A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions

Summary: We have found fault with the Council for not delivering suitable alternative educational provision for Mr X’s son after he was excluded from school. He missed a term of education that affected his learning and behaviour. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice.

Summary: The Council investigated the complainants’ concern that it delayed in issuing their daughter’s Education, Health and Care Plan, after an annual review, Children Services did not attend this review and services were wrongly withdrawn. The Council accepted fault and provided redress to ensure the complainants’ daughter received services in accordance with her Plan. The Council also apologised and made a small symbolic payment. We are satisfied that this is sufficient remedy and therefore we are closing the complaint.

Summary: The Council took too long to notify Mrs B that her son’s Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan would cease. It did not properly arrange his transition to adult social care in accordance with the law and guidance. The Council failed to maintain the EHC Plan while Mrs B’s appeal against the decision was outstanding. It took too long to assess his social care needs and to arrange care. The Council caused significant distress, uncertainty and frustration to Mrs B and her son. Mrs B’s son missed out on the educational provision set out in the EHC Plan. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice it caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with matters concerning a child’s education. This is because the issues raised have either been appealed to the SEND Tribunal or are not separable from that appeal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about @.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council considered safeguarding concerns she raised about her child living with their father. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to conduct an Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment regarding his child, Y. This is because Mr X appealed the decision to the SEND Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with matters concerning a child’s education. This is because the issues raised have either been appealed to the SEND Tribunal or are not separable from that appeal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with matters concerning a child’s education. This is because the issues raised have either been appealed to the SEND Tribunal or are not separable from that appeal.

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: Miss X complains the Council did not carry out the agreed actions from its stage three review of her complaint and did not provide a remedy for the injustice caused. Miss X says this has caused further distress. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for failing to consider and provide a suitable remedy for the fault found during the statutory complaints process. The Council has agreed to pay Miss X a financial remedy and carry out service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has refused to consider the complainants concerns about the actions of social workers. This is because investigation by the Ombudsman would achieve no worthwhile outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council blocking Miss X’s complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaints about the Council’s actions during court proceedings because the issues complained about have been considered by a court and the law says we cannot investigate. We did not investigate part of Miss X’s complaint because it is too closely related to the matters considered by a court.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council not sending her a copy of her child’s education, health and care plan and not providing her child with a suitable education. The Council is at fault for failing to ensure a suitable education was being provided to Mrs X’s child and for not communicating with her effectively about her child’s plan. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused by the fault.

Summary: The Council failed to consider whether to review a child’s Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan, or reassess his EHC needs when he moved to its area. The Council failed to provide him with an education for some months. It also did not deal with Ms B’s requests and contact, or her complaints to it properly. This caused the family distress and frustration, and meant that the child missed out on education. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice it caused.

Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council met her son, Z’s, special educational needs. There was fault in how the Council took too long to issue Z’s Education Health and Care plan in 2022, and delays in starting speech and language therapy in 2023. This caused Mrs X avoidable frustration and worry for which the Council agreed to apologise and pay her a financial remedy. It also agreed to review how it manages and monitors special educational needs assessments.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s school admission appeal panel’s decision to refuse the complainant’s appeal for a school place for her son. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about children services reply to his complaint. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to have requested a stage three review panel hearing on time. And it is unlikely we would criticise its decision to refuse a late request.

Summary: We cannot investigate most of Mr X’s complaints about the Council’s actions during court proceedings because the issues complained about have been considered by a court and the law says we cannot investigate. We did not investigate part of Mr X’s complaint because it is too closely related to the matters considered by a court.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the accuracy of a child and family assessment. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed. And we are unlikely to achieve a significantly different remedy than the Council provided via its complaints’ procedure.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to offer direct payments to Miss X to assist with her children’s care needs. The Council acted properly in assessing the children’s needs under its criteria and we cannot adjudicate matters of lawfulness, which only a court could decide. Although the Council took too long to carry out its assessment and to deal with Miss X’s complaint, this did not cause her to lose direct payments.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about her child being removed from her care and an adoption order being made because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been subject to, and decided in, court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so.

