A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of her child, Y’s education since March 2023. I cannot investigate matters between March and November 2023 because they are outside of our jurisdiction as Mrs X had appealed to the SEND tribunal. Mrs X should first complain to the Council about matters after November 2023.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of her child’s (Child Y) special educational needs (SEN). There was fault in the Council’s handling of Child Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan annual review, SEN provision, respite and Mrs X’s complaints. The Council has agreed to apologise and make payments to Child Y and Mrs X for the injustice caused.

Summary: The Council is at fault for not securing a full-time education or delivering special education need provision to Mr X’s son when they moved to the area. The Council has acknowledged this fault and has agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy to Mr X in line with the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies. The Council also identified service improvements it has made in relation to education provision.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to follow the statutory time limits for dealing with her son Y’s Education, Health and Care needs assessment and issuing his Education, Health and Care Plan. We find fault with the Council for delay and have agreed a symbolic payment for lost provision for Y, and the distress and frustration caused to Mrs X.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to secure animal provision for her daughter, Y in line with her Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council failed to secure and provide Y’s animal provision since December 2023 and this injustice continues to date. The Council agreed to reimburse Mrs X for costs she has incurred to ensure Y received that provision. It will continue to do so until it makes suitable alterative arrangements.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the way the Council handled her complaint regarding her child, Y’s, education, health and care plan and its failure to provide some of the provision outlined in the Plan. The Council acknowledges it was at fault and offered to adequately remedy the injustice to Y. However, the Council has not provided Mrs X with a response to her request for information. The Council has now agreed to provide a response to her request and apologise for the delay.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to complete an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment within the statutory time frame which caused him unnecessary and avoidable frustration and uncertainty. We find the Council at fault which caused injustice. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council consulted with a college in 2023 because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care needs assessment process. This is because the Council offered a remedy in line with the Ombudsman’s Guidance, and further investigation is unlikely to achieve any additional outcome. We will not investigate some of Mr X’s complaint because he can submit an appeal to a tribunal.

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

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the school named in her daughter’s Education Health and Care Plan. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to a Tribunal to challenge the content of the Plan.

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 by the panel for us to be able to question its decision.

Summary: an investigation found fault in the Council’s May 2022 assessment of Mr F’s son B’s needs. The Council offered a symbolic payment of £500 and agreed to backdate an increase in support from September 2022. We consider this an appropriate remedy.

Summary: Mr F complained about the Council’s handling of a payment for expenses he incurred. The Council made the payment into an account used for direct payments. Mr F had difficulty withdrawing the money, and when he did the audit team questioned his spending. There was fault by the Council in its handling of a payment to Mr F, but the Council has offered a suitable remedy.

Summary: Miss X complained that the Council failed to progress her children services’ complaint to stage two of the statutory Children Act 1989 complaints’ procedure. We have found fault causing injustice. The Council has now agreed to start the stage two investigation. Therefore, we have completed our investigation and are closing the complaint.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide the special educational provision set out in her child’s education, health and care plans, and handled her complaint poorly. Mrs X said there was an impact on her child of the missed education, and it caused unnecessary and avoidable distress and frustration. We find the Council at fault, and this caused injustice. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs X to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: the Council failed to ensure that a significant element of the special educational provision in Mr S’s May 2022 Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan was delivered. The staff at Mr S’s supported living did not receive training from his teacher to embed his learning throughout his waking day. The Council failed to hold an annual review in May 2023, and may have ended Mr S’s EHC Plan 12 months earlier than necessary.

Summary: Mr X said the Council failed to secure the special educational provision in W’s Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council was not at fault in how it arranged W’s education but was at fault for delaying in carrying out an annual review of W’s Plan. This caused Mr X avoidable frustration and uncertainty for which the Council will apologise and pay him £300.

Summary: Miss B complained that the Council delayed in completing an Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment for her son, C and issuing an EHC Plan. We have found fault in the Council’s actions. It has agreed to apologise to Miss B and pay her £500.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not issue her child’s education, health and care plan by the statutory deadline, and it failed to provide appropriate educational provision for her child. Mrs X said this meant her child lost their place at specialist educational provision, and it caused unnecessary and avoidable distress. We find the Council at fault for the delay issuing the plan and this caused injustice. The Council will make a payment to remedy the injustice. We cannot investigate the second part of the complaint because it is premature.

