| 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 (23 009 085)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide alternative education after her son, Y, became too ill to attend school. We have concluded our investigation having made a finding of fault. Although we found Yâs absence did not trigger the Councilâs section 19 duty to provide alternative education, we found that it failed to review Yâs circumstances when he enrolled at a new school in September 2022. There was a missed opportunity by the Council to review the matter and contribute to any forward planning and further support. The Council has agreed to our recommendations. Somerset Council (23 009 774)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to finalise an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) for her daughter, failed to name a placement and failed to provide a suitable education as well as a lack of communication and failure to adhere to the complaint procedure. The Council failed to issue the EHC Plan within the statutory timescale and failed to provide suitable alternative education. We also found fault in respect of the complaint procedure. A suitable remedy is agreed. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (23 015 628)
Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about alleged failings by the Council in Mrs Xâs childâs special educational needs provision. There is no good reason to exercise the discretion available to us to consider these late matters now. North Yorkshire Council (23 016 184)
Summary: Mr A complains about the time taken by the Council to make a decision about his Education, Health, and Care plan request for his daughter. He also complains about the Councilâs delay in responding to his complaint. We find the Council at fault for both delays. The Council will make a payment to Mr A in recognition of the injustice caused. Hampshire County Council (24 001 872)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs childrenâs services and its involvement with her and her family. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault, and we cannot achieve the outcome she seeks. It is reasonable for the complainant to raise her complaint about how childâs personal information is managed with the Information Commissioner. London Borough of Croydon (24 002 484)
Summary: We cannot investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the Councilâs failure to consult with her preferred school as part of her child, Yâs, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This is because Ms X has appealed the content of the EHC Plan to the SEND Tribunal, and the law says we cannot investigate. We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the Councilâs complaints process because we cannot investigate the substantive complaint, and therefore an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve anything further. North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 002 970)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision not to provide home to school transport. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. It is reasonable for Ms X to make a fresh application from her new address. Royal Borough of Greenwich (23 006 642)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X complaint about children servicesâ actions. We cannot investigate issues in Court proceedings. We will not investigate children servicesâ actions from over 13 years ago. It is reasonable to expect Miss X to have asked for a review of her complaints. And Social Work England is more suitable to consider her complaints about social workersâ conduct. Lincolnshire County Council (23 010 271)
Summary: Mr X complains about the Council ignoring his concerns about his child while they remain in their motherâs care. There was no fault in the Councilâs handling nor has it ignored Mr Xâs views and concerns. London Borough of Ealing (24 000 310)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with his concerns about a young person living with a family in a neighbouring property. This is because he does not have consent to complain on behalf of the young person or their family. Buckinghamshire Council (24 000 794)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about children servicesâ actions. We have upheld Mr Xâs complaint as the Council has now agreed to follow the Children Act statutory complaintsâ procedure. Surrey County Council (24 002 432)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council maintaining inaccurate data about Mrs Xâs family, allegedly despite a decision from the Information Commissionerâs Office (ICO). The ICO remains better placed than us to consider this matter as it has powers to order the rectification and erasure of data, and to impose penalties, that we lack. London Borough of Brent (24 002 482)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council carried out a child and family assessment. This is because there is insufficient fault causing a significant injustice, we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council and because other bodies are better placed to consider some elements of the complaint. Leeds City Council (24 002 486)
