A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions

Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council discharged its duty to secure educational provision for a child who had been excluded from school. The Council was at fault for a delay in issuing an amended education, health and care plan for him, but this did not cause any injustice beyond some frustration for the complainant, for which the Council has already apologised. The Council was also at fault because it failed to recognise it had issued an earlier version of the education, health and care plan, but we cannot investigate the consequences of this because it is outside our jurisdiction. We have therefore completed our investigation.

Summary: Ms H complained about the Council’s handling of the Education, Health, and Care plan process for her daughter (X). She said this caused her distress and a delay in X receiving the support she needed. We found the Council at fault for failing to adhere to the statutory timescales and it communicated with Ms H poorly as no caseworker was allocated. The Council will apologise and make payment to Ms H to acknowledge the injustice this caused her and X.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to provide her son Y with a school placement, to arrange full-time education and to deliver special educational provision included in Y’s Education Health and Care Plan. Mrs X appealed to the SEND Tribunal. Some of the issues complained about are part of her appeal and others are closely linked to the appeal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the delay.

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.

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.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s Schools Admissions Appeal Panel’s failure to provide his child with a place at School Y. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused them to lose out on a school place.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Schools Admissions Appeal Panel’s failure to provide his child with a place at this School. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused them to lose out on a school place.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not properly consider her requests for an assessment from its disabled children’s service for both her children. The Council did not properly assess Miss X’s daughter, delayed in its assessments for both children, and did not properly investigate Miss X’s concerns about racist language during an assessment. This caused delays in Miss X’s son receiving short breaks, and uncertainty about whether her daughter was correctly assessed as not being eligible for short breaks. It also caused the family avoidable distress and time and trouble. The Council agreed to apologise, carry out an independent assessment for Miss X’s daughter, and pay a financial remedy. It will also issue reminders to its staff.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about safeguarding Miss X’s child. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to consider it now.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaints about the Council’s report for court or the conduct of a social worker because these matters happened during court proceedings. Social Work England is better placed to consider Mr X’s complaint about an individual social worker’s professional practice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council conducted a virtual meeting. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Summary: Ms X complains the Council delayed in securing a suitable educational placement for her son, Y, who has an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and it failed to advise her she could appeal the placement named in Y’s EHC Plan. The Council is at fault for not meeting the statutory timescales when arranging annual reviews for Y and finalising his EHC Plans, it delayed in consulting with suitable settings after his placement broke down, it failed to provide Y with the provision in his EHC Plan when he was unable to attend school and it failed to communicate with Miss X effectively. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused by these faults and it has also agreed to make service improvements.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to amend her son, Y’s, Education and Health Care Plan within statutory timescales, to provide a personal budget and appropriate education for him between December 2022 and September 2023. We find there was a delay in issuing an amended Plan following an annual review and failure to provide the provision in Y’s Education and Health Care Plan. The Council has agreed to apologise and make financial payments to remedy the injustice caused to Y and Mrs X.

Summary: Mrs F complained that the Council delayed issuing her son’s EHC plan, causing him to miss out on provision and causing her significant distress. We found fault. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to remedy the injustice.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s delay in reviewing her child’s Education Health and Care plan and its withdrawal of support during the school year 2022 to 2023. Miss X said the lack of support severely affected her child’s education and wellbeing and so she wanted it reinstated. We found there was avoidable delay by the Council. As the Council had completed the review, it agreed to make a symbolic payment to Miss X of £600 in recognition of the distress, time and trouble she was caused by its delay.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide a suitable education or follow proper process to review her son’s Education Health and Care Plan after they moved to the Council’s area. The Council offered suitable interim educational provision for Y pending a reassessment of his EHC Plan. However, the Council’s failure to complete the reassessment of Y’s needs and issue a final EHC Plan is fault. This fault has caused Mrs X and Y an injustice.

Summary: On the evidence available, there was fault by the Council. The Council did not put in the place the alternative educational provision that it agreed to do. A payment, in addition to the apology already given, remedies the injustice caused to the family.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the education provision for Ms X’s son. Much of the complaint is late and it was reasonable for Ms X to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability. Even if we did investigate, it is unlikely we would achieve the outcome Ms X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council carried out an annual review of a child’s Education Health and Care plan. This is because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council and because the complainant has used, or could have used, their right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the delay.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to provide free school meals for her child, Y, between 2018 and 2020 when they were too unwell to attend school. This is because the complaint is late and there is no good reason to investigate now.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Schools Admissions Appeal Panel’s failure to provide his child with a place at this School. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused them to lose out on a school place.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about reports the Council prepared for court. The law prevents us investigating what happens during court proceedings.

