A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions

Summary: The Council failed to put in place alternative educational provision for Mrs X’s son when he was unable to attend school because of anxiety. It also delayed in responding to Mrs X’s complaint. In recognition of the injustice caused by these failings, the Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs X.

Summary: We found fault with the Council in its failure to arrange alternative provision for the complainant’s son (Y), when reviewing his Education Health and Care Plan and when communicating with the complainant (Miss X). We also found fault in the way the Council dealt with Miss X’s complaint. The Council has accepted its fault and recognised the injustice it caused to Y and Miss X. The remedies offered by the Council were not enough. The Council agreed to apologise, to make symbolic payments and to send this decision to its Partnership and Assurance Board to review.

Summary: We upheld Mr X’s complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care process regarding his 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 Council’s handling of her son’s Education Health and Care Plan annual review because she has used her right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal. Her complaint that the Council failed to put in place suitable full-time education for her son is too closely linked to the annual review process and we cannot recommend the Council reimburses her legal fees from the appeal. While it is clear the Council delayed in finalising the Plan this did not cause significant enough injustice which is separate from the outcome of the review to warrant further investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Children’s Services. That is because the complaint is late.

Summary: Mr B complains the Council treated him differently during a safeguarding enquiry. He considers the Council racially profiled him. I have not found evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complains about services provided by the Council’s children’s and adolescent services. The Council was at fault for failing to consider the complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to now consider Mr X’s concerns through the statutory procedure and will apologise to him for failing to do this originally.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful application for a blue badge. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision to justify an investigation.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s failure to ensure suitable support and accommodation was available when she moved to a different council area in a crisis situation involving her daughter. We found the Council was at fault because it did not make the referral when it said it would. The Council has already apologised, and this is an appropriate remedy for the distress experienced by Ms X. We found no evidence the Council told Ms X to move to the new area.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not correctly follow policy and procedure when responding to her complaint. Ms X said this caused her to no longer be a foster carer and had a financial impact. She wants the Council to admit it is wrong and fix the issues. The Ombudsman found the Council correctly followed the statutory complaints process but is at fault for delay.

Summary: Mrs K complained the Council caused delays in the Education, Health, and Care plan process for her son (X) and failed to provide him with a full-time education when he was excluded from school. We found the Council at fault for failing to adhere to the statutory timescales and not providing enough alternative provision for X. It also caused significant delays in its complaints process and failed to respond to some requests from Mrs K. The Council will apologise and make payment to Mrs K to acknowledge the injustice she and X experienced as a result.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to deliver his child’s Education, Health and Care Plan provision since February 2022. Mr X also complained the Council failed to complete the Education, Health and Care Plan reviews suitably. We found the Council provided most of the provision from the Education, Health and Care Plan. But, we found the Council failed to ensure some Occupational Therapy and Physiotherapy provision was provided. We found fault with the Council delaying for over 49 weeks outside the statutory timescales in producing an amended Education, Health and Care plan for Mr X’s child. This avoidable delay caused frustration and distress to Mr X, presented a barrier to Mr X appealing the Education, Health and Care Plan to the Tribunal and caused lost opportunity for Mr X’s child to have suitable up-to-date provision detailed in their Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X, pay him £500 for the injustice caused to him and £750 for the injustice caused to his child through its delays and £500 for the missed provision. The Council also agreed to provide guidance and training to staff about timescales for completing Education, Health and Care Plan reviews, issuing notification letters and about accurate record keeping. And, the Council agreed to ensure the full Occupational Therapy and Physiotherapy provisions are put in place for Mr X’s child.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to deliver on its promise of providing extra funding for her child’s education and it has failed to communicate with her effectively with regards to the matter. The Council is at fault and it has agreed to remedy the injustice caused to Ms X and to Y. The Council has also agreed to implement service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the education provided for the complainant’s son when Mrs X withdrew him from school. This is because Mrs X appealed the Council’s decision the school place was suitable. This places the complaint outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council not writing an Education Health and Care Plan as agreed in an appeal settlement. She has not been caused any significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaints about the Council's handling of her daughter’s special educational needs between 2019 and August 2023 because the complaints are late and I have seen no good reasons to exercise our discretion to investigate them. We will not investigate Mrs X’s concerns about the Council’s more recent actions because the Council has offered Mrs X £300 and we consider this a suitable remedy for Mrs X’s injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education, Health and Care Plan process for the complainant’s child. The complaint is late, it was reasonable for the complainant to use their appeal rights, and there is no worthwhile outcome we could now achieve.

