A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed issuing a final Education, Health and Care plan for her son in reasonable time when he transferred from primary to secondary school. I have found the Council at fault. It did not issue a final plan in line with the statutory guidance, and this caused Mrs X an injustice. The Council will apologise, recognise the delay this had on Mrs X’s appeal rights and take action to prevent reoccurrence.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that her son was not issued with a bus pass. This is because the Council have agreed to provide a bus pass, and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: The Council failed to carry out an Education, Health and Care Needs assessment for Miss H’s son, J, within the statutory timeframes. This was due to a shortage of educational psychologists. We are satisfied with the Council’s action plan to increase its access to educational psychologists. However, to recognise the personal injustice caused to Miss H and J, the Council will make payments for the delay.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to award school transport assistance to Mr X’s child because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to provide school transport for her child from the school to Ms X’s work address. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his child’s special educational needs. He complains the Council failed to consider and acknowledge its unlawful decision to cease to maintain an EHC plan, failed to provide educational provision following his appeal, and failed to communicate with him appropriately. This is because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the education placement named within Miss X’s child’s Education, Health, and Care (EHC) Plan. This is because Miss X has a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal it would be reasonable to use. We will not investigate the process undertaken by the Council to amend the EHC Plan as there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to prosecute Miss Y for her son’s school attendance. The law says we cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action, the complaint is late, and there is not enough evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in issuing an Education Health and Care Plan. The Council has accepted fault and offered an appropriate remedy. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council had not dealt with him fairly during a child protection investigation for his daughter. I have seen no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s Children’s Service. That is because the Council has agreed to follow the Children Act statutory complaints’ procedure.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council declining to correct inaccurate records and failing to deal properly with Mrs X’s complaint about it. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our further involvement, and another agency is better placed than us to consider this matter. We will not investigate complaint handling where we are not investigating the substantive matter complained of.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council ending child in need plans for Mr X’s children. The Council no longer has safeguarding concerns about the children, and it would be reasonable for Mr X to use his right return to court to resolve issues of contact with his children.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council ending child in need plans for Mr X’s children. The Council no longer has safeguarding concerns about the children, and it would be reasonable for Mr X to use his right return to court to resolve issues of contact with his children.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a meeting chaired by the Local Authority Designated Officer. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to provide alternative provision for her daughter, Y from January 2022. Ms X also complains about the way the Council implemented a personal budget. We have found there was a delay by the Council in issuing a final Education and Health Care Plan and fault with its record keeping. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and service improvements to address the injustice caused. We have found no fault with the way the Council considered alternative provision and the personal budget.

Summary: Miss B complained about the Council’s failure to issue an Education, Health and Care Plan for her son within legal timeframes and he had been left without education for several months. We found the Council at fault for significant delays in the needs assessment process and for not properly considering its duties to arrange alternative provision. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: the Council failed to issue revised education, health and care plans following two reviews and delayed issuing an education, health and care plan following a third review. The Council also delayed dealing with Mrs X’s request to educate her son out of cohort. An apology, payment to Mrs X, introduction of a process to manage reviews and guidance to officers is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of an early annual review of their child’s (Y’s) Education, Health, and Care Plan. We find avoidable delay and poor communication by the Council which caused Mr and Mrs X uncertainty, frustration and distress. The Council has already instigated measures to prevent recurrence which is a partial remedy. It should also apologise and make a symbolic payment to reflect injustice caused to Mr and Mrs X.

Summary: The Council was at fault for delays in issuing an Education, Health, and Care Plan, for Mrs X’s son. That fault caused Mrs X an injustice because she was left with avoidable distress and inconvenience in following up as to what the Council were doing, as well has having a delayed right of appeal. It also has left Mrs X with uncertainty about what special education provision her son may also have missed out on because of delays. The Council have agreed to remedy Mrs X’s injustice in line with my recommendation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed an appropriate remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not obtaining the required advice and information from occupational health in time for the EHC plan to be completed within the required timescales. This is because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X and his child.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed an appropriate remedy.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed carrying out an Education Health and Care needs assessment. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by offering to make a payment to the complainant to remedy the injustice this caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an educational psychology assessment carried out during an Education Health and Care Assessment. This is because the complaint relates to a matter about which it would have been reasonable for the complainant to use her right to appeal

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to provide alternative education for her daughter while she is out of school. This is because the issue is too closely related to the reasons for Mrs X’s appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed considering a complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint by arranging a stage three panel to be held within one month. It will also apologise to the complainant and offer to make a payment to them to remedy the time and trouble they have been too.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed considering a complaint at stage two of the children’s 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.

Summary: Mr D complains about abuse and racism whilst he was in the Council’s care as a child in the 1970s and 1980s. We have ended our investigation because the complaint is late and there is no realistic prospect of reaching a sound, fair and meaningful decision.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to seek his consent before it spoke with his children following a safeguarding referral to its children’s services department. This is because the Council upheld the complaint and remedied the injustice caused by apologising. An investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve a different outcome. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that a social worker lied about obtaining his consent because an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve a different outcome.

