| 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. Southend-on-Sea City Council (23 004 755)
Summary: Mrs X complained that an assessment of her sonâs needs inappropriately depicted her wishes and feelings as negative and social workers did not communicate or engage with her appropriately. Mrs X also complained that the Council failed to carry out a proper parent carerâs needs assessment. We found there was no failure to engage and communicate with Mrs X and the statements made in the assessment amounted to professional judgements which we would not criticise. However, we found there was a failure to carry out a proper parent carerâs needs assessment. This was fault. The fault was significant and justified a public report because this was repeated fault which was not put right after a previous investigation we conducted found the same fault and recommended action to put it right. We also found that the Council failed to use the correct complaint process and its response to the complaint was significantly delayed. The failings in the assessment process and complaint handling meant a significant delay in assessing Mrs X to establish what support she may need and the matter has led to frustration and distress. Lancashire County Council (24 015 129)
Summary: We upheld Ms Xâs 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. Worcestershire County Council (24 015 508)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint her child has not received a full-time education since 2022. The early part of the complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council has provided support since the start of 2024. London Borough of Wandsworth (24 015 608)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about Y missing one Speech and Language Therapistâs session as there is insufficient injustice to warrant an investigation. We cannot investigate whether the current Education Health and Care Plan meets Yâs needs as Miss X has appealed to the Tribunal. Gloucestershire County Council (24 015 658)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint the Council failed to complete an Education, Health and Care needs assessment for her child within the legal timescales. This is because the Council has already offered a suitable remedy for any injustice caused by the delay and further investigation by us is unlikely to achieve anything more. London Borough of Hounslow (24 015 843)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan. The injustice caused by the delay was not significant enough to warrant an investigation. North Northamptonshire Council (24 016 082)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision not to name specialist educational provision in an Education Health and Care plan. This is because the complainant has used her right to appeal, and this places the matter outside the Ombudsmanâs jurisdiction. Buckinghamshire Council (24 019 109)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about information shared during court proceedings. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about what happened in court. Kent County Council (23 015 248)
Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council in respect of her son Câs special educational needs, had failed to reassess Câs needs, to issue amended Education, Health and Care Plans following two annual reviews, to provide alternative education while he was out of school, to progress a personal budget request or respond to her complaints about the matter in a timely or accurate way. We found the Council was at fault in all these areas. C has missed out on education for a significant period of time and Mrs B had been caused distress, frustration and financial hardship. The Council has agreed to make payments to Mrs B and C and to provide an update on improvements to its SEND service. Suffolk County Council (23 016 055)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to ensure Ms Xâs childâs Special Educational Needs (SEN) provision was met. This is because the Council has offered an appropriate remedy, so investigation would not lead to a different outcome. We cannot investigate actions by the school unrelated to the delivery of SEN provision. West Sussex County Council (23 020 019)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her child, Y, with a suitable alternative education when they could not attend school, delayed issuing Yâs Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan in line with statutory timescales and its communication with her was poor. The Council was at fault when it delayed issuing Yâs EHC Plan which caused Mrs X frustration and Y to miss educational provision, the Council will make a payment of £2,025 and a symbolic payment to Mrs X. The Council was also at fault for uncertainty caused by its failure to keep Yâs alternative provision under review. The Council will pay Mrs X a symbolic payment for the uncertainty this caused and for poor communication. It has already agreed to act to improve its services. Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (24 002 845)
Summary: Miss X complained that the Council failed to provide alternative education when her son was unable to attend school, that it delayed in completing the annual review process of her sonâs Education, Health and Care Plan and the communication with her was poor. This meant that her son missed out on education, and she was caused avoidable distress and unnecessary legal costs. The Council had already found some fault, but the complainant was dissatisfied with the remedy offered for the injustice caused. The Council has agreed to make an increased symbolic payment for the lost education. Buckinghamshire Council (24 006 236)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has failed to make Section 19 Alternative Provision for her son, Y, while he was unable to attend school. Mrs X also says the Council failed to issue his Education, Health and Care Plan within the statutory timescale. As a result, Mrs X says his education and welfare have suffered. We have found fault in the Councilâs actions for failing to issue Yâs Education, Health and Care Plan within the statutory timescale. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay a financial remedy. Buckinghamshire Council (24 014 576)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Aâs complaint that a school discriminated against his family and that the Council did not provide appropriate support to meet his familyâs needs. This is because we cannot look at what happens in schools and because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Torbay Council (24 016 319)
