A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions

Summary: Mrs A complained the Council failed to complete reviews of her children’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plans within the statutory timescales. Mrs A says this has resulted in her children not receiving up-to-date provision to meet their educational and social care needs. Mrs A also complained the Council failed to complete EHC Plan reviews in the statutory timescales for over a thousand other children.

Summary: The Council was at fault for the support it offered Mrs B while she privately fostered a child. It delayed her financial support and the child’s support plan. And it failed to do a safeguarding investigation after saying it would. It has agreed to apologise to Mrs B and will pay her a symbolic financial remedy to recognise her injustice. It will also take steps to improve its service.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to safeguard her child and failed to carry out correct assessments. Mrs X said this caused her child permanent physical scars, and caused her unnecessary and avoidable distress and frustration. We find the Council at fault, and this caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to reflect the injustice caused.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the accuracy of Council records. This is because the matter has either been considered in court or could reasonably be raised in court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with matters concerning the care of Miss X’s child. This is because the issues raised have either been considered in court or could have reasonably been mentioned as part of those proceedings.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about his child being removed from his care because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been subject to court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Miss X’s children’s case. The law prevents us investigating matters that have been considered in court.

Summary: Miss X complains about the handling of her child, Child Y’s education since July 2021. Part of Miss X’s complaint is late and we cannot investigate concerns about a lack of special educational provision, or alternative educational provision when appeal rights are available. The Council took longer than it should to notify Miss X of its decision to maintain Child Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a remedy payment to Miss X for the injustice caused by this delay.

Summary: There was fault by the Council in failing to secure all the special educational provision on Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan between September 2023 and July 2024 causing a loss of educational provision. Complaint handling was not in line with the Council’s procedures, causing avoidable distress and time and trouble. The Council will apologise, make payments for Y and Ms X and will remind officers about their discretion to accept late requests from a complainant to escalate to the final stage of the complaints’ procedure.

Summary: The Council failed to meet statutory timescales for carrying out an education, health and care needs assessment for Mr X’s son. In recognition of the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and make a payment to him.

Summary: Mr X complained the admission authority gave him misleading information about a letter to support his child Y’s application and about how it made its decision not to offer them a place at the School. Mr X further complained the appeal panel did not properly consider the additional evidence he provided when it decided not to uphold his appeal. There was fault in the admissions appeal panel which caused Mr X and Y uncertainty about whether their appeal was properly heard. The admission authority will apologise to Mr X and hold a new appeal hearing and provide training for its clerk and panel members.

Summary: Miss B says the appeal panel failed to properly consider her school admissions appeal. There was fault in how the appeal panel approached stage one but that did not affect the outcome of the appeal. A reminder to appeal panel members and clerks is therefore satisfactory remedy.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to meet statutory timescales for carrying out an Education, Health and Care (EHC) assessment for her son, Y. We find the Council was at fault in failing to meet the timescales. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about delay by the Council in issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan for her child following a review. This is because an investigation by us would not likely lead to a different outcome.

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 this complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide post 16 transport to college. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to make appropriate school transport arrangements for the complainant’s daughter. This is because it would be reasonable for her to use the Council’s school transport appeal process to address the matter.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s failings to provide a suitable education for her child Y who has special educational needs. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in arranging Speech and Language provision for her child. This is because 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 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: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to ban him from attending any meetings regarding his stepdaughter who is a looked after child. He said the Council is preventing him from having any input into matters. Mr X said this prevents him from providing support to his wife and stepdaughter. We find the Council was at fault for failing to give proper warning and for failing to consider reviewing its decision. This caused significant distress to Mr X. The Council has agreed to several recommendations to address this injustice caused by fault.

Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council refused her application for a Blue Badge for her son. We ended our investigation into the complaint. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not likely achieve a worthwhile outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue a Blue Badge for the complainant’s son. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council allowing the removal of a diagnosis for Ms X’s child when the child was not in Ms X’s care. The matter happened in 2020, and Ms X could have complained to us much sooner, so there is no good reason to exercise discretion to consider this matter now.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about comments made by a Council officer during a Review Child Protection Conference. This is because the Council apologised for any distress caused, and an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve any additional outcome.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the way the Council handled a child protection matter involving Mr X, or make recommendations, even though the Council has accepted fault in some matters. This is because the matters alleged are closely connected to matters that were subject to court action, and we are legally prevented from investigating them.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council made false allegations about his behaviour. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an assessment carried out by the Council’s children’s services. This is because investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X complaint about the actions of the Council’s children’s services. This is because complaints about data protection are better considered by the Information Commissioner and the Council’s assessments have either been considered in court or could have reasonable been raised during court proceedings.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s actions when carrying out an Education, Health and Care needs assessment for her child. Mrs X said this meant her child had to wait longer than they should for an Education, Health and Care Plan. We found the Council at fault for the time taken to carry out the Education, Health and Care needs assessment. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mrs X for the distress caused and carry out service improvements.

