it will contact Miss X about her complaint. It is reasonable for Miss X to complete the Councils own complaints process. An investigation at this time would not achieve anything more. Calder High School (23 019 227)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. Hampshire County Council (23 000 195)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to review her childs education, health and care plan properly, failed to provide the provision set out in the plan, and failed to provide alternative education when her child was out of school. She also complained about the Councils conduct during an appeal. Mrs X said this caused her unnecessary and avoidable distress and frustration. She said the missed education and special provision had an impact on her child. We uphold some parts of Mrs Xs complaint because we find fault causing injustice. The Council will apologise and make a payment to remedy the injustice. We cannot investigate two parts of the complaint. This is because they are outside the Ombudsmans jurisdiction. Derbyshire County Council (23 013 500)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed assessing her child Z for an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council was at fault which caused Ms X and Z frustration and distress and meant Z missed out on half a term of special education provision. The Council should apologise and pay Ms X a total of 1100. North Yorkshire Council (23 017 087)
Summary: We cannot investigate Ms Ts complaint that the Council failed to arrange suitable education for her child because she has used her right to appeal. Plymouth City Council (22 016 131)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council used inaccurate information in a children social care assessment. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons to investigate now. London Borough of Lambeth (23 014 629)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint about matters relating to the Councils child protection involvement with his family. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Councils decision not to consider his complaint until ongoing court proceedings have concluded. The Council has already offered Mr X a suitable remedy for its delay in informing him of its decision. Dorset Council (23 017 734)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xs complaint about children services actions. We have upheld Miss Xs complaint as the Council has now agreed to follow the Children Act statutory complaints procedure. Oxfordshire County Council (23 018 492)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the complainants children being removed from their care and later put up for adoption. This is because the matter has been considered and decided in court proceedings. The complaint is also made late. Coventry City Council (23 018 678)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with child protection matters. This is because it is about what happened in court. Somerset Council (23 008 127)
Summary: Mr X complained about the significant delays in the education, health and care plan process. We find the Council was at fault. This caused significant stress to Mr X and his son was out of education. We make several recommendations to address this injustice caused by fault. Nottinghamshire County Council (23 018 372)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils failure to make alternative provision for the complainants son while he has been unable to attend school. This is because the complaint has been upheld by the Council and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (22 017 343)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Councils actions and delays with her sons Education, Health and Care Plan after previous annual reviews, and it did not secure special educational provision for him. The Council accepted fault and offered a remedy. We are satisfied the remedy appropriately acknowledges the injustice from not securing his provision as specified in his plan. The Council has also agreed to a further financial symbolic remedy payment to recognise Mrs Xs distress during these matters. Oxfordshire County Council (23 008 642)
Summary: Mr X complained about delays and missed deadlines when the Council assessed his daughter, Ys, special educational needs. The Council was at fault for delays, poor communication, and lack of proper oversight of the assessment process. Wiltshire Council (23 008 741)
Summary: Mrs Y complains about delays in parts of the Education Health and Care Plan (EHC) process followed by the Council for her son, D. She also complains about the Councils failure to ensure that D was registered for all his GCSE examinations and received the appropriate resources and additional time. The Council has already upheld most of Mrs Ys complaint and apologised. The Council has also agreed to implement the additional actions listed at the end of this statement to fully remedy the injustice caused by fault. Suffolk County Council (23 017 120)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xs complaint about the Councils refusal to reimburse her for the cost of two private educational psychologist reports. This is because I have seen no evidence to show the Council agreed to fund the reports or that it is at fault for declining to do so. Devon County Council (23 017 892)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alternative educational provision for Miss Xs child. We have previously considered matters up to August 2023, at which point Miss X had a right to appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal it would have been reasonable to use. The Council could therefore regard the childs absence from school from then on as unauthorised and it had no duty to consider any request for a further assessment of the childs needs for six months. Cheshire East Council (23 018 119)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Councils decision not to issue an Education Health and Care plan and its failure to provide full time education provision for a child. This is because the complainant has lodged appeals with the SEND Tribunal Medway Council (23 017 974)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Councils decision not to accept his complaint because he does not have parental responsibility for the children concerned. Derbyshire County Council (23 018 133)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that a social worker was at fault in how she spoke to the complainant. This is because we could not add anything significant to the investigation the Council has carried out. London Borough of Lewisham (23 018 250)