Summary: We cannot investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the actions of a social worker. This is because she has already raised the matter during court proceedings and the law says we cannot investigate. For any other outstanding issues, Miss X could reasonably have raised the matter with the courts. Norfolk County Council (24 003 580)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the standard of the Councilâs safeguarding investigation under the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) process following an allegation from their former foster child. She said the process was not fair. We found some procedural fault in the LADO investigation process, but it did not cause Mrs X significant injustice or affect the outcome. Kent County Council (24 003 873)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council carried out a flawed assessment of Jâs needs, wrongly deciding J was ineligible for support from the Councilâs disabled childrenâs team. In doing so, Mr X said the Council reneged on a previous commitment to keep J open to services long-term. Mr X also complained the Council failed to conduct the childrenâs statutory complaints procedure properly and did not address the substance of his complaint. We have found the Council at fault for a delay in completing the second stage of the statutory complaints procedure. The Council had offered a remedy for the injustice caused, which we consider suitable. We have not found the Council at fault for how it considered Mr Xâs complaint as part of the statutory complaints procedure. We will therefore not consider the substantive matter. Birmingham City Council (24 005 759)
Summary: We have ended our investigation into Ms Xâs complaint about how the Council provided support following the birth of her child. An independent investigation has already found no fault in what the Council did. The Council has offered Ms X a suitable remedy for any additional anxieties caused by any avoidable delays in the independent investigation process. It is unlikely that further investigation of the same issues would lead to a different outcome for Ms X. Kent County Council (24 010 808)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alledged failure by the Council to provide appropriate educational support to complainantsâ son who has special educational needs. This is because the complainants have a right of appeal to a statutory tribunal which they could reasonably exercise. We have no legal jurisdiction to investigate in such circumstances. Essex County Council (24 015 306)
Summary: We have upheld Mrs Xâs complaint about the Councilâs delay completing her childâs Education, Health and Care needs assessment. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Derbyshire County Council (24 015 461)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has managed a childâs education provision. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing a significant injustice. Birmingham City Council (24 015 627)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the education provision for Mrs Xâs child. This is because she has used her right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal and her complaint is not separable from that appeal. Lancashire County Council (24 015 659)
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. Leicestershire County Council (24 016 779)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the school named in an Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because it was reasonable for Mrs X to use her right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). Lancashire County Council (24 017 039)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the council failed to provide suitable full-time education for Miss Xâs child who was permanently excluded from school and the contents of their Education Health and Care Plan. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because it is reasonable for Miss X to use her right of appeal to a tribunal. Essex County Council (24 017 541)
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. Derby City Council (23 020 160)
Summary: the Council took too long to arrange alternative provision once it accepted a special school was not going to work out for Ms Mâs son, B. B was without education for two terms from September 2023 to April 2024. The Council has agreed a symbolic payment to acknowledge the impact. West Northamptonshire Council (24 003 109)
Summary: Mrs X complained about delays and other failures in how the Council assessed her child, Yâs, special educational needs. There was fault in how the Council took too long to assess Yâs needs, issue the first EHC Plan and failed to consider whether it needed to arrange alternative education for Y. This caused Mrs X avoidable frustration and uncertainty. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her a financial remedy. Essex County Council (24 003 998)
Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to complete her son Yâs Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment in line with statutory timescales. We find fault with the Council for delay in completing the Education, Health and Care Plan and for delay in providing suitable alternative education for Y. We have agreed payments for the distress and frustration caused to Mrs X. Suffolk County Council (24 004 772)
Summary: delays by the Council finalising Mrs Mâs son Bâs Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan delayed Mrs Mâs right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal. There is no evidence the Council considered its duty to make alternative arrangements for Bâs education when he stopped attending school in November 2023. The Council has agreed a symbolic remedy for the injustice caused. Cambridgeshire County Council (24 005 341)
Summary: Mr B complains the Council caused delays during the annual review process for his sonâs Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and amended the Plan without informing him and without any additional assessments. There was fault by the Council in the way it did not meet annual review statutory timescales. Mr B suffered distress and frustration, and the Councilâs failure to meet statutory timescales delayed his appeal rights to the Tribunal. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B, make a symbolic payment, and issue a staff briefing. Kent County Council (24 005 775)
Summary: We have ended our investigation into Mrs Xâs complaint about the Councilâs handling of her sonâs school admissions appeal. There is nothing more we could achieve by further investigation. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (24 006 640)
Summary: the Council accepted it failed to provide Ms Mâs son, B, with suitable education from February 2023 until he started at a special school in February 2024. The Council also took too long to issue Bâs education, health and care (EHC) plan. The Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment for the injustice caused. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (24 007 999)
