| 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. Birmingham City Council (23 002 398)
Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to make sufficient education provision for Y. The Council is at fault as it failed to consider if it had a duty to provide alternative education provision for Y and record that decision. But this fault did not cause injustice to Y. The Council is also at fault as it delayed in progressing arrangements for mentoring support for Y and delayed in dealing with Miss Xs complaint which caused disadvantage to Y and distress to Miss X. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and Y and to make a symbolic payment of 300 to Y to acknowledge the injustice caused to him. West Sussex County Council (23 010 824)
Summary: Miss F complains the Council failed to issue an EHC plan for her daughter within the statutory timescales. There was fault which has caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to remedy this. Derbyshire County Council (23 015 326)
Summary: Miss X complained about the delays she encountered during her daughters Education, Health and Care needs assessment. We have found fault with the Council for the delays which then delayed Miss Xs right of appeal. Somerset Council (23 015 546)
Summary: Ms X complained about the time taken by the Council to assess her sons special educational needs and issue an Education, Health and Care plan. As a result, her son is not getting support that he should have. We found the Council was at fault for delays in assessing Y and issuing a final Education, Health and Care plan. The Council agreed to apologise, make a payment acknowledge the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused and to issue a final Education, Health and Care plan. Manchester City Council (23 020 037)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xs complaint about the Council issuing a school none attendance fixed penalty notice. It is unlikely we would achieve a significantly different outcome. Essex County Council (23 020 125)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xs complaint that the Council failed to comply with our previous decision and specifically the actions agreed to remedy the complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. If Mr X disagrees with the Councils decision not to reassess his daughters needs it would be reasonable for him to appeal to the SEND Tribunal. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (23 020 430)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the education provision for the complainants child. This is because the complainant has appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). This places the matter outside our jurisdiction. Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (23 020 110)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils safeguarding involvement with Miss X and her family. This is because the complaint relates to events that took place more than 12 months ago and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate them now. Liverpool City Council (23 020 210)
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 until the current court proceedings on this matter have concluded. Devon County Council (24 000 285)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay on the Councils part in completing the statutory procedure for complaints about childrens services matters. This is because there is insufficient outstanding injustice to warrant investigation. London Borough of Waltham Forest (23 005 698)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to take sufficient action to ensure her child, Z, who has an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan, received suitable education after they were permanently excluded from school. She says this meant Z was out of education for longer than needed. The law prevents us investigating most of these events, as they occurred too long ago or because Ms X had a right of appeal to the tribunal, and it was reasonable for her to have used it. However we found the Council did fail to arrange some special educational needs provision for Z for ten term-time months and this matter was not linked to the issues Ms X could have appealed to the tribunal. It also significantly delayed responding to Ms Xs complaint. In recognition of the injustice caused to Z and Ms X, the Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X 2,150 and carry out service improvements. Birmingham City Council (23 010 903)
Summary: Ms X complains the Council has not dealt properly with her son Ys Special Educational Needs (SEN). The Council did not hold an annual review properly and delayed paying invoices. Ms X had to spend time and trouble chasing payments. The Council should apologise and pay Ms X 100 for time and trouble and review its invoicing systems/processes. Essex County Council (23 017 468)
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 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. Gloucestershire County Council (24 000 508)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X complaint about the Councils failure to provide alternative education. Derbyshire County Council (23 011 900)
Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to deal with childrens social care properly. The Council is not at fault. London Borough of Barnet (23 020 278)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xs complaint about the Councils child protection involvement with her family. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Councils decision not to consider her complaint whilst the case is subject to ongoing court proceedings. London Borough of Islington (22 005 652)
Summary: London Borough of Islington and North Central London Integrated Care Board did not appropriately respond to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunals non-binding recommendation for Section G of Mr Xs daughters Education, Health and Care Plan. That led to Y missing occupational therapy support at college. The fault also caused Mr X and Y uncertainty, frustration, and distress. The organisations should apologise, review their processes, and make a symbolic payment to remedy their injustice. Surrey County Council (23 006 043)
