A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to secure the special education provision set out in Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. She also complained the Council failed to address concerns about Y’s access to education, or communicate effectively. We have found the Council at fault for failing to conduct an annual review of Y’s EHC Plan, resulting in Y being unable to attend college or receive the provision in the EHC Plan for two academic terms. We have made recommendations to remedy this injustice. There are parts of Mrs X’s complaint we cannot consider. We explain why in the decision statement.

Summary: There was fault by the Council which failed to act in line with the legal timescales in issuing Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan, delayed consulting with school placements and failed to secure educational provision on Y’s Plan or arrange alternative provision. The Council will apologise, make Mr and Mrs X a payment of £500 to reflect their avoidable distress and make Y a payment of £7200 to reflect the loss of a year of education.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to ensure her child, Y, received provision in line with her Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council acknowledges it failed to ensure the school was delivering the provision to Y. We found fault on the Council’s part. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused by the faults to Y and Miss X.

Summary: The complainant (Mrs X) said the Council failed within its duties to her son (Y) for whom it maintains Education Health and Care Plan. We found fault in the Council’s delays to issue Y’s amended Education Health and Care Plan following its Annual Review in June 2022 and in its inadequate communication with Mrs X. We also found fault with the Council’s failure to arrange respite services for Y from June 2023. These faults caused uncertainty and distress. We do not propose to find fault in the way the Council handled alternative provision for Y. Some of the issues Mrs X complained about were or could have been appealed to the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Tribunal or were linked to her appeal. The Council agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment for Mrs X’s distress and to carry out some service improvements.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed completing the annual review of his son, Mr G’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and did not complete the review in time for Mr G’s transition to post 19 education. He said the Council delayed agreeing to an alternative use for direct payments and failed to properly respond to his complaints about the matters. The Council delayed in completing the annual review and there were faults in its complaint handling. The Council will apologise to Mr G and Mr X and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice they experienced.

Summary: Miss B complained that the Council delayed in issuing an amended Education, Health and Care Plan following an emergency review in November 2022, communicated poorly with Miss B and failed to provide C with any alternative education when he stopped attending school at the end of April 2023. We found fault with the Council. It has agreed to apologise to Miss B, pay her £3,300 and improve its procedures for the future.

Summary: We found no fault on Mrs B’s complaint about the Council failing to provide her daughter with suitable alternative education provision. It had no reason to consider it as she had a part time school timetable, received support, and was assessed by an educational psychologist as part of her Education Heath and Care assessment. The draft Education Health and Care Plan made no provision for her to receive alternative provision.

Summary: Ms C complains the Council delayed in assessing X for an Education Health Care (EHC) plan. The Council is at fault for failing to assess X for an EHC plan within the statutory timeframes and update Ms C. To put things right the Council has agreed to make Ms C a symbolic payment and remind staff to keep parents updated when it delays.

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to provide education to Ms X’s child Y when Y could not go to school for health reasons. The Council also failed to deliver the provision in Y’s EHC plan and failed to issue a final plan following the annual review. The Council took too long to decide Y needed education otherwise than at school and delayed dealing with Ms X’s complaints. As a result, Y has been without education for 28 months and both Ms X and Y have experienced avoidable distress. The Council has agreed to apologise, provide Y with education, make payments to Ms X and Y, and act to improve its services.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide suitable support for her child resulting in declining attendance followed by a stop in attendance. Mrs X complained the Council delayed production of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. Mrs X also complained the Council delayed providing alternative provision of education for her child and when it did provide this it was unsuitable for her child’s needs. We found fault with the Council for failing to provide suitable education for Mrs X’s child for most of the period 14 September 2023 to 4 March 2024. We also found fault with the Council for delaying outside the statutory timescales in producing Mrs X’s child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X, pay her £150 for the frustration and uncertainty caused and £2,000 for her child’s missed education. The Council also agreed to provide guidance and training to staff about recognising contacts showing a child is absent from school, and about considering a child’s individual needs when considering suitable alternative provision of education.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s delay in dealing with the transfer of his children’s Education, Health and Care Plans and failure to respond to his stage 2 complaint. We found there was fault by the Council which caused Mr X distress and led to the loss of educational provision for his children. To put matters right, the Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and make a symbolic payment of £500.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s financial remedy it paid her in recognition of her child, Y’s, lost education after they were excluded from school in March 2023. This is because the Council’s remedy was in line with the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies and an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve anything further.

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

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 the Council’s decision not to provide Ms X’s child with free transport to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s actions in respect of its care of her daughter, Miss Y, and the way in which it dealt with her complaint about the matter. We have not found fault with the Council.