Summary: We cannot investigate Miss Xâs complaint about false allegations made against her in care proceedings for her niece because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been considered in court. We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the Council raising concerns about the care of her children. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and I see no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (24 002 560)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about her children being removed from her care and placed for adoption because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from considering complaints about matters that have been considered and decided in court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so. Somerset Council (24 002 626)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council was involved in the police decision to issue a Child Abduction Warning Notice. This is because the decision was not the Councilâs responsibility, and the complainant is not in a position to complain about matters relating to the childâs care. Suffolk County Council (23 013 623)
Summary: Ms X complained about the Councilâs delay when issuing an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan, and failure to provide her child with an education when she was unable to attend school due to extreme anxiety. We found fault because the Council took long to issue the EHC Plan. There was also poor communication and complaint handling. To remedy the injustice to Ms X, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to her. We did not find the Council failed to provide an education because Ms X made alternative arrangements herself. Surrey County Council (23 017 074)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the education provision for G. This is because the complainant has appealed against the Councilâs decision. Buckinghamshire Council (23 018 134)
Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to provide all the provision set out in her childâs education, health and care plan, and that the school was inappropriate for her child. Mrs X said this caused unnecessary and avoidable distress, and had an impact on her child. We cannot investigate this complaint. This is because both parts of the complaint are outside the Ombudsmanâs jurisdiction. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (23 018 560)
Summary: Mrs X made several complaints about how the Council handled her daughterâs Education, Health, and Care plan, and ensured she had education, including special education provision while she was not going to school. We cannot investigate some of Mrs Xâs complaint because they are outside our jurisdiction, and of the other parts of her complaint we have considered, there was no fault in the Councilâs actions. Hampshire County Council (23 018 921)
Summary: There was fault by the Council, because it initially did not make agreed changes to an education, health and care plan. However, this fault did not cause any injustice. We have therefore completed our investigation. Lancashire County Council (24 002 280)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay by the Council in issuing an Education Health and Care Plan ready for Mrs Xâs childâs transfer to post-16 education. Although the Council has issued the Plan late, it includes the provision Mrs X wanted at a setting she is satisfied with. Investigating further would not lead to any worthwhile outcome. Essex County Council (24 002 333)
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. East Sussex County Council (24 002 349)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about alleged inadequacies during a EHCP needs assessment carried out by the Council. This is because the complainant appealed the Councilâs decision to not issue an EHCP for his son to the SEND Tribunal. We have no jurisdiction to investigate complaint where a complainant has exercised a right of appeal. The decision to refuse an EHCP cannot be separated from the needs assessment in this case. Central Bedfordshire Council (24 002 526)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs actions in relation to the complainantâs sonâs special educational needs. The complaint is late and there are insufficient grounds to consider it now. Archbishop Blanch School (24 004 145)
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 by the panel for us to be able to question its decision. Cheshire East Council (23 004 560)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the way in which the Council completed the childrenâs statutory complaints procedure in response to her complaint it failed to provide her family with appropriate support. We have found fault with the way in which some parts of the procedure were completed, causing injustice. The faults are: the recommended payment to recognise the impact of the Councilâs failings on the family did not properly reflect the extent of this injustice in line with our published remedies guidance; and the Council did not properly implement some of the other recommendations. To remedy the injustice the Council has agreed to: apologise to Mrs X; make a payment to properly reflect the impact of the failings; make a payment to recognise the distress caused by the failure to properly implement some of the recommendations; carry out a new statutory carerâs assessment; hold a meeting with Mrs X to discuss the familyâs support needs and develop an action plan for options for assessing and providing support for the family; and complete the outstanding service improvement recommendation. Westminster City Council (24 002 152)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about children servicesâ actions. We have upheld Mr Xâs complaint as the Council has now agreed to follow the Children Act statutory complaintsâ procedure. City of Doncaster Council (24 002 199)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with child protection matters. This is because there is either no fault causing the complainant a significant injustice, we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council or because we have already considered the issues raised. Durham County Council (24 002 515)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council taking safeguarding action in respect of the complainantâs son. This is because the Councilâs safeguarding action has been subject to review and consideration by the courts. We have no legal jurisdiction to investigate in these circumstances. Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (24 003 356)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the accuracy of information provided to the court in private care proceedings by Council social workers. As a court has ordered the information in the form of a section 7 report, its preparation and content is outside our legal jurisdiction. Reading Borough Council (23 010 457)