Summary: Miss B complained the Council delayed providing her daughter with home to school transport. We find the Council was at fault for the way it dealt with Miss B’s appeal for home to school transport. It was also at fault for how it dealt with Miss B’s complaint about the matter. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide an education and special educational provision for her child when she deregistered them from the school roll. She also complained about delays reviewing an education, health and care plan. Ms X said this caused unnecessary distress and frustration, and her child missed out on education. We find the Council at fault, and this caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Ms X, and improve its service.

Summary: Mr C complained about the Council’s delays during the Education, Health and Care needs assessment process for his son. He also complained the Council’s communication was poor and its handling of the consultation process was flawed. We find the Council was at fault as it delayed issuing Mr C’s son’s Education, Health and Care Plan. It was also at fault for its communication with Mr C and its handling of the consultation process. Finally, it significantly delayed responding to Mr C’s complaint. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

Summary: There was service failure and fault in failing to complete an Education, Health and Care needs assessment on time, a failure in the admissions process, and a failure to consider alternative provision when a child was unable to attend school fulltime. This led to loss of education and placed additional pressures on the family. The Council will apologise, make a financial payment and carry out service improvements.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide the support set out in her son’s Education Health and Care Plan and failed to provide the Education other than at School (EOTAS) provision he needed. There was fault that warranted a remedy.

Summary: Miss C complained the Council was slow to identify a different school for her child, and amend their Education, Care and Health Plan after agreeing to do so. We upheld the complaint, finding the Council delayed taking these actions for over twelve months. During this time Miss C experienced distress and her child could not receive a full-time education. The Council has accepted these findings and at the end of this statement, we set out the action it has agreed to take to remedy this injustice and improve its services.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint, about the Council’s failure to complete a remedy agreed during a previous investigation. This is because we are satisfied the Council completed the remedy as it was agreed, and any complaint about ongoing matters must be made afresh.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the delay.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the delay.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council delayed carrying out an Education Health and Care needs assessment. This is because doing so would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Ms X’s unhappiness with the Council’s management of her child Y’s education, health and care plan. This is because the complaint concerns events that took place more than 12 months ago; it would have been reasonable for Ms X to bring the complaint to us at the time.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about historical child protection matters. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a data breach and about the Council’s actions in relation to its child protection involvement with her family. This is because the data matter is best considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office and there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider her complaint about its child protection actions whilst there are ongoing court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about missed payments by the Council for nursery fees. The Council has confirmed that rather than paying Miss X, it mistakenly paid the nursery directly. There is not enough remaining injustice to Miss X to warrant our further involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to safeguard the complainant when she was a child. This is because the issues happened too long ago and the complainant could have complained sooner.

Summary: Ms X complains about the delay in the Council issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan for Child Y. She also complains about how the Council carried out the Education, Health and Care needs assessment and the Education, Health and Care Plan issued. We find fault with the Council for the delay in issuing Child Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council has agreed to pay a financial remedy in recognition of the delay and carry out service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about information the Council sent the local planning authority in connection with applications and enforcement action which Planning Inspectors later decided on appeal. There is not enough evidence to show the injustice Mr B claims flows from the Council’s actions rather than the Inspectors’ decisions, so the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code and it does not warrant us investigating.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council failure to provide her child, D, with a suitable education when he was unable to attend school due to extreme anxiety. We have not found fault with how the Council responded to his non-attendance.

Summary: The Council was at fault for causing delays to Mrs B’s son’s special educational needs support. It was also at fault for how long it took to respond to her complaint. It has now agreed to make symbolic payments to Mrs B to recognise her, and her son’s, injustice.

Summary: Miss B complained that the Council, in respect of her daughter C, delayed in producing an amended Education, Health and Care Plan following an Annual Review, finding an alternative placement for her or putting in place alternative education when she was unable to attend school. We found fault with the Council’s actions. It has agreed to pay Miss B £2000 for the benefit of C and £400 for herself and to improve its procedures for the future.

Summary: Mrs C complained the Council failed to adhere to the statutory timeframes for completing an EHC needs assessment for her son, X. She says X is struggling at school and needs the process completed to ensure they receive appropriate educational support ahead of their GCSE’s. We have found the Council at fault. The Council has agreed to make a payment to remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s investigation under the statutory children’s complaints procedure into his concerns about safeguarding referrals relating the care of his children. The Council delayed completing the complaints procedure, which was fault. The Council investigated the complaints properly, but delayed carrying out some of the recommendations which was also fault. The Council agreed to make payments to Mr X to acknowledge the distress, frustration and uncertainty this caused.

Summary: The Council was at fault for causing a short delay to a child protection conference, and for not initially visiting Miss B’s children as often as it said it would. But, in the context of Miss B’s complaint about how the Council handled her children’s case, the areas of fault were limited. The Council took Miss B’s concerns seriously, fully considered the risk to her children, and followed the safeguarding process set out by the government. Nonetheless, it has agreed to take action to ensure its mistakes are addressed in future.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker in removing Ms X’s teenage child from her home. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker in relation to Miss X. There has been recent court action in respect of one of Miss X’s children, and we are legally prevented from investigating matters that have been or could reasonably have been raised in court. Investigating the content of a phone call where there were no independent witnesses would be unlikely to lead to a finding of fault or to the outcome Miss X is seeking.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to provide financial assistance to Mr X in relation to his status as a foster carer. This is because the complaint relates to events that took place more than 12 months ago; it would have been reasonable for Mr X to bring the complaint to us at the time.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide her daughter with alternative education when she was unable to attend school due to anxiety and bullying. She also complained about the Council’s complaints process. The Council upheld some parts of the complaint and Miss X has received an appropriate remedy. We do not propose anything further.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council placed her child on a reduced timetable in mainstream education since September 2020. Miss X also complained the Council failed to complete the annual review of her child’s Education and Health Care Plan in the statutory timescales. We found fault with the Council failing to keep Miss X’s child’s reduced timetable under review and for delays in reviewing the Education and Health Care Plan outside the statutory timescales. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss X and pay her £1,050 for her child’s potential lost education and £500 for the avoidable distress and frustration caused.

Summary: Mrs C complained the Council failed to provide her son with suitable education for the period January 2022 to April 2023 when he was not attending school or the education provision set out in his education, health and care plan. We have found fault by the Council but consider the agreed action of an apology and symbolic payment provides a suitable remedy.

Summary: Mrs X complained her daughter missed out on education and special educational need provision as a result of delays caused by the Council. We have found fault with the Council and it has agreed actions to remedy the loss of education and distress caused.

Summary: The Council failed to carry out an Education, Health and Care Needs assessment for Mrs P’s child, Q, within the statutory timeframes. This caused distress, frustration and uncertainty to the family. We are satisfied with the service improvements the Council is carrying out to resolve this issue. The Council will apologise and make a payment to recognise the personal injustice to Mrs P and Q.

Summary: Ms B complained that the Council delayed in providing an amended Education, Health and Care Plan following an annual review in January 2023 and failed to provide suitable alternative education during this period or deal with her complaints in an effective or timely manner. We found fault with the Council’s actions. The Council has agreed to pay Ms B £2000 for the loss of C’s education and £400 for her own distress and time and trouble.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays issuing a final Education Health and Care plan for a young person transitioning to post-16 education and refused a request for a personal budget. This is because the delay was not significant enough to justify investigation, and the Council’s decision not to award a personal budget is not separable from an appeal made to the SEND Tribunal.

Summary: There was some fault in the way the Council decided an application for school transport for a child below compulsory school age. Irrelevant factors were considered and referred to in decision letters. However, I am not persuaded the fault affected the outcome of the application or caused significant injustice. The Council will make service improvements to prevent a recurrence of the fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about post-16 home to school transport for a young person with special educational needs. Further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council carried out a review of the complainant’s daughter’s Education Health and Care plan. This is because investigation would not lead to a different outcome and because it is reasonable for the complainant to use their right of appeal to a tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s Child and Family assessment report. The law prevents us from considering the content of reports produced as part of court proceedings.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed issuing an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for her grandson (C), which means he does not have a place at a Special School. Ms X also said the Councils complaint response has been poor. The Council is at fault for delay in assessing C’s needs and issuing an EHC Plan. This has caused the family uncertainty.