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 allocating to the case to an investigator and 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: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council in connection with the care of the complainant’s children. This is because the complaint concerns matters which have been considered in court, or are not separable from those matters.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider her complaint whilst there are ongoing court proceedings.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her child, Y, with all the provision set out in their Education Health and Care Plan. The Council was at fault as it failed to provide Y with the play therapy, speech and language therapy and teaching assistant support set out in their Plan between September and November 2023. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Mrs X £600 to acknowledge the missed provision and frustration this caused.

Summary: The Council took too long to issue a final Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan. It also did not properly consider its duty to make alternative educational provision when the child could not go to school for a prolonged period. The Council also failed to communicate with his mother, Ms B properly during this time. The Council’s shortcomings caused Ms B distress and meant that her child did not receive a suitable education for some time. It has agreed to remedy the injustice.

Summary: Mrs C complained the Council delayed dealing with her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan when she moved to its area. We find the Council was at fault for its delays in dealing with Mrs C’s son’s Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council largely remedied Mrs C’s and her son’s injustice when it responded to her complaint. It has agreed to our further recommendation to reflect Mrs C’s son’s missed education and provision for one month.

Summary: There was no fault in how the Council considered its general section 19 duty, to provide alternative education provision for Mrs X’s son when he stopped going to school. Nor was there any fault in the time it took in issuing a decision it would not make an Education, Health, and Care Plan for Mrs X’s son. However, the Council was at fault in how it dealt with Mrs X’s complaint about these matters and that caused her an injustice. The Council have agreed to my recommendation on a remedy for this injustice.

Summary: There was fault by the Council when it failed to progress a reassessment of a child’s Education Health and Care (EHC) needs, and issue an amended EHC Plan. The Council also failed to consider what action it should take to make sure the child received the education under his existing Plan, when he was not attending school; and it failed to transfer the EHC Plan in good time when the family moved area. The Council’s shortcomings meant that the child missed education and caused him and his family distress and uncertainty. It has agreed to remedy the injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her home to school transport application for her child, Y. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

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 upheld Mrs Z’s complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care process regarding her child, J. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about school admissions. This is because we have no powers to investigate complaints about academy schools.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s School Admissions Appeal Panel’s handling of her appeal against the refusal to offer her child a place at her preferred school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant further investigation.

Summary: Mr and Mrs B complained the Council misrepresented their family in a single assessment and it included factually incorrect data. They also complained the quality of the support the Council provided in practical sessions was poor and the conduct of an officer in two telephone conversations was unreasonable. We do not find the Council was at fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way a Council officer spoke with him during a phone call. This is because the Council already apologised and an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve any additional outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with a complaint at stage two of the statutory children’s complaints procedure. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: There was a two-month delay in issuing Y’s amended Education, Health and Care Plan which caused avoidable distress and a delay in appeal rights. The Council will apologise and make Ms X a symbolic payment of £150.

Summary: The Council investigated the complainant’s concerns about the lack of education for her daughter. It found some fault in its actions and offered a remedy for the injustice. We endorse the Council’s findings. But we recommended an increase in the symbolic payment for the loss of suitable alternative education, which the Council has agreed to pay. We are therefore closing the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a lack of childcare provision and a lack of replacement care provision in the area. This is because the complaint about childcare provision is made late, and the issue no longer caused the complainant an injustice. There is insufficient evidence of fault with how the Council is managing replacement care provision for adults.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to provide funding to a school in order for it to meet the needs of a child with special educational needs. This is because the complaint is made on behalf of a public body.

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 Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s School Admissions Appeal Panel’s handling of her appeal against the refusal to offer her child a place at her preferred school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant further investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council administers personal budgets for short breaks. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement in Mr X’s child’s case. The complaint is about matters that have been considered in court, which the law prevents us from considering. It is reasonable for Mr X to raise all elements of his complaint as part of the ongoing proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about delay in the Council dealing with his stage two complaint under the statutory children’s complaint procedure. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to secure the full provision detailed in her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan since January 2022. We found fault with the Council failing to provide education for Mrs X child for three terms and four weeks. We also found fault with the Council failing to provide suitable Teaching Assistant support and access to an Occupational Therapy Motor Skills programme for five terms. We also found fault with the Council failing to provide 12 months Farming Provision and 23 months and 3 weeks access to Hydrotherapy. The Council agreed to pay Mrs X £12,750 in recognition of her child’s missed educational provision, including failure to source a Teaching Assistant making other education provided not at the needed standard. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £300 for the frustration and distress caused to her through its delays and handling of this matter. The Council also agreed to provide training to staff about the importance of ensuring provisions detailed in Section F of an Education, Health and Care Plan are quantifiable and specific.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not provide education or special educational provision to her child when they were unable to attend school. Ms X said this resulted in her child missing education and support they should have received. We have found the Council at fault for not providing suitable provision to her child and for how it handled her complaint. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise, make a payment for the distress caused to Ms X and the loss of education to her child and carry out a service improvement in relation to complaint handling.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide the specialist educational provision in her children, Y and Z’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plans when they moved into the Council’s area. The Council failed to provide the specialist provision in Y and Z’s Plans between September and October 2023 and did not have due regard to the Armed Forces Covenant. The Council will pay Ms X £2,500 to recognise the injustice caused to her, Y and Z and will review how it manages the transfer of Service children with EHC Plans.