Summary: The Council was not at fault for its delivery of Ms B’s daughter’s special educational needs support, or for its handling of Ms B’s complaints. However, it was at fault for delays to its assessments of Ms B’s daughter’s needs. It has agreed to apologise to Ms B, make a small, symbolic payment to recognise her daughter’s injustice, and set out ways in which it will improve its service.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about how the Council handled their daughter, S’s, Education, Health and Care Plan provision. They say it delayed putting provision in place to ensure S’s needs were met. This meant that S was left with little educational and therapeutic provision for longer than necessary. Mr and Mrs X would like the Council to apologise for the delays and pay them for the distress its actions have caused. We found the Council was at fault for the delays in the assessment process. The Council agreed to our recommendations and will address the injustice its actions caused to Mr and Mrs X as well as S.

Summary: There was continued fault and delay by the Council in completing a statutory reassessment and a failure to secure provision in an Education, Health and Care Plan. There was administrative fault in the way the advice for reassessment was handled. There was also non-compliance with previous Ombudsman agreed recommendations. This caused distress, time, trouble and lost educational provision. The council will apologise, make a financial payment and carry out service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about school transport mileage payments because Mrs X has not suffered injustice significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to meet her son Y’s special educational needs. This is because her complaint about the lack of educational provision and support falls outside our jurisdiction and the Council has properly considered whether to make other arrangements for him while he is out of school. There is no evidence to show any delay in completing Y’s annual review caused Mrs X or Y significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to send a copy of an Occupational Therapy report. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Miss B’s complaint about the support she received from the Council while looking after her niece. It is unlikely we could add to the Council’s own complaint investigation, or the remedial action it proposes.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to make Mr X’s child subject to a child protection plan and the Council’s safeguarding involvement with Mr X’s family. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council ended a long-term foster placement with the complainant and her husband. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation and we cannot achieve the outcome she is looking for.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in the course of child protection action. This is because there is no evidence of significant fault on the Council’s part.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has declined to reconsider its position regarding the care of the complainant’s children. This is because it concerns matters which have been considered and decided in court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the school Mrs X’s child attends. This is because the law prevents us from investigating complaints about what happens in school.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse an application for school transport assistance for the complainant’s son. There is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to secure the content of her child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because Ms X has already taken the matter to court, and the law says we cannot investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the standard of a Council bus service. Though the Council does acknowledge failings, there is insufficient evidence of a significant enough injustice being caused to the complainant to warrant a formal investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the school Mrs X’s child attends. This is because the law prevents us from investigating complaints about what happens in school.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the education provision for a child with Special Educational Needs. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault with some of the actions of the Council and other actions are not separable from an appeal made to a tribunal.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council took too long to issue her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan, that communication from it was poor and that it failed to deliver suitable alternative education to him when he became unable to attend school. We found fault because there was a significant delay issuing the plan and the Council failed to organise suitable alternative provision for her son. Mrs X suffered avoidable frustration and distress and her son missed out on the education he should have received. To remedy the injustice caused by this fault, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mrs X, issue reminders to relevant staff and consider reviewing some of its procedures.

Summary: Mrs Y complains about delays in the process leading up to the Council’s issuing of an Education, Health and Care Plan for her son, D. We find the Council failed to meet the statutory timescales and there was significant delay. The Council also failed to maintain appropriate contact with Mrs Y and delayed when responding to her complaint. The delay meant D missed some SEN provision throughout 2023. In our view, the agreed actions listed at the end of this statement will remedy the injustice caused by fault.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a lack of suitable educational provision for her son, Y. This is because she appealed to the SEND Tribunal and so her complaint is outside our jurisdiction. The other matters she complained about are not separable from her Tribunal appeal, or were brought to us late.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue her child with an education, health and care (EHC) Plan. This is because Ms B has a right of appeal to a tribunal and it would be reasonable for her to use it.

Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council refused to consider her complaint about historical allegations of abuse. We shall not investigate the complaint as the events are too old.

Summary: There was no fault in how the Council considered Ms X’s complaint about the actions of Childrens Social Care in safeguarding her while she was under a ‘child in need’ plan in 2007. This matter was considered by the Council under the three-stage Children Act 1989 complaints procedure. Although Ms X remains unhappy with the outcome, we have not seen any obvious flaw in the way the investigation was carried out or how the Council considered the findings at stage two and stage three. Because there appears to be no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to investigate his complaint about its care of him when he was a child. The Council was at fault. This caused Mr X avoidable frustration, for which the Council will apologise and pay him £250. The Council will also complete a stage two response to Mr X’s complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s parental assessment of Miss X and the actions of its social workers. A court considered the assessment. We cannot investigate what happened in court. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of Council officers when events led to him leaving the family home. Investigation by us would not lead to a different or worthwhile outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to consider his complaints through its corporate complaints process rather than the children’s statutory process. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a court report. The law says we cannot investigate matters that have been considered by the Court.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about a social worker lying to the family court because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from considering complaints about matters that have been considered in court. We have no discretion to do so.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide any educational support, or education, for their child since April 2023. Ms X also complained the Council delayed in producing the Education, Health and Care Plan for their child. We found fault with the Council for both matters. The Council has already paid Ms X £200 for delays in production of the Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council also promised to reimburse educational costs Ms X incurred totalling £2,675.98 for the period September 2023 to November 2023. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her an extra £350 for the delays in production of the Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council also agreed to pay Ms X £1,350, or reimburse her for the education provided for their child, whichever is higher, for the period 16 May 2023 to 21 July 2023.