Summary: Ms X complained about the Councils delay in completing her childs (Ys) education, health, and care needs assessment and poor communication. We found the Council at fault. It should apologise to Ms X and make payments to her to reflect the uncertainty, frustration and distress caused by the delays. Leeds City Council (23 006 456)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide education for her child from May 2021 until May 2023. We found fault with the Council for delaying production of Mrs Xs childs Education and Health Care plan for 21 months and failing to keep Mrs X suitably informed. We also found fault with the Council failing to provide suitable education for Mrs Xs child from May 2021 to September 2022. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her 4,850 in recognition of her childs lost education and 750 for the prolonged distress and uncertainty caused by the Councils fault. Buckinghamshire Council (23 009 961)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to ensure his son, Y, received any education and the provision set out in his Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP). He also complained the Council failed to review Ys EHCP between September 2020 and October 2022. Mr X complained the Council failed to send out reports before the annual review in October 2022. Mr X complained the Council did not inform him of the outcome of the October 2022 annual review within timescales and delayed responding to his complaints. Mr X said this caused him distress and uncertainty. He said Y missed out on education and EHCP provision. There was fault in the way the Council did not ensure Y received an education or the provision specified in his EHCP. There was also fault in the complaint handling and the Council did not issue its decision letter after the annual review. Mr X was frustrated by the fault and he was put to time and trouble to complain. Y missed out on education and EHCP provision. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment and remind officers of the Councils statutory duties. Surrey County Council (23 010 670)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her son who has complex medical needs, with school transport. We have found the Council at fault as it was unable to fulfil its statutory duty to provide Mrs Xs son with transport. This caused Mrs Xs son to miss out on education and accessing his special educational needs provision as well as causing Mrs X and the wider family avoidable distress. Lancashire County Council (23 012 082)
Summary: Mrs B complains about how the Council dealt with her sons Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan. There was fault by the Council. It failed to issue a final EHC Plan or plan his transition post-16 placement for Z in 2022. The Council then failed to make a decision following an Annual Review in 2023 and again failed to issue a final Plan. The Council did not deal with Mrs Bs complaints to it properly. Its shortcomings caused significant distress and uncertainty to Mrs B and her son and deprived Mrs B of her right to appeal to a Tribunal. The Council has agreed to my recommendations to remedy this. Dorset Council (23 012 891)
Summary: Mrs X complained about delays in the education, health and care plan process. She said the Council has failed to provide suitable alternative provision; delayed naming a suitable school for her son and said the communication has been poor. We find the Council was at fault. This caused significant stress to Mrs X and her son missed out on education. The Council has agreed to several recommendations to address this injustice caused by fault. Surrey County Council (23 014 770)
Summary: There is no fault in the Councils decisions around funding Ys night care, the direct payment rate or funding for carers training. The Education Health and Care Plan did not include details of the personal budget for Y in Section J and this was fault. The Council will amend the Plan to include the personal budget, apologise for the avoidable confusion and uncertainty and make Ms X a symbolic payment of 100. Wakefield City Council (23 019 065)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about an assessment the Council completed for the Court. The law says we cannot investigate matters that the Court has dealt with. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (23 019 639)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the school where Miss Xs child has been placed. She has a right to appeal to a Tribunal for a different school placement it would be reasonable to use. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (23 019 755)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils decision not to award Miss Xs child a place on its free home to school transport scheme. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Councils actions. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (23 019 812)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council refused to carry out an Education Health and Care needs assessment. This is because the complaint has used their right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal. London Borough of Ealing (23 011 741)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide appropriate support to her and her children since July 2022, provided incorrect information in a safeguarding investigation against her and refused to consider evidence she tried to provide. There was no fault in the Councils actions. Devon County Council (23 019 647)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils communication after Mr B and his partner adopted a child. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or that Mr B has suffered a significant personal injustice. Also, we could not achieve anything worthwhile by investigating. Devon County Council (23 020 822)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils actions while Mr Xs children were in foster care. Court proceedings are ongoing, and it is reasonable for Mr X to raise the matters he complains about as part of that process. Somerset Council (23 005 441)
Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to fund Dr Bs sons special education needs provision for more than a school term. This likely caused Dr Bs son distress, as well as having an impact on his education. Dr B also had to spend time at home trying to provide the support his son was missing. The Council has agreed to make symbolic payments to both Dr B and his son to recognise their injustice. It has also taken action to improve its service action which aims to stop similar problems happening again. Surrey County Council (23 009 776)
Summary: MrX complained about the process the Council followed when completing the annual review of MsYs Education, Health and Care Plan. We find the Council at fault for missing statutory deadlines and for not keeping MrX updated throughout the process. The Council has agreed to apologise to MrX and MsY, make a payment to recognise the injustice caused, and act to prevent recurrence. Somerset Council (23 010 016)