Summary: The Council was not at fault for refusing to deliver alternative educational provision to Ms B’s son while he was out of school. It followed correct procedure and considered evidence properly before reaching its decision. However, it was at fault for a short delay in providing support for Ms B’s son’s special educational needs. It has agreed to make a symbolic payment to recognise his injustice.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council took too long to issue her child, W, with an Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council was at fault. This caused Mrs X avoidable frustration for which the Council should apologise and pay her £150.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council advising the complainant it would seek an attendance order if failed to provide an education plan for his daughter who is home educated. The Council has apologised for writing to Mr X who does not live within its area. It has explained it asked for the information and apologised if he felt threatened by the content of the email. While we understand the complainant’s family found the experience stressful, we do not consider there is a significant personal injustice which justifies an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Education, Health and Care Plan process for her son. This is because Mrs X appealed to a tribunal and there are further appeal rights available. The case is therefore outside our jurisdiction.

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 Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s School Admissions Appeal Panel’s handling of her appeal against the refusal to offer her child a place at her preferred school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault affecting the panel’s decision.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to secure the special educational provision in her child, W’s Education, Health and Care Plan, when they stopped attending school. The Council was at fault. It was also at fault for delay in holding a review of W’s Plan and amending it after the review. This meant W missed out on provision they should have had, and Mrs X experienced avoidable upset, frustration and stress. To remedy their injustice, the Council will apologise to Mrs X and pay her £6,650. The Council will also issue a staff reminder, identify why it failed to arrange tutoring for W despite saying it would and tell the Ombudsman of the steps it will take to prevent that failing happening again in future.

Summary: Miss X complained about failings in respect of special educational needs, health care, safeguarding and social care for two of her children. During the course of our investigation, we found out Miss X had made a judicial review application. As a result, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to consider her complaint.

Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it involved Mr B in his children’s social work assessment and support plan. It took reasonable steps to seek his views and involve him in the development of the plan.

Summary: Before our involvement, the Council accepted that it was at fault for a number of ways in which it failed to properly support Mr B while he was in care. It has already offered him an apology and a symbolic financial remedy. It has also agreed to assist him to apply to correct his birth certificate – which it failed to do for the five years he was in care – and will take steps to improve its service.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to respond to a children services complaint because it could reasonably be or has been mentioned as part of legal proceedings on a closely related matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the removal of the complainant’s child from her care. The complaint concerns matters which have been considered and decided in court, and investigation would achieve no worthwhile outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider her complaint whilst there are ongoing court proceedings.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her son, Y suitable, full-time education, failed to provide all the provision set out in Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan, completed infrequent annual reviews and stopped Y’s alternative provision in September 2023. The Council was at fault for delay with Y’s annual review in 2023, delayed identifying an educational placement for Y to start in September 2023 and poor handover between staff. The faults caused Mrs X and Y frustration, uncertainty and caused Mrs X avoidable time and trouble. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment and provide evidence it has put in place its suggested service improvements.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint the Council did not provide alternative provision to her son when they were not going to school. That is because the decision about alternative provision is not separable from her appeal about the content of an Education, Health, and Care plan. Therefore, the law says we cannot investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to provide him with an education. There are no good reasons the late complaint rule should not apply for the period from May 2022 to January 2023. And we cannot investigate education provision from January 2023 as Mr X appealed to the Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the school named in her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. Ms X had a right of appeal to a tribunal and it was reasonable for her to use it.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about provision for the complainant’s son’s special educational needs. This is because the complaint is late and there are insufficient grounds to consider it now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s processing of Mrs X’s in-year applications and appeals for school places. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We found fault in a previous investigation because the Council failed to consider Ms X’s complaint about a personal budget for her child, via the statutory complaints procedure for children’s social care services. The Council agreed to consider the complaint via the statutory procedure, but then failed to do so. Therefore, we opened this investigation to consider further fault causing injustice to Ms X. There was fault by the Council which further delayed Ms X in receiving a response to her complaint via the statutory procedure. The Council agreed to pay a financial remedy to recognise the distress caused by this further delay.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement in Miss X’s case. The complaint is about matters that were decided by a court, and we have no power to investigate or change the court’s decision.