Summary: Ms M’s son, B, has been out of school for two years without any education because of delays by the Council amending his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. He should have a special school place. The impact on Ms M and her family has been very significant. We have recommended a symbolic financial payment and urge the Council to secure suitable education for B without further delay.

Summary: the Council failed to check arrangements were in place at a mainstream nursery to deliver special educational provision for Mr F’s daughter G. G did not receive provision for the 15 hours a week she attended the nursery between June 2022 and December 2023. We find fault with the way the Council amended G’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan in anticipation of her transfer to school. Due to a lack of capacity, the Council then applied a blanket policy and failed to consider G’s individual circumstances which delayed her full-time attendance at a special nursery. We have recommended a remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: Ms X complained about the level of support provided by the Council when her child was out of school. Ms X said her child’s education and mental health was negatively impacted. We have not found the Council at fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with matters concerning an Education Health and Care needs assessment. This is because some matters are not separable from an appeal to the SEND Tribunal and further investigation into other matters would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mr F complained that the Council failed to provide alternative education provision and social care support to his son. We found delay in starting alternative provision, a delay in issuing the final EHC plan and fault in complaint-handling. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to remedy the injustice this caused.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly deal with a request for an assessment for an Education Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) for her daughter. She complained when it agreed to provide an EHC Plan, there was a delay in issuing the plan and Y was not provided with an education while out of school. We found there was delay in issuing an EHC Plan following a Tribunal Order and that Y was not provided with a suitable education. We recommended an apology and a payment to reflect the impact. We did not investigate the Council’s decision not to assess Y. This is because it occurred too long ago and was subject to an appeal.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of her child’s Education, Health and Care needs assessment. We found fault by the Council in its poor communication with Mrs X and its delay in assessing her child and issuing an Education Health and Care Plan. In recognition of the distress and frustration caused by its faults, the Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment of £500 to Mrs X.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to provide her child, Z, with a suitable education when they were out of school for medical reasons. The Council has accepted it was at fault which led to a period of missed provision for Z. It apologised and offered Ms X a financial remedy of £600. We agree with the Council’s findings and consider this to be a suitable remedy to recognise the injustice caused.

Summary: Mrs M complains about the Independent Appeal Panel’s decision not to admit her children to a primary school. There is no fault in the Panel’s decision. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault.

Summary: We upheld Miss X’s complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care process regarding her child, Y. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council refused to reimburse the complainant for costs associated with her appeal to the SEND Tribunal. This is because we cannot consider matters that a tribunal has considered or could have considered.

Summary: Z complained the Council failed to safeguard their child, Child A. Z said the Council did not respond to a safeguarding referral made by Child A’s school, leaving them without support. Z also complained about poor communication and complaints handling. The Council processed the Prevent referral in line with government guidance and was not at fault. The Council was at fault for poor communication and delayed stage 1 complaints handling which caused Z frustration, uncertainty and time and trouble. The Council has already apologised and offered a symbolic payment for the poor stage 1 complaints handling and reviewed its communication procedures to prevent reoccurrence of the faults. This remedied the injustice caused.

Summary: Miss F complained the Council had failed to keep her siblings safe from neglect and harm and as a result has left her brother homeless and her sisters at risk of harm. We found fault by the Council as it had not dealt with this complaint under the statutory children’s complaints process. It has agreed to do so now. It will also make a symbolic payment to Miss F to remedy the time and trouble she has been caused and review information about Miss F’s siblings to determine if safeguarding enquiries are necessary.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about what the Council may have told Mr X before he sought a Special Guardianship Order. This matter is not separable from matters that formed part of court action, and any failure by his legal representative to explain the options available to him at that time would be a matter he should take up with that person and then approach the Legal Ombudsman if he remains dissatisfied with the response.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to properly consider complaints about the care of and contact with the complainant’s children, and that it failed to take action agreed during the investigation of the complaint. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council’s children’s services wrote a biased assessment. This is because the complaint is made late, and I see no good reason to exercise discretion and investigate the issues raised now.