Summary: Mr B complained about the Councilâs refusal to respond to complaints he made on behalf of X and Ms Y. We found no fault by the Council. It acted in line with its corporate complaints policy and the childrenâs statutory complaints guidance, and exercised its discretion Mr B was not an appropriate person to make the complaints and represent X. Without fault in the process, these were decisions it was entitled to make. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (24 009 676)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to act on her complaint, under the statutory childrenâs complaints procedure, into its handling of child protection proceedings involving her children. The Council is at fault for its consideration of parts of Miss Xâs complaint and has failed to properly remedy the impact of its failings on Miss X. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Miss X and develop a specific action plan for its approach to victims of domestic abuse. Cornwall Council (24 017 781)
Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed considering a complaint at stage two of the childrenâs 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 complainants to remedy the time and trouble they have been to. Coventry City Council (24 008 642)
Summary: Mrs Y was unhappy with the Councilâs response to her complaint. The Council agreed to respond to Mrs Yâs complaint at stage two of the statutory childrenâs complaints process. This is a satisfactory outcome. Birmingham City Council (24 015 826)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the process leading to the naming of a mainstream school in the complainantâs sonâs Education Health and Care plan, and about the decision itself. This is because the complainant has used his right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). Portsmouth City Council (24 016 006)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to acknowledge that the complainant is providing his child with suitable education and has failed to answer questions he has put to it. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking. Surrey County Council (24 014 038)
Summary: We have upheld this complaint about the assessment of a childâs educational needs and delayed payments to tuition providers. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by offering to make a suitable payment to the complainant to remedy the injustice this caused. North Somerset Council (24 015 024)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about how the Council dealt with her request for home to school transport. There was some fault by the Council, but it did not cause a significant personal injustice. An investigation is not therefore warranted. Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (23 014 062)
Summary: Miss X complained her daughter had been unable to attend school since October 2022 with no suitable alternative provision provided. Miss X said there had been delays in the education, health and care plan process. She also said the Councilâs communication had been poor. We find the Council was at fault. This caused significant distress to Miss X and her daughter. We make several recommendations to address this injustice caused by fault. Derby City Council (24 004 233)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Councilâs handling of her sonâs Education, Health and Care Plan. She says the Council wrongly transferred the Plan to another Council and failed to provide suitable education after he stopped attending school. We have found fault in the Councilâs actions. The Council agreed to apologise, pay Mrs X and Mr S financial remedies and issue reminders to its staff. Birmingham City Council (24 005 620)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to ensure her son, Y received an education after he stopped attending school in June 2023. The Council failed to consider at the time whether it owed Y a Section 19 duty to put alternative provision in place. It also delayed completing Yâs Education, Health and Care needs assessment by 14 weeks which delayed Miss Xâs right of appeal to the SEND tribunal. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss X and make payments to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty caused. It also agreed to carry out service improvements. Buckinghamshire Council (24 006 051)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not provide the occupational therapy it had assessed her child needed, for eight months. She says the Council also failed to implement suitable alternative education although it was aware the child was not attending school. We found the Council at fault for the delay in providing occupational therapy. The Council agreed to make payments to Ms X and to her child in recognition of the injustice caused. West Northamptonshire Council (24 007 298)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide full-time education for her child since November 2023. Miss X also complained the Council failed to meet deadlines for her childâs Education, Health and Care Plan and about the poor handling of her complaint. We found fault with the Council failing to provide suitable education for Miss Xâs child from 9 May 2024 to 6 October 2024. The Council agreed to pay Miss X £1,225 for this missed education and provide training to its staff about how to assess and address a lack of education for a child not in school. The Council has already apologised to Miss X and paid her £300 for the stress caused through its communication with her and delays in the Education, Health and Care Plan process. We consider this a suitable remedy. Nottinghamshire County Council (24 016 103)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs involvement with his children. The complaint is late, and Mr X could have complained earlier. The law also prevents us from considering complaints about matters discussed or decided in court and when a person had a right of appeal to a tribunal. Both apply to Mr Xâs complaint. London Borough of Bromley (24 004 498)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not follow the correct process for a child protection investigation relating to his children. We found the Council followed the correct procedures for investigating child protection concerns and was not at fault. The Council involved Mr X in the process and considered his views. North Northamptonshire Council (24 013 630)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Councilâs delay in making direct payments for her childâs educational provision. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. London Borough of Harrow (24 013 924)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the alternative provision offered by the Council and its decision not to fund Mrs Xâs choice of provision. This is because we are unlikely to find fault in the Councilâs actions. Hertfordshire County Council (24 014 185)