Summary: Ms X complained about Service J, which acted on the Councilâs behalf. Ms X said Service J carried out a flawed assessment of Child Y, providing unsound advice about his needs. Ms X complained the Council relied on this unsound advice when deciding what provision it should put in place for Child Y. Ms X said Service Jâs policy sought to restrict Child Y from accessing assistive equipment and was discriminatory. Ms X also complained about Service Jâs conduct during an appeal to the SEND Tribunal and the Councilâs complaint handling. We have ended our investigation of Ms Xâs complaint. Complaints about the adequacy of professional assessments and advice, and the application of the policy in question, are outside of the Ombudsmanâs jurisdiction, as they are matters the SEND Tribunal could consider as part of an appeal. The conduct of individuals during an appeal is also a matter for the SEND Tribunal. We cannot investigate these parts of Ms Xâs complaint. We could not achieve anything for Ms X by investigating the Councilâs complaint handling, when we cannot consider the substantive issues. Surrey County Council (23 014 311)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council has failed to provide the therapies specified in her daughterâs EHC Plan since September 2022. She says this has left her daughter unsupported and jeopardised her placement. Ms X also complains the Council has delayed in carrying out an annual review of her daughterâs EHC Plan. The Councilâs failure to ensure Miss Y received the therapies specified in her EHC Plan since September 2022 is fault. As is the failure to hold an annual review of Miss Yâs EHC Plan in 2023. These faults have caused Ms X and Miss Y an injustice. Derbyshire County Council (23 015 307)
Summary: The complainant (Miss X) said the Council failed when carrying out Education Health and Care Plan process for her son (Y) and failed to provide suitable education for Y when he could not attend his school. We found fault with the Council in its delays to issue Yâs Education Health and Care Plan and to provide Y with suitable alternative provision. We also found fault with the way the Council communicated with Miss X and handled her complaint. The Councilâs fault caused injustice to Y and Miss X. The Council has recognised its failings and apologised. The Council has agreed to make payments to recognise Yâs loss of education and Miss Xâs distress. The Council has also agreed to issue Yâs final Education Health and Care Plan within the statutory timescales following its review. London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (23 017 249)
Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council refused her application and appeals to provide transport for her son to attend college. We have found fault with the process. The Council has agreed to carry out a fresh stage two appeal, apologise to Mrs B and pay her £300 and to improve its procedures for the future. Leeds City Council (23 017 569)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not complete his son, Yâs, Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment within the statutory timescales. Mr X also complained the communication from the Council was poor. Mr X said this caused him and his family distress. There was fault in the way the Council delayed completing the needs assessment and communication from the Council was poor. This caused Mr X distress and frustration. The Council should apologise and make a financial payment. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (23 018 580)
Summary: The complainant (Mrs X) said the Council failed when reviewing her sonâs (Y) Education Health and Care Plan and within its Personal Budget process. Mrs X also complained about the Councilâs failure to ensure delivery of Yâs special educational provision. We cannot investigate some of the issues which have already been considered by us and the issues linked to Mrs Xâs appeal. The Council has already accepted its fault within its Personal Budget process and when communicating with Mrs X but it has failed to offer suitable remedies. The Council agreed to make a symbolic payment for Mrs X to recognise her distress and arrange a meeting to discuss any outstanding issues. Essex County Council (23 020 908)
Summary: Mrs X complains on behalf of her son, Y. Mrs X says the Council failed to provide a finalised Education Health Care Plan after an annual review and failed to provide a completed Educational Health Care Plan for phased transfer. Mrs X says the matter has caused her distress and uncertainty. We have found fault in the actions of the Council for failing to issue a final Education Health Care Plan within the correct timescales. The Council has agreed to issue the plan, pay Mrs X a financial remedy and issue an apology. Essex County Council (24 001 706)
Summary: We upheld Miss Xâs complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care process regarding her child, Y, following a Tribunal order. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. London Borough of Islington (24 002 712)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the treatment the complainantâs child receives in school. This is because we cannot investigate complaints about what happens in schools. Saint Pius X Catholic High School A Specialist School in Humanities (24 003 741)