Summary: There was delay in putting alternative education in place when a child was unable to attend school due to anxiety and when the Council had ‘off-rolled’ the child from their school. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment and carry out service improvements.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to provide her son, who has an Education, Health and Care Plan, with a school place or alternative provision when he moved into its area. On the evidence seen so far, we found the Council to be at fault. It took nearly a term to find a suitable school and did not make any interim arrangements to meet her son’s special educational needs. To remedy the injustice arising from these faults, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to acknowledge her distress and lack of provision. It will also take action to improve its service when children with special educational needs move into its area.

Summary: Mr X complained about poor communication and a lack of education for his son, F, between March and July 2023 after F moved to the area to live with him. There was evidence of poor communication by the Council and a failure to signpost Mr X to appropriate school admission information causing the matter to drift. It also caused Mr X frustration and uncertainty.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about home to school transport for the complainant’s son. This is because it is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response or achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council has failed to provide her daughter with suitable education over the last nine years. Part of the complaint is late. The Council upheld her complaint that it had failed to provide suitable education in the last year and offered her a remedy for this. Since our involvement, the Council has increased its remedy offer to Ms X. The remedy offered is now in line with our remedies guidance. It is unlikely an investigation would achieve anything more or lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for free home to school transport for his son. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to a complaint about the alleged actions of a school. The substantive matter complained of concerns the internal affairs of a school. We have no legal power to investigate the complaint.

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: Before our involvement, the Council accepted that it was at fault for several ways in which it failed to properly support Mr B and his family during a child protection investigation. It had already offered him and his family symbolic financial remedies; however, not all these payments adequately recognised their injustice. It has agreed to increase some of the payments, and it will take steps to improve its service.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed considering a complaint at stage three of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint by arranging a stage three panel without further delay. It will also apologise to the complainant for not doing so sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the delay in the Council’s handling of her complaints under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Ms X by the fault accepted.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to ensure her son (B) received an education when he was unable to attend school. She also complained the Council delayed issuing B’s final Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plans, delayed obtaining relevant assessments, and did not respond to her complaints. We have found the Council failed to properly consider its Section 19 duty at key points in the 2021/22 academic year. We have also found the Council failed to fulfil its Section 19 duty in the 2022/23 academic year. These faults caused a loss of education provision and support for B. We have also found the Council at fault for failing to issue B’s EHC Plans within statutory timescales and for failing to respond to Ms X’s complaint. We have made recommendations to remedy the injustice this caused. We have also recommended the Council act to improve its services.

Summary: Mrs B complained the Council delayed in completing an Education, Health and Care assessment and failed to meet the statutory timeframe for issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan for her child, X. Mrs B says this caused distress for X and the family. We have found the Council at fault. The Council has agreed to provide staff training and make a payment to remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to meet the special educational needs of her child. We upheld the complaint, finding the Council agreed to make alternative provision for the child’s education but then failed to do so, or else refund Mrs X for arrangements she made. This caused a quantifiable financial loss. The Council has accepted this finding and at the end of this statement we set out the action it has agreed to remedy this injustice and make service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide Mr X’s child with home to school transport. This is because an investigation is unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council has failed to provide a fulltime education to the complainant’s child. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by making an appropriate financial remedy. It would not be proportionate to investigate further.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an annual review of a young person’s Education Health and Care plan. This is because most of the issues raised are not separable from an appeal made against the contents of the plan. Other issues have not caused a significant enough injustice to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s Home to School transport policy. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman, and Mr X has not been caused a personal injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault for us to be able to question the panel’s decision.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about child protection action taken by the Council. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement.

Summary: We cannot by law investigate this complaint about the adequacy of the Council’s child protection actions in respect of the complainant’s children, or its role in private custody proceedings. This is because the issued raised have been subject to court action. We have no legal jurisdiction to investigate a complaint where the issues raised are subject to court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a child and family assessment. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider his complaint whilst there are ongoing family court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered Mr X’s request to change its records and provide him with information. This is because there is another body better placed to deal with his complaint and it would be reasonable for him to make a complaint to that body. Nor will we investigate how the Council communicated with Mr X over this matter because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s child protection investigation in relation to the complainant’s child, as well as its decision to initiate care proceedings in court. This is because we have no legal jurisdiction to investigate a complaint where the issues raised are subject to court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about data recorded about the complainant and his family by the Council in a assessment document. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions and the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider.