A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X not having seen his daughter for 14 years and the Council having taken her into care without his consent. Only a court can decide disputed contact and residence arrangements for a child, so it would be reasonable for Mr X to use his right to go to court about recent matters. Historic matters are also late and there would be no good reason to exercise discretion to consider them even if they were not also matters that only a court could have resolved.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions when substantiating an allegation involving Mrs X and her husband. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate it now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council’s children’s services. Many of the issues raised happened too long ago or were considered in court proceedings. We could not add to the Council’s investigation into parts of the complaint that the Council upheld and there is insufficient evidence of fault in how it dealt with other matters.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to reply to a letter. There is not enough injustice directly caused by this to justify an investigation.

Summary: the Council delayed putting in place alternative provision for Miss B’s daughter, delayed completing an education, health and care needs assessment and in issuing a final EHC Plan and failed to respond to Miss B’s communications. An apology, payment to Miss B, review of the case and an action plan to address the issues that arose is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed issuing an Education Health and Care Plan for a child. 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 Mr X’s complaint regarding home to school transport for his son. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, and it has now agreed to a Personal Transport Budget. We could not achieve anything more.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council misled him when he made an application to a court about its involvement with his adult son’s education. This is because it was reasonable for Mr X to raise the matter with the courts.

Summary: Ms X complained that the Council failed to review and update her son’s education, health and care plan in line with statutory timescales and failed to provide an appropriate education for him. We found the Council delayed in determining appropriate educational provision and failed to comply with statutory timescales. As a result, Ms X’s son was out of school for a considerable period. We also found the Council’s communication with Ms X was poor and it delayed significantly in responding to her complaint. In recognition of the injustice caused the Council has agreed to make a payment to Ms X.

Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council considers school transport applications for children in her village. We do not find fault with how the Council assesses these applications or how it responded to Mrs X’s application and appeals.

Summary: We found fault by the Council on Mr Y’s complaint about its failures for several years to ensure his son attended school. It failed to send him copy minutes promptly, delayed, failed to follow its own Practice Standards, and had weak management oversight. This caused him and his son distress. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s Care Planning and Support Team and its involvement with Mr X’s family. An investigation would be unlikely to add anything to the responses the Council has already sent. The law also prevents us from considering matters which have been or could be raised in court. Other bodies are better placed to consider some parts of Mr X’s complaint.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not consider her complaint about Special Guardianship and foster payments for a child she cares for through the children’s statutory complaint procedure. The Council was at fault for failing to consider Ms X’s complaint through the children’s statutory complaint procedure. The Council will apologise and pay Ms X a symbolic amount to recognise the frustration caused to her, and consider her complaint through the correct procedure.

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

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about information contained in the Council’s Section 7 report to court. The law prevents us from investigating what happened in court, this includes the contents of the Council’s report.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about delays and how the Council provided support to her son. These complaints are late and there are no good reasons why they could not have been made sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint the Council delayed finalising her child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care Plan following a Tribunal order and about delays in securing Y’s educational provision. This is because the Council apologised for the delays, and further investigation is unlikely to achieve any additional outcome. We cannot investigate the Council’s conduct during the Tribunal process.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in the annual review of an Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because the Council has offered a suitable remedy. Further consideration of the complaint would not achieve anything more and so an investigation is not warranted.

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.

Summary: The Council significantly delayed in its complaint handling but has now taken action to improve its services. The Council was not at fault for failing to secure the provision in Mr Z’s EHC Plan but it failed to review Mr Z’s EHC Plan when it should have. This caused uncertainty to Mr Z and Ms X. In recognition of the injustice caused by the faults in this case, the Council should apologise, pay £500 and take action to improve its services.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about delays in the Education, Health, and Care needs assessment for her son and in issuing a final Plan. Or the Council’s failure to identify a suitable school or provide alternative educational provision or the therapeutic provision specified in her son’s EHC Plan. This is because her complaint is late and Mrs X has exercised her right of appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal.