Summary: We will not investigate this historical complaint about Ms Xs experiences of the care system between the 1970s and 2000. We could not carry out a meaningful investigation due to the time that has passed, nor could we provide the information and closure Ms X seeks. It is open to Ms X to contact the Information Commissioners Office about how the Council responded to her information request. London Borough of Islington (23 018 429)
Summary: We cannot investigate Ms Xs complaint about bias by the Council in matters relating to the care of her child as shown by court-ordered disclosures. The contents of those disclosures were part of court action. As these matters are outside our legal powers, we cannot investigate how the Council is dealing with Ms Xs complaint about them. Medway Council (23 018 561)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs Xs complaint about the Council's child protection involvement with her family because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from considering complaints about matters that are being, or have been, considered in court proceedings. Kent County Council (23 003 500)
Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council, in respect of her daughter Cs Education, Health and Care Plan had delayed unreasonably in completing the Annual Review and responding to her request for a personal budget to pay for extra maths tuition. It had also delayed excessively in responding to her complaint. We found fault. The Council had already agreed to pay for the tuition since March 2023 until the end of the academic year and pay Mrs B 275 for her time, trouble and distress. The Council has now agreed to pay an additional 225. We note the Council has an action plan in place to improve its procedures for the future. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (23 008 775)
Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, about the Councils handling of educational matters for a young person with special educational needs. This is because the Council has now offered a suitable remedy, and further investigation by us would not add anything significant. Buckinghamshire Council (23 012 172)
Summary: There was service failure by the Council. An assessment for an Education, Health and Care Plan was delayed by five months due to a shortage of Educational Psychologists. There was no loss of education during the delay so a payment towards the complainants frustration and an apology remedies the injustice. Essex County Council (23 017 233)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xs complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to an appropriate remedy for the delay. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (23 018 040)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils report to court and refusal to consider Miss Xs complaint. The law prevents us from investigating matters that have been raised in court. We also will not consider matters we decide should have been raised in court, or complaints processes in isolation. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (23 012 924)
Summary: Mr B complained that the Council had failed to escalate his complaint about childrens services to stage two of the statutory complaints procedure. We found there was a delay of approximately two months in progressing the complaint to stage two which caused Mr B time and trouble in chasing the Council. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B and pay him 100. Suffolk County Council (23 017 802)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a failure to make reasonable adjustments for Mrs X. Further investigation by us would not add to the Councils own investigation or to lead to a different outcome. Plymouth City Council (23 017 878)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of bias by a social worker and false information in reports. The matters Mr X complains of are closely related to the issue of who should have care of and contact with a child of the family. This issue has been subject to court action and the matters complained of could reasonably have been raised in court. Birmingham City Council (23 018 154)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how a school responded to concerns relayed to it by both the complainant and Council. This is because the issues raised relate to conduct and management concerns which are internal school matters. We have no jurisdiction to investigate in these circumstances. Northumberland County Council (23 018 354)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the support given to the complainant as a foster carer and about how the Council responded to her subsequent complaint. This is because the complaint is late and there are no grounds to consider it now. Cornwall Council (23 001 612)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide alternative education provision for Child J, despite being aware he was not receiving a suitable education. Mrs X also complains the Council did not secure provision for Child J, leading her to incur costs to do so, and delayed issuing Child Js Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. We have found the Council at fault for failing to respond to an annual review and for delays in issuing Child Js EHC Plan. We have found the Council did not properly consider its duty to provide alternative provision to Child J. We have also found faults in complaint handling. These faults caused an injustice to Mrs X and Child J. We have made recommendations to remedy this injustice. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (23 005 729)
Summary: Ms X complains the Council delayed issuing a final amended Education Health and Care Plan for her son in 2022 and 2023 and failed to ensure his 1:1 support and occupational therapy provision was provided between September 2022 and April 2023 causing distress and uncertainty. We found fault by the Council as it delayed issuing a final amended Education Health and Care Plan within statutory timescales in 2022 and 2023. The Council failed to ensure Y received the 1:1 provision specified in his Education Health and Care Plan between September 2022 and April 2023. And the Council failed to amend the Education Health and Care Plan to reflect its intention to remove direct occupational therapy sessions. We have recommended a suitable remedy so have completed our investigation. Worcestershire County Council (23 007 051)
