| 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. Cornwall Council (23 009 624)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to put in place suitable alternative provision for her child, Z. Mrs X also complained the Council delayed completing an Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment, delayed deciding whether to issue an EHC Plan, and handled her complaint poorly. We have found the Council at fault. We have made recommendations to address the injustice this caused. Surrey County Council (23 017 436)
Summary: We upheld a complaint about Yâs alternative education provision. The Council failed to discussed changes to the package and failed to consult with relevant health professionals to see if Y could cope with more hours. This caused avoidable uncertainty. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment of £150. Coventry City Council (23 018 059)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not put alternative provision in place for her child, Y, when Y became too unwell to attend school. The Council was at fault in how it decided whether to arrange alternative provision for Y and for delay in issuing Yâs Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused Mrs X avoidable frustration and upset for which the Council will apologise and pay her £500. The Council will also identify what actions it needs to take to ensure it retains information about its actions and decision-making in relation to a childâs education when a member of staff leaves their role. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (23 018 375)
Summary: There was delay in completing an Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment and delay in considering whether alternative education was required. This caused uncertainty, frustration, distress and additional time and trouble. However, it is not possible to say with any certainty that Y would have accessed additional education without this delay, the suitability of education offered is a matter which is under appeal and outside the remit of the Ombudsman. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment for distress and uncertainty. London Borough of Redbridge (23 019 898)
Summary: Mr D complains the Council failed to review and update his Education Health Care (EHC) plan which resulted in him being unable to access an apprenticeship scheme. During the investigation the Council accepted fault in its actions and agreed to apologise, pay Mr D a symbolic payment and review his EHC plan. We have discontinued the investigation as Mr D is happy with this result and it is disproportionate to investigate the matter further. East Sussex County Council (24 002 604)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision regarding home to school transport for Mr Xâs child. It is clear the Council has considered its possible duty and the case Mr X has put forward for an adjustment to provide transport to accommodate part-time attendance at school. Its decision that this is not necessary is one it was entitled to make. Hertfordshire County Council (24 005 303)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the Council refusing to provide her daughter with free transport to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. East Sussex County Council (24 005 451)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the education placements the Council named in his childâs Education, Health, and Care Plan(s). Mr X had a right of appeal about these decisions. Nor will we investigate the other parts of his complaint because they are either late, or the Council has already satisfactorily addressed them. Derbyshire County Council (24 005 663)
Summary: We upheld Mrs Xâs complaints about delays in the review of her child, Yâs, Education, Health and Care Plan and about the Councilâs poor communication. The Council accepted fault and offered a suitable remedy during its complaints process. The Ombudsman also made recent service improvement recommendations in other investigations for similar cases. Therefore, an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve any additional outcome. Bracknell Forest Council (24 006 580)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to make amendments to a childâs Education Health and Care plan. This is because the complainant has appealed about the same matter to a tribunal. Herefordshire Council (24 000 744)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to arrange contact with her grandchildren and respond to her queries on the matter. The Council was at fault which caused Miss X upset and uncertainty and meant she missed out on contact with her grandchildren. The Council has agreed to apologise, put measures in place to ensure she has contact going forward and make a payment to Miss X. Hertfordshire County Council (23 011 990)
Summary: Mrs N complained about a shortfall in funding from the Council to meet the needs of a child with special educational needs who attended the preschool she runs. The Council declined to pay for the support the child received between 17 April and 29 May 2023. We found fault with the decision to end the funding on 17 April 2023 since it did not take account of the needs of the child. The Council has agreed to pay the preschool for the support it provided. Somerset Council (23 013 883)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed the issue of her sonâs amended EHC Plan following an annual review, and that the alternative provision offered during the delay did not meet Yâs needs. We found fault causing injustice in relation to both matters complained about. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss X and make a payment to her, and another for Yâs benefit, to remedy the injustice caused. Essex County Council (23 017 072)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council was at fault in the way it carried out an Education Health and Care needs assessment on her child causing distress. We found fault because the Council delayed carrying out the needs assessment and have recommended a suitable remedy. So, we have completed our investigation. London Borough of Southwark (23 017 606)
Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to properly consider whether Miss Bâs daughter should receive alternative educational provision while she was not attending school. This means it is unclear whether education was, in light of her individual circumstances, available and accessible to her for a full school term. The Council has agreed to make symbolic payments to recognise the injustice caused to Miss B and her daughter. It will also take steps to improve its service. Suffolk County Council (23 019 006)
Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to comply with the statutory timeframes for completing an Education, Health and Care needs assessment for her child, X. Mrs B says this has impacted Xâs access to education. We have found the Council at fault. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy to Mrs B and X and complete service improvements to remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified. Lancashire County Council (24 000 318)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed completing his son Yâs Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment in line with statutory timescales. He says it also delayed issuing an amended EHC Plan following an annual review. The Council was at fault because it failed to decide whether to issue Y with an EHC Plan within the statutory timescales, caused by a delay in obtaining Educational Psychologist advice. This caused a further delay in issuing Yâs final EHC Plan. The Council then failed to issue the final amended Plan within timescales after an annual review the following year. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mr X to acknowledge the distress, frustration and uncertainty this caused him. Essex County Council (24 004 641)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about 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. Surrey County Council (24 006 305)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to include therapeutic provision in a childâs Education Health and Care plan. This is because the complainant appealed the contents of the plan to the SEND Tribunal. Archbishop Blanch School (24 006 657)
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. Salford City Council (24 008 369)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Councilâs School Admissions Appeal Panelâs 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. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (23 020 671)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to support his family in caring for a child they had fostered and did not provide the financial support it said it would. This caused Mr X significant financial difficulties and led to the child leaving Mr Xâs care. We have ended our investigation we would not add anything significant to the investigation which has already been carried out under the statutory procedure for complaints about childrenâs services. London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (24 000 967)
Summary: The Council was at fault for refusing to consider Mrs Bâs complaint properly under the statutory childrenâs complaints procedure. It will now do so. Lancashire County Council (24 003 845)
Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Councilâs childrenâs services department dealt with her and her daughter. The Council was at fault for failing to use the childrenâs statutory complaints procedure to respond to Mrs Xâs concerns. This caused Mrs X frustration and meant she went to undue time and trouble pursuing her complaint through the wrong procedure. To remedy her injustice, the Council will apologise, pay Mrs X £200, begin to investigate a complaint under the statutory procedure and issue a reminder to staff. Leicestershire County Council (24 004 440)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X and Mrs Yâs complaint about how the Council processed personal information relating to their family, or about the Councilâs response to their subject access request. This is because the Information Commissionerâs Office is better placed to consider the complaint. Surrey County Council (24 004 984)
Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about child protection and Miss Xâs children. There is no good reason to exercise the discretion available to us to consider this matter now. Derbyshire County Council (23 016 479)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not secure the provision in his sonâs Education, Health and Care Plan. We have found the Council at fault and it has agreed to remedy the injustice caused. Worcestershire County Council (23 019 194)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide a suitable education for her son between July 2023 and March 2024. We found there was a delay in reviewing Yâs Education Health and Care Plan and a failure to provide an education for Y while he was not attending school. We recommended an apology and payment to recognise the impact. Cornwall Council (24 000 172)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed in issuing her child, Yâs, Education, Health and Care Plan and failed to communicate with her during the process. The Council was at fault which caused Mrs X and Y frustration and distress and meant Y missed out on some special educational provision. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (24 005 020)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a failure by the Councilâs computer system to migrate details of Mr Xâs business when it changed systems. The Council notified Mr X and other service users of the change and asked them to check and to report any problems. East Sussex County Council (24 005 189)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision not to assess the complainantâs child for an Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because the complaint has appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). This places the matter outside our jurisdiction. Dorset Council (24 005 732)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a request for information and that inaccurate information about the complainant was recorded by the Council. This is because the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider these matters. St. Gregorys Primary School (24 006 643)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about an unsuccessful school admission appeal. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault for us to question the panelâs decision. Suffolk County Council (24 005 040)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision to place Miss Xâs children with her mother. The placement was subject to a care order, and we cannot investigate matters that have been or could reasonably have been raised in court. The matters complained of are not separable from that. Miss X has a right it would be reasonable to use to return to court to seek other arrangements. Birmingham City Council (24 005 089)