Summary: The Council was at fault for a delay in deciding the support Mrs X’s daughter should receive for her special educational needs. It will make a symbolic payment to Mrs X to recognise her injustice. However, we cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the quality of the Council’s assessment of her daughter’s needs, because this will be a matter for the SEND Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the provision of free to home to school transport. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to withdraw her son’s home to school transport. This is because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide her son with any education and provision between September 2022 and February 2023. She also says it delayed dealing with her complaint about the matter. We find the Council was at fault for failing to provide Ms X’s son with any education and provision. It was also at fault for its significant delays in responding to Ms X’s complaint about the matter. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

Summary: Miss B complained the Council failed to comply with a tribunal order which means her child has not received the necessary special educational provision. We find the Council at fault for delays in issuing the amended Education, Health and Care Plan and providing special educational provision. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss B and provide the special educational provision detailed in the Plan.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to comply with the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal decision which ordered the Council to name a specific school in her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan. We found the Council’s failure to issue a new EHC Plan as ordered by the SEND Tribunal is fault. This fault has caused Miss X and Y an injustice.

Summary: The complainant (Mrs X) said the Council had failed to provide transport for her son (Y) to the only school named in his Education Health and Care Plan. We found fault in the Council’s refusal to consider Mrs X’s request for transport assistance. This fault caused her injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise, to make a mileage allowance payment for Mrs X for the days Y attended the school and to make a symbolic payment to recognise Mrs X’s distress. The Council has also agreed to carry out some staff training and to review its school transport policy.

Summary: There was delay and fault by the Council in failing to secure special educational provision in an EHC Plan and failing to respond to requests for additional funding from a school within an acceptable timeframe. This has caused loss of education, distress, frustration and delay. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment, resolve the outstanding funding request, and make service improvements. The complaint is upheld.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about exam arrangements for the complainant’s daughter. This is because we cannot consider complaints about the internal management of schools. Consideration of the Council’s actions would be unlikely to lead to a finding of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to make alternative educational provision for the complainant’s daughter while she has been unable to attend school, and has failed to secure the delivery of the provision set out in her Education Health and Care Plan. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part, and it would have been reasonable for the complainant to have used his right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability).

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s decision not to uphold her complaints about the failure to provide her with support as a young care leaver. We did not find the Council to be at fault because it carried out a thorough, evidence-based investigation under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. The Ombudsman cannot add anything to what has already been decided during this process.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to act on the complainant’s concerns about the welfare of his children and his contact with them. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part causing injustice to warrant investigation, and parts of the complaint concern matters which could have been raised in court, or are closely related to such matters.

Summary: Ms X complained about delay in the Council’s Education Health and Care Needs assessment for her son, S. The delay is because of a shortage of Educational Psychologists. The Council is at fault for delay issuing an Educational Psychologists report and Education, Health and Care Plan.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide the provision in her daughter, Miss Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan since May 2023 and delayed completing an annual review of the EHC Plan in June 2024. Mrs X also complained the Council delayed in responding to her complaint about the matter. The Council was at fault. The Council will apologise and make payments to Mrs X for the frustration she was caused and Miss Y for the provision she missed.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to act in his child’s best interests when choosing a suitable secondary school, arranging alternative education, and arranging school transport. There was no fault in the Council’s decision-making on these issues. We did not investigate the Council’s earlier decision to name a mainstream school in Mr X’s child’s Education, Health and Care Plan, as this came with appeal rights. The Council was at fault for refusing to reimburse fees Mr X paid to an independent school to secure his child’s place. The Council agreed to reimburse the fees.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan for her child. She also complained and about a lack of support and poor communication during the assessment process. The Council was at fault for delay issuing the final Education, Health and Care Plan. It was also at fault for delay responding to Mrs X’s stage two complaint. It agreed to provide a remedy for the avoidable frustration and uncertainty Mrs X suffered. The Council was not at fault in its consideration of alternative provision for Y.