Summary: We have upheld Miss Xâs complaint about the delayed finalisation of her childâs Education, Health and Care needs assessment and lack of educational provision provided by the Council. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Cheshire East Council (24 015 438)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the Councilâs delay in arranging a personal budget to meet her sonâs educational provision. This is because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome. North Yorkshire Council (24 015 758)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council is at fault in failing to make suitable alternative educational provision for the complainantâs son. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Councilâs part to warrant investigation. Staffordshire County Council (23 020 331)
Summary: The complaint is that since September 2021, the Council has provided little of the provision set out in Miss Pâs Education, Health and Care Plan. Even after a Tribunal decision, the Council did not put in place provision. We uphold the complaint. The Council has agreed to our recommendations of remedies for Miss Pâs injustice. Suffolk County Council (24 002 222)
Summary: There was fault and delay by the Council in failing to update Education, Health and Care plans after annual reviews and failing to ensure a child received suitable fulltime education over several years. There was also fault in the complaint handling and poor communication. This caused loss of education and unnecessary distress, uncertainty, time and trouble to the family. The Council will apologise, make symbolic payments, and service improvements. The complaint is upheld. North Yorkshire Council (24 004 624)
Summary: We have found fault (service failure) with the Council for the delay in completing the statutory Education, Health and Care Plan assessment process. This caused Miss X the injustice of uncertainty and frustration at the delay. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice with an apology and a symbolic payment. London Borough of Bromley (24 006 466)
Summary: There was fault in the way the Council considered whether it had a duty to provide alternative education when a child stopped attending their school. During this investigation the Council has offered a suitable remedy for the injustice caused to Ms X and her child. This offer, and our recommended service improvements, are a satisfactory resolution to the complaint. Norfolk County Council (24 014 935)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about child protection matters. This is because the Information Commissioner is better placed to investigate alleged data breaches, only the courts can determine contact arrangements and further investigation into other matters would not lead to a different outcome. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (24 015 702)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Councilâs social workers in the course of their involvement with the care of the complainantâs daughter. This is because investigation would not result in the outcomes the complainant wants. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (24 016 286)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about child protection. The matters complained of are closely linked to matters that were or could reasonably have been raised in court, as reflected by Mr Xâs wish for the courts to be informed of corrections. Defamation is also a matter that can only be decided by a court, so it would be reasonable for Mr X to go to court about that. Matters relating to the accuracy of the Councilâs records and to its response to a data subject access request by Mr X are ones the Information Commissionerâs Office would be better placed to consider as it has powers to require rectification and to impose penalties that we lack. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (24 003 070)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr and Mrs Xâs complaint about the Councilâs handling of their childâs case before and after they adopted him. This is because an investigation would not lead to any further findings or outcomes. In addition, we cannot achieve the outcomes they want. Staffordshire County Council (24 013 029)
Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed arranging the education provision detailed in a childâs Education Health and Care Plan. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by offering to make a suitable payment to the complainant to remedy the injustice this caused. Lancashire County Council (24 014 123)
Summary: We upheld Mrs Xâs complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care plan process. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused by the delay. Leicestershire County Council (24 014 577)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education, Health and Care plan process. This is because the Council has offered an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the delay. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (24 004 315)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed amending her son, Yâs, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan following an annual review by over a year. The Council was at fault. It delayed issuing Yâs amended EHC Plan which meant he lost out on some of the specialist educational provision in his Plan between September 2023 and July 2024. This also caused Mrs X distress and uncertainty. The Council agreed to make payments to Mrs X to recognise the injustice caused and provide us with updates on the service improvements it has already carried out in response to this complaint. Suffolk County Council (24 008 951)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Councilâs actions in relation to her child, Yâs, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council was at fault. It did not send Mrs X a draft amended EHC Plan when it became aware she did not have it. It also delayed issuing a final EHC Plan. This caused Mrs X frustration and delayed her right of appeal to SEND Tribunal. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £300 for the injustice it caused her. Manchester City Council (24 014 246)
Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council failed to treat the complainantâs concerns as a matter for the childrenâs statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint by offering to respond under the procedure. Liverpool City Council (24 014 747)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Councilâs refusal of a blue badge for her child. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify our further involvement. Nottingham City Council (24 016 791)
Summary: We cannot investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the Councilâs 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, or have been, considered in court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so. Wiltshire Council (24 019 013)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Councilâs communication with Mr X relating to a child. This is because we have no jurisdiction to consider the complaint because of ongoing court proceedings. London Borough of Barnet (24 008 497)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about child protection action by the Council. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement. |