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 there are ongoing court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a safeguarding matter. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault, and we cannot achieve the outcome the complaining is seeking. The Information Commissioner is better placed to consider other matters.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council sent her a warning letter about the number of complaints she submitted. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and further investigation is unlikely to achieve any additional outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Special Guardianship Order allowance paid to the complainant. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to a safeguarding matter. The complaint is made on behalf of a public body and so it is outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the circumstances in which a foster placement came to an end, and about the subsequent standards of care investigation. This is because investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council submitted false information to the Agency Decision Maker, leading to the deregistration of the complainant as a foster carer, because investigation would achieve nothing significant.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about school admissions. Mr X has used his right of appeal and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants. An investigation is not therefore justified.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide their child, Y, with a suitable alternative education and delayed in completing their assessment for an Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council delayed in completing Y’s assessment and arranging an increase in Y’s tuition. It was not at fault for its efforts to arrange a suitable alternative education for Y from July 2023 onwards.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed issuing her Child, Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan within the statutory timescales and Y did not receive educational provision. The Council was at fault for delay in finalising Y’s EHC Plan and Y missed provision to which they were entitled for four and a half terms. The Council will apologise and pay Ms X for Y’s lost provision. The Council has already put in place actions to improve its services.

Summary: Miss X complains about the time taken by the Council to assess her child’s special educational needs and issue an Education, Health and Care Plan. Miss X also complains of the lack of communication from the Council. The Council has acknowledged it is at fault and the fault caused injustice to Miss X and her family. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused to the family.

Summary: Mrs E complained the Council delayed finalising her daughter’s Education, Health and Care Plan after an annual review in May 2023. She also complained how the Council handled her daughter’s educational provision when she stopped attending school in February 2023. We find the Council was at fault for its delays in finalising Mrs E’s daughter’s Education, Health and Care Plan after the annual review. It was also at fault for how it handled Mrs E’s daughter’s educational provision when she could not attend school. The Council has agreed to my recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

Summary: There was no delay in the process of reviewing Y and Z’s Education, Health and Care Plans when they moved to Oxfordshire. There was fault by Council officers in telling Ms X that Z would become a looked after child in order to continue to board at school. This caused Ms X and Z avoidable distress. The Council has already taken action to remedy the injustice including an apology, a symbolic payment and training for relevant staff.

Summary: There was a delay actioning Ms X’s request for a school place for Y. There was a failure to consider carrying out an early annual review of Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan and a delay in issuing a final amended Plan. Communication was poor. This caused avoidable frustration and distress and delayed Y’s transition back to education in a school. The Council will apologise, make symbolic payments, issue an amended Plan and ensure arrangements are in place for Y to start school.

Summary: We upheld Ms X’s complaint about the failure to secure occupational therapy provision on her child Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan. The payment of £3900 and apology the Council has offered for two years of missed provision are a partial remedy. The Council will review its commissioning arrangements and arrange for the therapist delivering Y’s provision to receive the specialist training required.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X and Ms Y’s complaint about the Council’s handling of their son’s Education Health and Care Plan review. This is because the matter did not cause the complainants significant enough injustice to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council has dealt with her application for a school place. This is because it is reasonable for Ms X to use her right of appeal to an independent panel.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council’s actions put her son, Y, at risk when he was accommodated by the Council and it did not safeguard him or his sibling, Z, when it decided to return Y home. The Council failed to properly consider Ms X’s complaint through the children’s statutory complaint procedure. The Council will apologise to Ms X and Y, pay them a symbolic amount to recognise the frustration this caused them, and arrange a stage three panel to consider Ms X’s complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to pursue court action. The law prevents us from investigating the start of court action or what happened in court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement in Ms X’s child’s case. The law prevents us investigating what happens as part of court proceedings, and we have no power to change the court’s decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement in Mr X’s child’s case. The law prevents us from investigating councils’ representations to court.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed considering a complaint at stage two of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint by issuing its stage two response without further delay. It will also apologise and offer to make a payment to the complainant to remedy the time and trouble they have been too.