Summary: We upheld a complaint about delay issuing Y’s final Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council will apologise and make a payment of £700 to reflect the avoidable frustration, distress and delay in appeal rights.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide his son, Y with a suitable education or the provision set out in his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan after he stopped attending school in July 2023. The Council was at fault. It failed to provide Y with any education or the specialist provision in Y’s EHC Plan between September 2023 and June 2024. The Council agreed to apologise and make payments to acknowledge the impact this had on Y’s education.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Councils actions in relation to her child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan). The Council was at fault. It failed to issue a final amended EHC Plan following a previous annual review meeting. It then delayed the latest annual review meeting and delayed issuing a final amended EHC Plan. The Council also communicated poorly with Ms X. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her £300 to acknowledge the distress and frustration this caused her.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of child protection matters involving his child. This is because some of Mr X’s complaints are late, we cannot add anything to the investigation the Council has already carried out and cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X wants.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to issue an Education Health and Care Plan within the statutory time frame. She says this impacted her child’s education and mental health. We find the Council at fault. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Miss X.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal of a personal budget for his child. Nor will we investigate his complaint about the Council’s recovery of council tax arrears. The complaints are late and there are no good reasons why they could not have been made sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council took court action against him due to his child’s non-attendance at school. This is because we cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action and we will not investigate matters that have been raised in court.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council delayed assessing their child, Y, completed an inadequate assessment and then wrongly accused them of abandonment. They say the Council has failed to take appropriate action to put things right. The Council accepts it was at fault. It should apologise to Y and place a copy of the apology on its records. It should also make a payment to Mr and Mrs X to recognise the distress caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Child Protection action in relation to the complainant’s children. Part of the complaint is late, and the Ombudsman’s intervention would not add to the investigation the Council has carried out or lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council allegedly not contacting Mr X before a social worker arrived at his home.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about child protection matters. This is because most of the issues raised have either been considered in court or could be raised in court. In regard to other issues raised, we could either not add to the investigation carried out by the Council, or achieve a different outcome.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s actions in its childrens services involvement with her family several years ago because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been considered in court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council provided incorrect information to the Disclosure Barring Service. This is because there is an appeals process for Disclosure Barring Service decisions.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Councils delay in the Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment Process for her son, S. She also complained about poor communication. This has caused her distress, uncertainty, and frustration, and S has not received support. The Council is at fault for delay issuing the Education, Health and Care Plan and poor communication.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s review of her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan because it is reasonable she uses her right of appeal to a tribunal.

Summary: the Council took 78 weeks too long to amend Mrs M’s son B’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. As a result, B did not have the support he needed when he started school and he was only able to attend part-time. We have recommended a remedy for the injustice this caused.

Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council assessed her son, Y’s, special educational needs. There was fault in how the Council took too long to issue an Education Health and Care plan for Y and how it communicated with Mrs X. The Council agreed to apologise and pay Mrs X a financial remedy.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed completing an assessment for an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for her child, Y. The Council was at fault. It did not complete an assessment or decide whether to issue an EHC Plan in line with statutory timescales. This caused Mrs X frustration and uncertainty. The Council has already apologised to Mrs X which was appropriate. The Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment to Mrs X to recognise the injustice caused. It will also provide us with an action plan in response to managing delays with EHC needs assessments.

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 cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decisions relating an Education, Health, and Care Plan for Ms X’s child. This is because Ms X has already appealed to the SEND Tribunal about the Council’s decisions here, and the law does not allow us to investigate. Additionally, we will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a personal budget or how the Council secured occupational therapy for her child. It is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about how much funding the Council provided to her child’s school. This is because the complaint relates to the internal management of the school, and the law says we cannot investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X complaint about how the Council dealt with a review of her child’s Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to register her child, Y, as a “Child Missing Education” or about the Council’s poor communication. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault for part of the complaint, and the Council has already apologised for its poor communication and made service improvements. An investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve any additional outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about two Council decisions to refuse his child an Education, Health and Care needs assessment, and its conduct during the tribunal appeals process. Mr X either had a right of appeal or used his right of appeal against the decision. We cannot consider any matter connected to a decision that has been appealed to a tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her children’s special education needs and that it had lost important documents. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint. In addition, there is another body better placed to consider the other complaint matters.

Summary: The complainant (Mrs X) said the Council failed to comply with the statutory timescales when considering her complaint through the children’s statutory complaint procedure. Mrs X also complained about the unsatisfactory remedies offered by the Council. We found fault with the Council’s delay. The Council agreed an extra remedy of a symbolic payment.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Miss X’s family’s case between March 2022 and November 2023. Doing so would not lead to a better or worthwhile outcome. This is because the Council apologised for a delay in making payments and there is no evidence money is still owed, so we would be unlikely to recommend further remedy. The disclosure of data to Miss X’s daughter is a matter the ICO is better placed than us to consider. And the decisions of the Council about where Miss X’s grandchildren were subject to court action, and we are legally prevented from considering them or related matters.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a restriction placed on Mrs X’s grandchild in a children’s home run by the Council. The restriction imposed was within the range open to professionals to decide, and an investigation by us would be unlikely to find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about children services’ actions. It is reasonable to expect her to request a Children Act statutory complaints’ procedure stage two escalation when she is unhappy with the Council’s complaint responses.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s representations to court. The law prevents us from doing so. Mrs X should raise all relevant information as part of court proceedings. It is open to her to also contact the Information Commissioner’s Office, as the body that deals with complaints about data protection.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s actions in its child protection involvement with her family because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that are being considered in court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so.

Summary: We are satisfied the Council was not party to a decision to end the complainant’s educational placement at a college. However, there was fault, because the Council drew an incorrect assumption about what she wished to do next. This caused some uncertainty and frustration, for which the Council has agreed to formally apologise. There is no evidence the Council has failed to properly use additional funding it has received to provide more local specialist educational placements.

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. It is reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) if she wants to challenge the content of the Education, Health and Care Plan.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed reviewing an Education Health and Care Paln 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 caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her child’s Education Health and Care Plan. It was reasonable for Miss X to have appealed to the Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to make alternative educational provision for the complainant’s daughter. The complaint is late and there are insufficient grounds for us to consider it now.