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 by the panel for us to be able to question its decision. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (24 004 337)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs Schools Admissions Appeal Panelâs 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. Reading Borough Council (23 009 132)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Councilâs handling of her home to school transport appeals for her son (Y). We do not find fault in the way the Council reached its decision. But we find it failed to provide a copy of its shortest walking route and sufficiently detailed outcome letters to Mrs X which caused her avoidable uncertainty, frustration and distress about the Councilâs decision making. The Council should apologise, make a payment to Mrs X and provide a staff reminder to remedy the injustice caused. East Sussex County Council (24 002 149)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs childrenâs services. The Information Commissionerâs Office is better placed to consider a complaint about data protection. We could not achieve anything more or what Mr X wants. Wakefield City Council (24 003 003)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision to begin care proceedings and its actions during the proceedings. The law prevents us from investigating the start of court action or what happened in court. North Northamptonshire Council (22 011 910)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council has failed to provide alternative provision for her daughter, F since May 2021 when she stopped attending school. The Council was at fault. It failed to have sufficient oversight or consider whether to put alternative provision in place for F during the 2021/2022 academic year. It then further failed to have oversight or put in place enough education for F between September 2022 and May 2023 after it accepted the alternative provision duty. The Council agreed to make payments to Miss X to recognise the injustice this caused. Wiltshire Council (23 009 667)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council has failed to provide wraparound or holiday childcare for children with special educational needs in the county. We found evidence of fault by the Council because it failed to make sure it was aware of the childcare needs of parents with children who have special educational needs. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment in recognition of the injustice caused to her. It also agreed to tell Miss X about the childcare offer it can make to her this summer. Cheshire East Council (23 010 248)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not review her childâs education, health and care plan within the statutory timescales, failed to provide the provision in the plan and failed to provide alternative education when her child was out of school. We found fault by the Council causing Mrs X and her child an injustice. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment in recognition of the injustice caused. We could not investigate all parts of Mrs Xâs complaint. This is because they are outside of the Ombudsmanâs jurisdiction. Staffordshire County Council (23 011 727)
Summary: Mr K complains about the lack of annual reviews of his sonâs Education, Health and Care Plan. And that the Council did not ensure the provision was in place in a period after his sonâs placement broke down. We uphold the complaint. The Council has agreed to our recommended remedy for missed provision for the year before Mr K complained to the Ombudsman. Nottinghamshire County Council (23 016 194)
Summary: the Council failed to put in place suitable education for Mrs Bâs daughter when she could not attend school, failed to put in place all the provision in her education, health and care plan and failed to respond to Mrs Bâs communications. An apology, payment to Mrs B and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy. West Northamptonshire Council (23 017 934)
Summary: We uphold complaints about delay in Yâs Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment and Plan, mainly caused by a shortage of Educational Psychologists. We also uphold complaints about poor communication by Childrenâs Social Care. The Council will write an apology and make payments to reflect the delay, loss of special educational provision and distress caused by poor communication. The Council will provide us with a written report of the progress it has made on reducing the backlog of cases. Derbyshire County Council (24 001 769)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in the Education, Health and Care Plan process. The complaint is late and it was reasonable for Mr X to complain earlier. Devon County Council (24 001 784)
Summary: We cannot investigate Ms Xâs complaint about failures in the Councilâs Education, Health and Care Plan review process. Ms X has appealed to the SEND Tribunal about the content of the amended plan. Her complaint is connected to the matters being appealed so we cannot investigate. Hampshire County Council (24 002 418)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Councilâs Childrenâs Services officers in relation to the care of the complainantâs children. This is because the complaint is late and there are no grounds for us to investigate it now. Central Bedfordshire Council (24 003 059)
