| 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. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (24 005 427)
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. Central Bedfordshire Council (24 007 827)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs 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. Coventry City Council (24 009 194)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Councilâs childrenâs services. Many of the issues raised happened too long ago or were considered in court proceedings. We could not add to the Councilâs investigation into parts of the complaint that the Council upheld and there is insufficient evidence of fault in how it dealt with other matters. Leeds City Council (24 010 451)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the Councilâs failure to reply to a letter. There is not enough injustice directly caused by this to justify an investigation. Kent County Council (23 017 650)
Summary: the Council delayed putting in place alternative provision for Miss Bâs daughter, delayed completing an education, health and care needs assessment and in issuing a final EHC Plan and failed to respond to Miss Bâs communications. An apology, payment to Miss B, review of the case and an action plan to address the issues that arose is satisfactory remedy. West Northamptonshire Council (24 005 402)
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. Kent County Council (24 008 252)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs 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. Westmorland and Furness Council (24 008 361)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint that the Council misled him when he made an application to a court about its involvement with his adult sonâs education. This is because it was reasonable for Mr X to raise the matter with the courts. Devon County Council (23 017 467)
Summary: Ms X complained that the Council failed to review and update her sonâs 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 Xâs son was out of school for a considerable period. We also found the Councilâs 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. Surrey County Council (23 017 591)
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 Xâs application and appeals. City of York Council (23 011 844)
Summary: We found fault by the Council on Mr Yâs 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. North Yorkshire Council (24 005 214)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs Care Planning and Support Team and its involvement with Mr Xâs 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 Xâs complaint. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (24 006 478)
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 childrenâs statutory complaint procedure. The Council was at fault for failing to consider Ms Xâs complaint through the childrenâs 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. Liverpool City Council (24 008 828)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Councilâs decision not to consider his complaint whilst the case is subject to ongoing court proceedings. North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 009 364)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about information contained in the Councilâs Section 7 report to court. The law prevents us from investigating what happened in court, this includes the contents of the Councilâs report. Warwickshire County Council (24 008 142)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs 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. Suffolk County Council (24 008 375)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint the Council delayed finalising her child, Yâs, Education, Health and Care Plan following a Tribunal order and about delays in securing Yâs 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 Councilâs conduct during the Tribunal process. Surrey County Council (24 011 353)
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. Essex County Council (24 011 923)
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. Cornwall Council (22 013 478)
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 Zâs EHC Plan but it failed to review Mr Zâs 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. West Northamptonshire Council (23 013 395)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about delays in the Education, Health, and Care needs assessment for her son and in issuing a final Plan. Or the Councilâs failure to identify a suitable school or provide alternative educational provision or the therapeutic provision specified in her sonâs 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. Leeds City Council (23 021 204)
Summary: The Council should have considered its section 19 duty to Mr Xâs 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 Zâs 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. City of Wolverhampton Council (23 021 448)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed issuing her son (Yâs) 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 sonâs education and has delayed her right of appeal to the SEND tribunal. The Council should make payments to recognise this. Essex County Council (24 004 268)
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. East Sussex County Council (24 007 372)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about a lack of education as there are no good enough reasons not to apply the late complaint rule. Buckinghamshire Council (24 002 029)
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 Bâs complaint. The Council will apologise to Mrs B and consider her complaint through the childrenâs statutory complaint procedure. North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 008 132)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a social workerâs 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. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (24 010 325)
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. London Borough of Hounslow (24 010 250)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs School Attendance Support Service. It is unlikely we could add anything to the Councilâs response and the law prevents us from considering matters discussed in court. Lancashire County Council (24 010 251)
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. Essex County Council (24 010 997)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs 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. Tintwistle C Of E Primary School (24 011 257)
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. De La Salle RC School (24 011 267)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. Hertfordshire County Council (23 000 841)
Summary: Mr X complains the Council did not deal properly with his son Yâs 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. Gloucestershire County Council (23 014 801)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a childâs school placement. This is because the complainant has used their right of appeal to a tribunal. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (23 016 084)
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. Isle of Wight Council (23 017 286)
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 Councilâs decision not to provide alternative educational provision as it decided the place at school was suitable and accessible to the child. Cambridgeshire County Council (23 018 701)
Summary: We stopped investigating Miss X's complaint about a school admissions appeal. This is because we cannot investigate complaints about admissions to academies. Leeds City Council (23 019 778)
Summary: Miss B complains about the Councilâs decision not to assess her son for an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan), and the Councilâs 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 Councilâs failure to meet statutory timescales delayed her appeal rights to the Tribunal. Miss Bâs 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. Somerset Council (24 006 437)
Summary: We cannot investigate Ms Xâs 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. Buckinghamshire Council (24 007 327)
Summary: We upheld Mr Xâs 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. Cheshire East Council (24 009 071)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs approach to the calculation and payment of Personal Travel Budgets. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Derbyshire County Council (24 009 700)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs 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. Essex County Council (24 009 706)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs 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. Lincolnshire County Council (24 010 402)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a data breach. This is because the Information Commissionerâs Office is the appropriate body to consider the complaint. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (24 007 085)
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. Middlesbrough Borough Council (23 018 361)
Summary: Mrs X, a foster carer complained about the outcome of the Councilâs 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. Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (23 019 787)
Summary: The Council was not at fault in how it decided Mr Xâs adoption allowance. Although it departed from recommendations originally made by the government â which are widely used by other councils â it has provided a reasonable explanation for doing so. Somerset Council (23 020 907)
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. Lincolnshire County Council (23 011 708)
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. Plymouth City Council (23 014 213)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council took too long to complete her daughterâs 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 Councilâs 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 Councilâs failure to respond to Ms Xâs complaint is also fault. These faults have caused Ms X and Miss Y an injustice Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (24 007 937)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to address the complainantâs sonâs special educational needs and has failed to make alternative educational provision for him. Her complaint about the period before her sonâs 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. Hertfordshire County Council (23 015 195)
Summary: Mrs X complains about the Councilâs 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. London Borough of Lewisham (23 015 552)
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 sonâs 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 Xâs sonâs 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. West Sussex County Council (23 016 610)
Summary: The complainant, Mrs X, complained about how the Council had dealt with her education, health and care plan needs assessment request; the Councilâs 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. West Sussex County Council (23 018 335)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her child, Y, with a suitable alternative education and delayed in completing Yâs Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment. She also complained the Council delayed in responding to her complaint. The Council delayed in completing Yâs assessment, delayed offering an increase in one-to-one tuition and in responding to Mrs Xâs 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. Brighton & Hove City Council (23 018 882)
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. London Borough of Ealing (24 007 761)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Yâs complaint that her childâs school failed to increase her childâs 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. Cheshire West & Chester Council (24 005 521)
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. Warwickshire County Council (24 006 611)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs 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. Nottinghamshire County Council (24 007 916)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Child and Family assessment report and the Councilâs response to the complainantâs representations. This is because investigation would not achieve what the complainant wants, or lead to a different outcome. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (24 008 730)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainantâs subject access request. The Information Commissioner is better placed to deal with the complaint. Lincolnshire County Council (24 008 801)
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. Northumberland County Council (24 009 557)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Councilâs decision not to consider her complaint whilst there are ongoing court proceedings. Worcestershire County Council (24 012 025)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs 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. City of Doncaster Council (24 007 553)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the way the Council responded to her request for an assessment of her childâs 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 childâs SEN, in respect of which Miss X has had a right to appeal to the SEND Tribunal it would be reasonable to use. Essex County Council (24 010 944)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs 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. Essex County Council (24 011 344)
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. |