Summary: The Council should have considered its section 19 duty to Mr X’s child, Z, a year earlier than it did. Its failure to do so caused a period of uncertainty about what education Z should have received and later, two terms of avoidable missed provision. The Council also delayed by 38 weeks in concluding Z’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Needs Assessment. To recognise the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to pay Mr X £3,050 and carry out service improvements.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed issuing her son (Y’s) amended Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan within timescales following an annual review in March 2023. The Council was at fault because it failed to issue an amended EHC Plan until September 2024. This has caused distress and uncertainty about her son’s education and has delayed her right of appeal to the SEND tribunal. The Council should make payments to recognise this.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed providing her child a travel pass which she had paid for. As a result Ms X had to take her child to school and was only able to use the travel pass for one of the eight weeks it covered. We have found the Council at fault, however it agreed to reimburse Ms X for her travel costs which remedies the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a lack of education as there are no good enough reasons not to apply the late complaint rule.

Summary: Mrs B complains about how the Council treated her and her partner when their child was born. This was due to her previous involvement with the Council about concerns for the care of her older children. The Council would not consider her complaint about the matter. The Council was at fault for not considering Mrs B’s complaint. The Council will apologise to Mrs B and consider her complaint through the children’s statutory complaint procedure.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a social worker’s assessment. This is because investigation could not establish a causal link between the fault the complainant identifies and the injustice he says he has suffered.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about personal information being shared with a third party. This is because the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider the matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s School Attendance Support Service. It is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response and the law prevents us from considering matters discussed in court.

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.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and pay her £100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s 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 panel’s decision.

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.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council did not deal properly with his son Y’s education. The Council is at fault because it delayed dealing with funding levels and delayed issuing an Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP). Y has not had an updated EHCP, has missed special educational needs provision and remains uncertain whether he may have missed further provision. The Council should apologise and pay Mr X £1000 for distress and uncertainty, pay Mr X £600 for missed provision and issue a final EHCP.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a child’s school placement. This is because the complainant has used their right of appeal to a tribunal.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not deliver appropriate education to her son after his exclusion from college and that its communication was poor. We found fault because the Council failed to adequately consider its statutory duties, consult with other providers in a timely manner or communicate with Miss X appropriately. Miss X suffered avoidable frustration and distress and her son missed out on some of the education he should have received. To remedy the injustice caused by this fault, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Miss X, issue reminders and guidance to relevant staff and consider reviewing some of its policies and procedures.

Summary: There was fault by the Council as it delayed issuing an amended Education, Health and Care Plan after an annual review. This delayed the right to appeal to the SEND tribunal and a payment remedies the injustice caused. There was also failure to chase a response from social care during the needs assessment process. There was no fault in the Council’s decision not to provide alternative educational provision as it decided the place at school was suitable and accessible to the child.

Summary: We stopped investigating Miss X's complaint about a school admissions appeal. This is because we cannot investigate complaints about admissions to academies.

Summary: Miss B complains about the Council’s decision not to assess her son for an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan), and the Council’s subsequent delays in carrying out an EHC needs assessment and issuing an EHC Plan after she later applied again. She also complains the Council failed to consider relevant information during the assessment process and when issuing the EHC Plan. There was fault by the Council in the way it did not meet statutory timescales during the EHC Plan process. Because of this, Miss B suffered distress and frustration, and the Council’s failure to meet statutory timescales delayed her appeal rights to the Tribunal. Miss B’s son missed out on provision and support. The Council will apologise to Miss B and her son, make a symbolic payment, and provide staff training.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about the education provided for her child since September 2023. Ms X has appealed to a tribunal and so we have no power to investigate.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s approach to the calculation and payment of Personal Travel Budgets. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Councils School Admission Independent Appeal Panels handling of an appeal to offer her child a place at her preferred school. We are unlikely to find fault by the Appeal Panel.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her £100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a data breach. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is the appropriate body to consider the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to make age-related increases to the financial support paid to the complainant in respect of a young person in his care. This is because the complaint is late and there are no grounds to investigate it now.