Summary: We cannot investigate Miss Xâs complaint about a court report and the courtâs decision to issue a care order because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been considered in court. We have no discretion to do so. Norfolk County Council (24 002 020)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how a Social Worker completed a court report. We have no jurisdiction to investigate the content of the report and it was reasonable for Mr X to raise his concerns about the conduct of the Social Worker as part of the court proceedings. Leicestershire County Council (22 011 335)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide a suitable education for her daughter, Y. There was fault with how the Council took too long to arrange alternative education for Y when she stopped attending school in 2022 and how the Council decided how much alternative education to arrange. While this did not cause an injustice to Y, it caused some uncertainty for Mrs X. The agreed to apologise, pay Mrs X a financial remedy and remind its staff about keeping clear records of decisions. Surrey County Council (23 012 668)
Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to deliver suitable education â and special educational needs support â to Mr Bâs son while he had no school to go to. The Council should make symbolic payments to Mr B and his son to recognise their injustice. It should also take steps to improve its service. Oxfordshire County Council (23 013 767)
Summary: Mrs X complained about delays by the Council completing the Education, Health and Care needs assessment process for her child, Y. Mrs X also complained about the Council's handling of Yâs Education, Health and Care plan, including failure to deliver provision. We found there was fault causing injustice when Council delays led to periods of missed Special Educational Needs provision. Devon County Council (23 015 121)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council has failed to provide a suitable education for her son. Mrs X also complained about delays in the annual review process and that the Council has now issued a final plan naming a mainstream school. The Councilâs failure to demonstrate it properly reviewed and recorded whether the level of alternative provision available to Y was suitable is fault. As was the delay in the EHC Plan annual review process. These fault have caused Mrs X and Y an injustice. Worcestershire County Council (23 017 089)
Summary: Mrs B complained the Council removed her son from his residential placement at short notice without considering the impact on him. We have ended our investigation as Mrs Bâs complaint is connected to her appeal to the SEND Tribunal. This places the complaint outside our jurisdiction. Kent County Council (23 013 164)
Summary: Mrs X, a former foster carer, complained about the Councilâs response to allegations made against her and the way it removed children from her care. We did not find the Council to be at fault because it followed the correct procedure. Manchester City Council (23 013 249)
Summary: Miss B complained the Council failed to offer appropriate advice or support to her, after her grandchild âCâ was left in her care. We upheld the complaint finding the Council delayed carrying out an assessment which found C was a child in need and in treating Miss B as a kinship foster carer. These faults caused distress to Miss B and a loss of fostering allowance payments. The Council has accepted these findings and at the end of this statement we set out action it has agreed to remedy this injustice. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (23 017 744)
Summary: Mrs Y complained about the way the Council dealt with a blue badge application. We found no fault in the way the Council made its decision. However, we found fault with the way the Council communicated the outcome of her appeal. This caused uncertainty to Mrs Y and the Council agreed to apologise for this. Buckinghamshire Council (23 018 995)
Summary: Miss C complained about the conclusions the Council reached in respect of her complaint about the lack of support and other failings by the Council when she looked after her grandchildren. We found the Council delayed in considering the complaint through the statutory complaints procedure but consider it has recognised the delay and offered a reasonable payment to remedy the fault. We have not found any further fault and so we have not re-investigated the substantive issues. North East Lincolnshire Council (23 020 754)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Councilâs actions concerning Mr X and his child that he says amounted to libel and defamation. The matters complained of are not separable from matters that formed part of court proceedings. Mr X is also seeking the imposition of a significant financial penalty, which only a court could imposer if it found there was liable or defamation. It would therefore be reasonable for Mr X to take this matter to court. Finally, only a court or the information Commisionerâs Office could order the disclosure of documents. Dorset Council (24 002 132)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the terms of a child in need plan. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Councilâs actions. Birmingham City Council (22 013 542)
Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to make alternative education provision for his daughter, Y, when she could not attend school. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision that it did not have a duty to provide alternative education provision for Y. The Council is at fault for not recording its decision that Yâs school could meet her needs, but I do not consider this caused Y an injustice. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (23 012 258)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision to not provide school transport for Ms Xâs son. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it made its decision. |