Summary: Mrs B complains about the Council’s delays in carrying out an Education, Health and Care needs assessment for her daughter and issuing the final Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan). There was fault by the Council. It did not meet statutory timescales during the EHC Plan process. Because of this, Mrs B suffered distress and she spent time and trouble chasing the Council for updates. The Council’s failure to meet statutory timescales also delayed her appeal right to the Tribunal. The Council will make a symbolic payment to Mrs B, apologise to Mrs B and her daughter and issue a staff briefing.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the special educational needs provision for the complainant’s son who has an Education, Health and Care Plan. Some of the complaint is late and there are insufficient grounds to consider it now. If Mrs X wants to challenge the content of her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan, it is a matter for a tribunal. The Council has accepted its communication and complaint handling has been poor. This is not enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed carrying out an Education Health and Care (EHC) 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. We cannot investigate the Council’s previous decisions not to assess or issue a EHC Plan, because the complainant used their right of appeal to a tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care (EHC) process because there is insufficient evidence of fault. We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council’s failed to deliver the content of Y’s EHC Plan because Mrs X has appealed to a Tribunal, and the matters appealed are not separable from the complaint. We will not investigate the Council’s failure to provide full-time alternative education to her child, Y, because any injustice caused is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council not making educational provision for her child for two years. Miss X used her right of appeal to a tribunal against the Education Health and care Plan the Council issued in September 2023 and we cannot investigate the educational provision made after that date. Matters in the school year 2022-23 are late and Miss X could have approached us sooner about them, even if she did not receive the Council’s reply to her complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care needs assessment of her child, Y. The complaint is late, and there are no good reasons for the Ombudsman to investigate now.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint regarding home to school transport. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council for us to be able to question its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X complaint about the content of her child’s Education, Health, and Care Plan. This is because Mrs X had a right of appeal about the Council’s decision here and it would have been reasonable for her to appeal to the SEND Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue refunds for two transport SaverCards the complainant no longer needs. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or significant personal injustice to the complainant.

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: Ms X complains about the handling of child protection issues relating to her children. The Council took longer than it should to complete stages two and three of the statutory complaint process in Ms X’s case. There is no evidence of fault in its overall handling of child protection matters relating to Ms X’s children. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X for the injustice caused by the complaint handling delay.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Local Authority Designated Officer considered an allegation against him. We will not investigate this complaint because there are ongoing investigations into Mr X’s conduct.

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s post adoption support for her daughters. This is because, since we received the complaint, the Council has provided Mrs X with a right to review at stage three if she is still dissatisfied. Therefore, we will not investigate further.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a decision to substantiate a safeguarding concern involving Mr X. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation because the decision was within the range open to the Council given the evidence before it.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement in Mr X’s child’s case. The matter is subject to ongoing court proceedings.

Summary: Ms C complained about the Council’s handling of her daughter’s (X) Education, Health, and Care needs assessment and the provision she received when she was unable to attend her school placement. The Council apologised to Ms C for its failure to provide X with alternative provision for a five-month period and made payment to remedy the injustice it caused. We found the Council’s remedy was appropriate, and there was either no fault on other matters complained about, or we could not consider these as Ms C exercised her appeal rights to a tribunal about the same or linked matters.

Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council decided it should not arrange alternative educational provision for a child who was not attending school. We have therefore completed our investigation.

Summary: Mrs X's appeal to the tribunal about her child Y's Education Health and Care Plan means we cannot investigate related matters from June 2023 onwards. The Council made its decision that Y could go to the special school named in Y's EHC plan without fault. It did not, therefore, have a duty to provide alternative education for Y. The Council did not have a duty to provide transport for Y to specialist provision arranged by Y's school at a different location.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed completing her son, Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment in line with statutory timescales. The Council was at fault. It delayed deciding whether to issue Y with an EHC Plan within the statutory timescales, caused by a 15 week delay in obtaining Educational Psychologist (EP) advice. It then further delayed issuing Y’s final EHC Plan by 18 weeks after it received the EP advice and failed to respond to Miss X’s request for mediation. This caused Miss X distress, uncertainty and delayed her right of appeal to the SEND tribunal. It agreed to make payments to acknowledge this injustice.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed completing her child Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment in line with statutory timescales. 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 Y’s final EHC Plan. The Council should make a payment to Miss X to acknowledge the distress, frustration and uncertainty this caused her.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed carrying gout an Education Health and Care (EHC) 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. We will not investigate the Council’s decision not to issue an EHC Plan because it is reasonable for the complainant to use their right of appeal to a tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to provide an alternative education for his son, Y, when he stopped attending school. The Council has made a payment for missed education and its is unlikely we could add to the Council’s investigation. We cannot investigate the Council’s initial decision not to carry out an assessment because Mr X appealed. We will not investigate complaints about the content of the Education Health and Care plan the Council later issued because it was reasonable for Mr X to use his right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to backdate a payment for home to school transport. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or significant personal injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council allegedly breaching a contract by unlawfully taking and using confidential information and employing a former employee of Mr X’s organisation. The matters complained of are ones where it would be reasonable for Mr X to use his right to go to 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 Mrs X’s complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

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

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 was at fault for not putting in place all the provision listed in a child’s Education, Health and Care Plan following a decision from the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. This caused injustice as the child missed out on provision they should have received. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise, make financial payments and put in place the remaining provision.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused to her and her son, Y, after it upheld her complaint that it had not properly assessed Y’s needs and had delayed responding to her complaint. The remedy the Council proposed for the upheld complaint was appropriate.

Summary: Mr D says the Council failed to investigate and act on concerns he raised about the actions of his ex-partner and, in so doing, showed bias and failed to consider his complaint properly. I have found no evidence of fault.

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation because the Council is still considering Ms X’s complaint.