Summary: Ms J complained about the Councils handling of the Education, Health, and Care Plan process for her daughter (X) and its delays in arranging provision she could access when she could not attend school. We found the Council communicated poorly with Ms J and caused delays in arranging provision X could access in Autumn 2023. We could not consider Ms Js disagreement about the school placement as this matter carried appeal rights. The Council will apologise and make payment to Ms J to acknowledge the injustice its faults caused her and X. East Sussex County Council (23 011 145)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide a suitable education for her son for the past four years causing distress and social isolation. The Council failed to provide any education provision from May 2023 to January 2024, wrongly requested Miss X put a review request in writing causing delay and failed to identify a suitable school placement since August 2021. A suitable remedy for the injustice caused by this fault is agreed. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (23 019 412)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to arrange assessments which resulted in a delay in issuing an Education Health and Care plan that could meet a childs needs. This is because it is reasonable to have expected the complainant to have used their right of appeal to a tribunal. Staffordshire County Council (23 019 992)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Councils actions relating to a young person with special educational needs. This is because the complaint is made on behalf of a public body. It is therefore outside our jurisdiction with no discretion to investigate. Hertfordshire County Council (22 018 114)
Summary: The Council was not at fault for refusing to pay Ms B a formal allowance when she was looking after a child under a private fostering arrangement. Nor was it at fault for ending the temporary financial support it gave her in lieu of an allowance. However, it was at fault for failing to confirm that Ms B had started receiving support from the childs mother. This likely contributed to Mrs B going without financial support for a short period. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to recognise her injustice. London Borough of Havering (23 011 589)
Summary: Mr D complained how the Council handled a child protection matter regarding his son. He says the Council was biased against him, it failed to give him enough notice to attend meetings, and it failed to communicate with him properly and engage him in the process. We find the Council was at fault for its communication and engagement with Mr D, its delays in starting a risk assessment and its complaints handling. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault. Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (23 013 136)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged poor conduct displayed by a social worker. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Councils actions. London Borough of Hackney (23 016 199)
Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mr Bs complaint about the Councils social work involvement with his family. It is unlikely we could add to the Councils own complaint investigation, or the remedial action it proposes. Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (23 018 858)
Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mrs Bs complaint about support she received as a foster carer. It is unlikely we could add to the Councils own complaint investigation, or the remedial action it proposes. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (23 018 974)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils refusal to agree to the complainants request to for the removal of a wall at his home. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Councils part. Medway Council (23 020 494)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xs complaint about the Councils decision not to consider her complaint about a social worker whilst there are ongoing proceedings. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Councils decision. Devon County Council (22 013 614)
Summary: Ms D complained the Council failed to arrange suitable full-time education or special educational needs provision for her son. We found fault which caused injustice to Ms D and F. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms D to remedy this. Hertfordshire County Council (22 015 760)
Summary: Ms X complains about the Councils handling and delivery of her childs (Child Y) Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council was at fault for failing to ensure the provision in Child Ys EHC Plan was delivered between September 2022 and July 2023, delays in releasing funds for provision to Ms X, the review of Child Ys EHC Plan and the handling of Ms Xs complaints. The Council has already provided an appropriate remedy for Child Ys missed education. It will now also provide further redress to Ms X and her family for the injustice caused to them by its faults. Suffolk County Council (23 008 813)
Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council, in respect of her son Cs special educational needs, had failed to secure occupational therapy and tuition in accordance with his Education, Health and Care Plan. We found fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to pay Mrs B 1800 for the benefit of C and to continue its efforts to secure the provision. Gloucestershire County Council (23 014 851)
Summary: The Council failed to complete an Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment within statutory timescales. This delay was, in part, due to a shortage of Educational Psychologists. The Council will make a symbolic payment to Mrs Y and D. The Council will also outline the service improvements it is taking to address the shortage of staff and backlog of cases. Herefordshire Council (23 019 447)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils actions while Mr X lived with adoptive parents and when he left their home. Investigation of these matters, which are also late, is unlikely to lead to a worthwhile outcome, and we could not start the judicial review Mr X says he wants. Norfolk County Council (24 000 253)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a safeguarding concern. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault that has caused an injustice to the complainant. Investigation would also not lead to a different outcome. London Borough of Hounslow (24 000 392)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs Xs complaint about a social workers report because this has been decided in court. We have no remit to look at what happens in court. Kent County Council (23 012 170)
Summary: the Council failed to issue a decision following three annual reviews for an EHC plan. That leaves Mr B with uncertainty about whether the Council would have arranged a new school placement for his son and included therapy in the EHC plan. The Council also delayed responding to a complaint. An apology, payment to Mr B, agreement to issue an EHC plan and putting in place a procedure to manage reviews is satisfactory remedy. |