Summary: The Ombudsman has not found evidence of fault causing Ms X a significant injustice. The Council is entitled to charge a financial contribution for post-16 transport and the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to challenge a Council policy where there is no evidence of fault. Essex County Council (23 007 066)
Summary: There was fault by the Council. There was delay of one year in completing the Education, Health and Care Plan needs assessment process. There was also delay in arranging alternative education provision once the Council became aware that a child was not in school. An apology, payment and service improvements remedy the injustice caused from loss of suitable education. London Borough of Brent (23 008 823)
Summary: We have found fault with the Council for failing to deliver the education, speech and language therapy and occupational therapy that Ms Xs son was entitled to. The Council has already partly remedied the avoidable injustice caused to Ms X and her son. The Council has agreed to take further action for the continued missed occupational therapy provision. London Borough of Ealing (23 008 925)
Summary: Mr F complained about the Councils decision his daughter, G, is no longer eligible for home to school transport. I have ended my investigation as it appears G is now able to travel independently and Mr F no longer wishes to pursue his complaint. Surrey County Council (23 009 989)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide an education for Y, a child in her care, since September 2022 and failed to review Ys Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan when their needs changed. The Council delayed holding an annual review meeting of Ys EHC Plan and failed to provide some of the specialist provision set out in their Plan for four and a half terms. The Council agreed to make a payment to Ms X to recognise the injustice caused to her and Y because of the Councils fault. Derbyshire County Council (23 010 521)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed issuing Child Ys EHC Plan. She also complained the Council communicated poorly with her about her concerns. Mrs X said this caused avoidable frustration, distress and uncertainty. She said it also affected Child Ys educational attainment. We have found the Council at fault for its delay issuing Child Ys EHC Plan. We have also found the Council at fault for its communication with Mrs X. We have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused. Norfolk County Council (23 012 480)
Summary: Miss X complained about the Councils involvement with her child, W, after they stopped attending school in March 2020. We have ended our investigation. This is because the matters Miss X complained about either occurred too long ago, or we are not allowed to look at them because they are linked to a matter it was reasonable for Miss X to appeal to the SEND Tribunal about. Northumberland County Council (23 015 451)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about failings by the Council in arranging a school placement for Ms Xs child. Ms X has now accepted a remedy for fault offered by the Council. Therefore, further investigation would not now lead to a worthwhile outcome. Essex County Council (23 017 210)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xs complaint about delay in the Council completing her childs Education, Health and Care needs assessment. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Essex County Council (23 017 510)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xs complaint about the Councils handling of her sons Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan annual review. This is because the injustice she claims stems from the content of the Plan and if Ms X disagrees with this it would have been reasonable for her to appeal. Suffolk County Council (23 006 238)
Summary: Mrs X said the Council failed to properly assess and fund short breaks for her and her child, Child Y. The Council was at fault for initially not explaining to Mrs X her short break payment award level, it will apologise to her, for the uncertainty caused. The Council has since written to Mrs X to explain its reasons and has also put in place appropriate changes to its process. Herefordshire Council (23 011 826)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils failure to respond to safeguarding concerns Mr X raised and its alleged failure to agree to recommendations made after Mr X complained about this. This is because the Council has investigated this matter and provided a suitable remedy. An investigation would be unlikely to result in a different outcome. Torbay Council (23 017 508)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xs complaint about the Councils actions in 2008. It lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now. Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (23 017 731)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the circumstances of the complainants daughters change of school. This is because the Council is not responsible for the matter. Nottinghamshire County Council (23 017 923)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the alleged poor conduct of a Council social worker assigned to work with Mrs X. This is because most of the complaint relates to events that took place more than 12 months ago and it would have been reasonable for Mrs X to bring them to us sooner. Further, an investigation into the parts of the complaint which are within our jurisdiction would be unlikely to result in a worthwhile outcome. Derbyshire County Council (23 017 983)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of social workers and the content of a report completed in the course of child protection action. This is because investigation would not achieve the outcome the complainant wants. North Lincolnshire Council (23 018 577)
Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed considering a complaint at stage two of the childrens statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint by issuing its stage two response without further delay. It will also apologise and offer to make a payment to the complainant to remedy the time and trouble they have been too. The Council will also amend its guidance on timeframes for stage two investigations, so it is in line with statutory guidance. |