Summary: We cannot not investigate this complaint about the actions of social workers. This is because the actions and opinions of social workers, and what they wrote, are closely related to the conduct of court proceedings about access to Mr X’s child. They either were or could reasonably have been raised in court. Legal costs are also a matter for a court to determine.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker because the complaint concerns information the social worker has submitted to court. The matters are therefore not separable from the matters that have formed part of court proceedings. Social Work England are better placed to consider complaints about the conduct of social workers and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in responding to her subject access request. This is because this is a complaint about a data matter which is best considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful school admission appeal. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault for us to question the panel’s decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has unreasonably declined to provide the complainant with details of how his reports of child protection concerns have been considered. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in the course of child protection action relating to the complainant’s children. This is because investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide her child with alternative education when he was unable to attend school. The Council is at fault and this resulted in a loss of provision for 11 weeks. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice this caused.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s role in issuing fixed penalty notices concerning her child’s absences from school in term-time. The authority to issue the notices belongs to the headteacher of the child’s school, and the Council’s role is only ancillary to that. We cannot investigate the actions of the school.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because she has appealed to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. And the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider her data complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement in Mrs and Mr X’s grandchildren’s case. The complaint is not separable from matters that have been considered in court.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of social workers concerning the contact and residence arrangements of Mr X’s child. These matters could have been raised during court action Mr X referred to. Even if there had been no court action it would be reasonable for him to go to court. This is because only a court can decide where children should live and who they should see in the case of a dispute.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement in child protection proceedings. Parts of the complaint are about the Council’s representations to the court, which we have no power to investigate. All other parts of the complaint are too intertwined with the court process, and are matters that were reasonable for Miss X to raise during the proceedings.

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 this complaint about the Council’s involvement in Mr X’s children’s case. It is not separable from matters that are being considered in court.

Summary: The complainant (Ms X) said the Council had failed to provide her son Y with suitable education since 2018. We found fault with the Council’s failure to consider Ms X’s complaint under the children’s statutory complaint procedure and in the way the Council dealt with Ms X’s corporate complaint. The Council’s fault caused Ms X injustice. We could only investigate whether the Council provided suitable education to Y between January and mid-March 2023. We did not find fault in the Council’s actions at this time. The Council has agreed to apologise, carry out the children’s statutory complaint procedure for Ms X’s complaint and offer her suitable remedies for the complaint upheld at stage two of the corporate complaint process. The Council has also agreed to make a symbolic payment.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to secure the special educational provisions outlined in her child, Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and delayed paying an agreed personal budget. The Council was at fault. The Council will apologise and pay Miss X £200 to acknowledge the impact of the missed provision. The Council was at fault for the delay in paying Miss X the agreed personal budget but it has already apologised and paid the outstanding payments which remedied the injustice caused. It has also put in place service improvements.

Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council provided a suitable education for daughter, Y, and how it met Miss X’s needs as a carer. There was fault in how the Council delayed reviewing Y’s Education Health and Care plan, failed to keep her education under review when she was not attending school, failed to assess Miss X’s needs as a carer and how it communicated with her. This caused Y to miss out on some education and caused both Miss X and Y significant, avoidable distress. The Council agreed to apologise, pay them a financial remedy and make arrangements to review their social care needs. It also agreed to review how it identifies and monitors remedial action when responding to complaints.

Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council provided and reviewed her son, Y’s, special education. There was fault in how the Council failed to ensure Y received all the education set out in his Education Health and Care plan, and delayed completing both a review of Y’s plan and deciding on Miss X’s request for direct payments. This caused Y to miss out on education and caused both Miss X and Y avoidable distress. The Council agree to make its decisions about the Y’s plan and direct payments, review Y’s current tuition, apologise to Miss X and Y, and pay them a financial remedy. It also agreed to issue reminders to its staff.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s delays with issuing her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan for post-16 transition. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Y and Mrs X. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about Education Health and Care Plan delays. We have upheld Mrs X’s complaint as the Council has now agreed to provide a reasonable remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss 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 cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to secure a school placement for her child. This is because Mrs X appealed the matter to a tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to consider it now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s Education, Health and Care needs assessment process. Any injustice suffered is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the appeal to justify an investigation.

Summary: The complainant (Mr X) said the Council failed to amend the social care assessments carried out for his two children (M and N). We found fault with the Council for not considering Mr X’s complaint through its children’s statutory complaint procedure. This fault did not cause Mr X injustice as the Council upheld his complaint during the corporate complaint process. The Council has already offered to carry out a reassessment of M’s and N’s needs but it has now agreed to complete some extra remedies.

Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s refusal to consider his complaint as it found it had already been considered in a completed children’s statutory complaint process. We found the Council at fault. This is because Mr B’s new complaint relates to matters which were different, a different period of time, and if upheld, may justify further remedies.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to a safeguarding referral in respect of the complainant’s child. The complaint has already been substantially upheld and our intervention would achieve nothing further.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to act impartially following a safeguarding referral relating to the complainant’s children. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement in a child protection case. The law prevents us from investigating matters that have been considered in court.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s historic complaint about the Council’s actions when she was a child. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to issue an Education Health and Care Plan for Y as Mr X has appealed that decision. We will not investigate the Council’s decision that it did not have a duty to provide alternative education because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.