Summary: We will not investigate Xâs complaint about a social workerâs private actions. Social Work England and the Police are better placed. Oxfordshire County Council (24 005 422)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker. This is because the complaint concerns matters which are the subject of court action, or are bound up with those matters. Lincolnshire County Council (22 014 198)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council issued multiple Education, Health and Care plans that named unsuitable placements and provisions, which meant her child was unable to attend education. The Ombudsman intends to find fault with the Council for its delay during the Education, Health and Care plan process, and for not communicating its decisions to Mrs X, however this did not cause significant injustice to Mrs X. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council for how it considered its alternative provision duty. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and carry out service improvements. Surrey County Council (23 015 828)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council has failed to provide her son, Y, with a suitable alternative education or the provision in his Education, Health and Care Plan since February 2023. She also complained the Council did not meet the statutory timescales for reviewing Yâs Education, Health and Care Plan. We found fault by the Council on all matters. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and Y and make a payment in recognition of the injustice caused. Suffolk County Council (23 018 337)
Summary: Mr X complains the Council delayed issuing a final education, health and care plan for his child, Y, and that it failed to provide some of the provision outlined in the plan. The Council acknowledges it was at fault and has apologised to Mr X. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused by the delays. North Yorkshire Council (23 020 163)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Councilâs handling of her childâs Education, Health and Care needs assessment. We found the Council at fault because there was a significant delay in securing the Educational Psychologistâs report needed for the assessment. In recognition of the distress caused by the delay, the Council agreed to make a symbolic payment of £500 to Mrs X. Surrey County Council (23 020 263)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide suitable education for her child since September 2019. Ms X also complained the Council delayed in producing her childâs Education, Health and Care Plan from February 2022 until October 2023. We found fault with the Council failing to provide suitable education for Ms Xâs child from January 2020 until October 2023. We also found fault with the Council delaying by 38 weeks outside the statutory timescales in producing Ms Xâs childâs Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council has already paid Ms X £4,500 for missed education, from September 2022 to October 2023 and £1,500 for the avoidable delays, distress and frustration caused. The Council agreed to pay Ms X an extra £11,650 for her childâs missed education from January 2020 to September 2022. Somerset Council (24 002 792)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Councilâs delay issuing her child, Yâs amended final Education, Health and Care Plan. We find the Council at fault. This impacted Yâs education and caused distress and uncertainty for Mrs X. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mrs X, and issue an amended final Education, Health and Care Plan. Dorset Council (24 005 680)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision not to award free school transport for the complainantâs son. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Buckinghamshire Council (24 006 551)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about an unsuccessful school admission appeal. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault for us to be able to question the panelâs decision. London Borough of Islington (23 018 182)
Summary: Miss X complained about how she was treated by the Council. She said there had been a lack of support for her as her nieceâs foster carer; the Council has not paid her the correct fostering allowance; she is unhappy with the Councilâs complaints response; and the Council agreed to put things in place at a meeting but then went back on its word. We find the Council was at fault for the lack of support provided to Miss X. This caused Miss X significant distress. We make several recommendations to address this injustice caused by fault. Warrington Council (24 004 834)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Councilâs treatment of Mr X in its response to the safeguarding concerns he raised about the care of his children. The matters complained of are not separable from matters concerning who is best placed to care for and have contact with the children. These matters have been or could reasonably have been raised during court action. Gloucestershire County Council (24 005 048)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a carerâs assessment carried out by the Council. This is because the Council has agreed to address the matter through the appropriate complaint procedure, and this provides a proportional remedy for the injustice caused to the complainant. Buckinghamshire Council (24 005 337)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker and the Councilâs subsequent response. This is because investigation would not lead to a different outcome. West Sussex County Council (23 016 015)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide her child, Y, with a suitable education and it failed to communicate with her effectively. The Council acknowledges it was at fault. The fault caused loss of provision and avoidable distress. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy this injustice. Warrington Council (23 016 966)
Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with Zâs Education, Health and Care Plan and education and special educational needs provision. We have found fault by the Council in: failing to make alternative provision for Z from January to March 2023; deliver Zâs SEN provision from January to July 2023; and complete the EHC Plan review process within the statutory timescales. This fault caused injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this by: apologising; making payments to reflect the distress and worry caused and the impact on Z of the missed provision; issuing the final amended EHC Plan; and making a service improvement. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (23 018 665)
Summary: Ms F complained her child did not receive a full-time education for two academic years. We partially upheld the complaint, finding the Council did not respond properly when learning of the childâs absences from school in September 2022. As a result there was some loss of education provision and distress caused to Ms F. The Council has accepted this finding and agreed action, set out at the end of this statement, to remedy that injustice and improve its service. Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (23 019 440)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council has not provided support to her child who was out of school and has not agreed a school placement. We cannot investigate Ms X concerns that her child has not got a school placement or whether they received the specialist provision in their Education, Health and Care Plan as Ms X appealed to a Tribunal. We have not found the Council at fault for failing to provide Ms Xâs child with education. West Sussex County Council (23 019 530)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to comply with the statutory timeframe for issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan. He also complained the Council failed to communicate effectively throughout the process. Mr X said the delays will have a negative impact in his childâs educational outcomes. We have found fault with the Council for the delay in issuing a final Education, Health and Care Plan and delays in the complaints process. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and complete service improvements. Birmingham City Council (23 020 612)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly consider her appeal for home to school transport for her child. There was some fault in the way the Council decided Mrs Xâs appeal, but this would not have changed the outcome. There was additional fault as the appeal was delayed, the stage two appeal decision letter lacked detail and Mrs X was not given the opportunity to make verbal representations. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and take action to prevent recurrence of the faults. Kent County Council (23 021 398)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council wrongly decided not to amend her child Dâs Education, Health, and Care Plan following an annual review, and delayed in making this decision. There was fault by the Council which caused avoidable distress for D and Mrs X, and avoidable time and trouble for Mrs X. The Council agreed to pay a financial remedy and share a copy of our final decision with staff in its Childrenâs Complaints Team to share learning from the complaint handling faults identified. Surrey County Council (24 004 825)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Councilâs failure to secure the special educational needs provision set out in her daughterâs Education Health and Care Plan. This is because Mrs X has lodged proceedings against the Council at the High Court about the matter. Hertfordshire County Council (24 006 306)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about an unsuccessful school admission appeal. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault for us to be able to question the panelâs decision. Leeds City Council (24 008 405)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs School Admissions Appeal Panelâs handling of his appeal against the refusal to offer his child a place at his preferred school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant further investigation. Cumberland Council (23 018 991)
Summary: Mr X complains about how the Council considered his complaint under the statutory complaints process. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for the delay in considering Mr Xâs complaint, and for failing to provide a satisfactory remedy. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council for how it considered his complaint under the process. The Council has agreed to pay financial remedies to Mr X in recognition of the distress and delay caused. Somerset Council (24 000 551)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to properly assess her son (Yâs) blue badge application and unreasonably rejected her appeal of this. There was no fault in how the Council considered Yâs blue badge application. However, the appeal decision letter is poorly written and unclear. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss X for the confusion that caused her. London Borough of Enfield (24 004 595)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the possible reasons underlying the Councilâs decision not to accept a fostering application from Mr X. We could not make a finding of hidden disability discrimination, which would be better sought from a court. Additionally, the reasons given by the Council for its decision include ones it was entitled to consider in reaching its decision. Kent County Council (24 005 395)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision not to issue a Blue Badge for the complainantâs child. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Oxfordshire County Council (24 003 353)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about Council actions and failure to meet statutory timescales during her childâs Education Health and Care needs assessment and her dissatisfaction with the final plan. She has appealed to the tribunal about the content of the plan and the delay issuing the plan did not cause a significant injustice. Derbyshire County Council (24 003 788)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the content of a Councilâs child protection report as further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. |