Summary: Mrs and Mr X complained the Council failed to ensure suitable education and special educational needs support was in place for their child D. There was fault by the Council which caused D to miss SEN provision. It also caused avoidable distress for D, and avoidable distress, time, and trouble for Mrs and Mr X. The Council agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy. It will also review relevant processes and review its complaint handling in this case.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to provide her son with a full-time education and support for his special educational needs. We found the Council was at fault. It failed to carry out an annual review and update the Education, Health and Care Plan to reflect his change in circumstances. It also took too long to respond to Mrs X’s complaint. To remedy the injustice caused by these faults, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mrs X and take action to improve its service. We did not investigate some of Mrs X’s complaint because it was late.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed providing an Education, Health and Care Plan for her daughter following an annual review. She says the Council’s actions meant her daughter was out of school and did not receive appropriate educational provision. Miss X says she was unable to work during this period. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to make some service improvements and provide an apology and a financial remedy to Miss X.

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

Summary: Mr X complained the Council has failed to adhere to statutory timescales and said there has been safeguarding issues with his son’s provision. He also said the Council has failed to properly consider his complaint. We find the Council was at fault for failing to consider annual reviews within the statutory timescales. This caused uncertainty to Mr X and delayed his right of appeal. The Council has agreed to make several recommendations to address this injustice caused by fault.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to provide his son with free home to school transport. Mr X said the Council’s decision is flawed and it has wrongly relied on the walk from home to school being less than the statutory walking distance. He also complained about the Council’s policy not being compliant with statutory guidance. We find the Council was at fault for failing to properly consider Mr X’s son’s mobility needs and failure in the Council’s decision letters. This caused distress and uncertainty to Mr X. The Council has agreed to make several recommendations to address this injustice caused by fault.

Summary: We upheld Ms X’s complaints. The Council failed to respond to Ms X’s request for an early annual review of her child Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan. It also failed to complete the annual review process within legal timescales and delayed responding to her complaints. The Council has already apologised which is an appropriate remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint the Council failed to send her a decision notice letter providing her with a right to appeal the content of her child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care Plan. Mrs X can ask a Tribunal to consider a late appeal, and further investigation is unlikely to achieve any additional outcome.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the content of her child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care Plan, or about how the Council delivered the content of Y’s EHC Plan to them. This is because Mrs X appealed to a Tribunal, and the law says we cannot investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Council allegedly failing to refer Mr X’s family for further help. There is not a good reason for the delay in Mr X bringing the matter to the Ombudsman.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Council’s actions concerning the transition of Mr X and Ms Y’s child. There is no good reason to exercise the discretion available for us to do so.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council failed to act on a safeguarding referral regarding his child. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council decided the matter was not a safeguarding issue. The Council apologised for its poor communication, and further investigation is unlikely to achieve any additional outcome.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about alleged defamatory and inaccurate information sent to the courts up to the present day. An absolute legal bar prevents us considering matters that have formed part of court action.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse an application for transport to college for the complainant’s daughter. We consider that further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: There was fault in the way a social care assessment was conducted in 2023, this led to delay in putting provision in place. Parents missed out on respite and Y missed out on social activities outside the home. The Council will make a symbolic payment to acknowledge the missed provision.

Summary: There was delay by the Council in securing provision in a child in need plan under s.2 Chronically Sick and Disabled Person’s Act (CSDPA). This caused injustice to the child and their parent carers. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment for missed provision. The complaint is upheld.