Summary: Mrs X, a foster carer complained about the outcome of the Council’s investigation into an allegation made against her by a foster child she cared for. There was no fault in how the Council investigated and substantiated the allegations. However, the Council's policy around roles and responsibilities towards people subject to investigations is not clearly defined which caused Mrs X confusion and uncertainty. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and review its policy.

Summary: The Council was not at fault in how it decided Mr X’s adoption allowance. Although it departed from recommendations originally made by the government – which are widely used by other councils – it has provided a reasonable explanation for doing so.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council separating members of a family. The matters complained of have formed part of court action and we are legally prevented from investigating them.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide her child, Y, with the special educational provision set out in his Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council accepted fault for failing to provide Y with the special educational provision. The Council has agreed to apologise and make symbolic payments to Miss X to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council took too long to complete her daughter’s EHC plan review and issue an amended final EHC Plan. And has failed to provide her daughter with a suitable education or the provision specified in her EHC Plan since October 2022. The Council’s failure to complete the EHC Plan Annual Review in accordance with the statutory timeframes is fault. As is the failure to ensure Miss Y received a suitable education and the provisions in her EHC Plan between November 2022 and June 2023. The Council’s failure to respond to Ms X’s complaint is also fault. These faults have caused Ms X and Miss Y an injustice

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to address the complainant’s son’s special educational needs and has failed to make alternative educational provision for him. Her complaint about the period before her son’s Education Health and Care Plan was issued is late and there are no grounds for us to investigate it now. Her appeal to the First Tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) places subsequent matters outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to not provide her son with transport to school since 2020. She said the family have incurred transport mileage costs since then that could have been spent on extra support for her son. We will not investigate matters before 2023 and we do not find fault by the Council.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council has failed to provide a suitable full-time education for her son. And that the Council delayed in completing a review / re-assessment of her son’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs and in issuing and amended final EHC Plan. We found the Council made a suitable offer of education pending a re-assessment of Miss X’s son’s needs. However the failure to complete the re-assessment and issue a final EHC Plan within the statutory timeframe is fault. This fault has caused Miss X an injustice.

Summary: The complainant, Mrs X, complained about how the Council had dealt with her education, health and care plan needs assessment request; the Council’s failure to adhere to legal timescales; and the Council's failure to respond to her complaint. We find the Council was at fault. This caused Mrs X significant distress and delayed provision being in place for her daughter. The Council has agreed to make several recommendations to address this injustice caused by fault.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her child, Y, with a suitable alternative education and delayed in completing Y’s Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment. She also complained the Council delayed in responding to her complaint. The Council delayed in completing Y’s assessment, delayed offering an increase in one-to-one tuition and in responding to Mrs X’s complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise and make payments to Mrs X and Y to acknowledge the distress, frustration, and uncertainty these faults caused.

Summary: Mrs D complained the Council did not complete an Education, Health and Care needs assessment for her child within legal timeframes. She also complained the Council failed to provide alternative provision support for them when they stopped attending school. We found the Council at fault for not properly considering its duties for alternative provision. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms Y’s complaint that her child’s school failed to increase her child’s timetable from part-time to full-time by the end of July 2024. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation. There is an absolute bar that prevents us investigating the action of a school.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a child protection conference, where the complainants say inaccurate information was provided by the police. This is because we have no jurisdiction to investigate the actions of the police and there is insufficient evidence of fault with how the Council dealt with a complaint about the conduct of the conference.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a Council decision to make his children subject to child protection plans. The decision was within the range open to the Council given the evidence available. Investigation by us would be unlikely to establish the Council would have reached a different decision but for the errors made.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Child and Family assessment report and the Council’s response to the complainant’s representations. This is because investigation would not achieve what the complainant wants, or lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s subject access request. The Information Commissioner is better placed to deal with the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with child protection matters. This is because the complainant is not a suitable representative for the child involved.

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: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council removing her child from her care. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We have no remit to investigate matters being determined in court.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the way the Council responded to her request for an assessment of her child’s special educational needs and the time it took to do so. There is no evidence of delay by the Council, and the remaining matters are related to the child’s SEN, in respect of which Miss X has had a right to appeal to the SEND Tribunal it would be reasonable to use.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more.

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.