| 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. West Sussex County Council (23 021 450)
Summary: Ms F complained the Council failed to provide her son (X) with an education in school or through an alternative provision placement since September 2023. She also said it communicated poorly and caused delays in its complaints handling. The Council agreed it was at fault. We found its proposed remedy was not enough. It will apologise to Ms F and make payment to her and X to properly acknowledge the injustice its faults caused them. We have also made service improvement recommendations to address the delays and faults. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (24 010 539)
Summary: Mrs B complained about delay and poor communication by the Council when issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan. We upheld the complaint, finding fault by the Council caused an injustice to both Mrs B and her daughter. The Council has accepted these findings and has agreed to provide Mrs B and her daughter with an apology and symbolic payment. It will also ensure it issues the Plan without delay and provide advice on any other services it can offer. The Council has also agreed to review how it considers complaints about its Special Educational Needs and Disability service to improve its complaint handling. Hertfordshire County Council (24 013 801)
Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed arranging alternative education provision for Mr Xâs 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. Derbyshire County Council (24 016 489)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an Education Health and Care needs assessment. This is because the issues raised have either been appealed to a tribunal or are not separable from that appeal. Devon County Council (24 017 380)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision not to issue Mrs Xâs child with an Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because the case is outside our jurisdiction. Surrey County Council (24 017 721)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Councilâs officer made false allegations about the complainantâs wife at a meeting. Investigation would not add anything significant to the complaint response the Council has already made and is not therefore warranted. Essex County Council (24 018 128)
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. London Borough of Waltham Forest (24 003 751)
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 a complaint she made through the childrenâs statutory complaint procedure about how it supported them. The Council failed to properly identify the injustice caused to Ms X and Y and did not provide adequate remedies. The Council will apologise to Ms X and pay her a symbolic amount of £700 to recognise the uncertainty, frustration and distress she was caused and the risk of harm Y was put to by the Councilâs faults. London Borough of Croydon (24 014 379)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the Council failing to provide her with adequate care leaver support and with providing her with incorrect information. This is because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (24 017 070)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about a LADOâs investigation. We cannot investigate a school and police investigation the LADO oversaw. We are unlikely to add to the Councilâs reply to Mrs Xâs complaint. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (24 017 855)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the circumstances leading up to the Councilâs decision to begin care proceedings in respect of Miss Xâs child. These matters are directly connected to the reason for the court action. Another body is better placed than us to consider an alleged data breach. Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (24 020 547)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Council not responding to his stage two complaint under the children statutory complaint procedure within the statutory timescales. This is because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. London Borough of Hounslow (24 005 013)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not provide her child D with special educational needs support from their Education, Health, and Care Plan, and failed to properly review the Plan. There was fault by the Council which caused D to miss special educational needs provision, and avoidable distress for D and Mrs X. The Council agreed to apologise, evidence it is taking action to ensure Dâs provision is in place, and pay a financial remedy. It will also review its processes to ensure it meets its duties to secure Education, Health, and Care Plan provision. Surrey County Council (24 007 650)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to secure the provision set out in Yâs Education, Health and Care Plan. As a result, Mrs X says Y has not received the provision he is entitled to. We find the Council at fault for not securing provision. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the injustice. Surrey County Council (24 007 689)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to secure provision set out in Yâs Education, Health and Care Plan and delayed completing a review of the plan. Mrs X says this caused distress and means Y did not receive the education they were entitled to. We find the Council at fault for not securing provision and delays in reviewing Yâs plan. We find the Council has already taken suitable action to address the injustice to Mrs X and Y. Surrey County Council (24 009 896)
Summary: there is no fault in the Councilâs decision to refuse Mr and Mrs Pâs application for transport assistance for their daughter, G. We cannot question decisions taken without fault. Essex County Council (24 016 239)
Summary: We have upheld Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs delay in completing his 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. Surrey County Council (24 016 303)
Summary: We have upheld Miss Xâs complaint about the Councilâs failure to provide suitable alternative provision to her child since 2023. This is because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Liverpool City Council (24 017 089)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about her child, Yâs Education, Health and Care Plan annual review process. It is unlikely we could add to the Councilâs response or achieve a different outcome. Kent County Council (24 017 317)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Councilâs handling of her request for an Education, Health and Care Plan. It was reasonable for Mrs X to use her right of appeal. Subsequent delays by the Council and issues with communication did not cause a personal injustice significant enough to warrant our involvement. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (24 016 416)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Councilâs safeguarding of a child. The Court is considering the childâs care arrangements, and we cannot investigate issues a Court is considering. Torbay Council (24 016 578)
Summary: We will not investigate these complaints about the person who responded to Miss Xâs complaint being also the subject of part of the complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the substantive child protection matters underlying the complaint to warrant investigation. Investigating how the Council dealt with Miss Xâs complaint about them would not lead to any worthwhile outcome. Torbay Council (24 016 579)
Summary: We will not investigate these complaints about the person who responded to Miss Xâs complaint being also the subject of part of the complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the substantive child protection matters underlying the complaint to warrant investigation. Investigating how the Council dealt with Miss Xâs complaint about them would not lead to any worthwhile outcome. West Sussex County Council (24 018 419)
Summary: We have upheld Mrs Xâs complaint about delay in responding to her stage two complaint under the children statutory complaints procedure. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Suffolk County Council (24 019 112)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr Xâs complaint about a social workerâs assessment report because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been considered in court proceedings. Essex County Council (24 017 444)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council is failing in its duty to make suitable educational provision for the complainantâs son. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Councilâs part to warrant investigation. North Northamptonshire Council (24 017 480)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to ensure the provision of safe and appropriate school transport for the complainantâs son. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Councilâs part to warrant investigation. London Borough of Hillingdon (24 006 531)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker and the Councilâs refusal to remove and replace them. This is because there is nothing significant to be gained from investigation and our intervention is not therefore warranted. Lancashire County Council (23 021 445)
Summary: We found fault on Mr Pâs complaint about the Councilâs assessment of his request for free home to school transport which means his daughter will have a longer travel route to school. There was no guidance about how to assess the shortest walking route to the nearest school. Its policy could have been clearer about the assessment for deciding the nearest school and that used after this was decided. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused. Hampshire County Council (24 003 287)
Summary: Miss Y complained the Council failed to hold an emergency annual review and delayed in providing alternative provision for her child, X. We have found the Council at fault for the delay in issuing the final Education, Health and Care Plan and for failing to consider its duties when X was not attending school. These faults have caused distress, frustration and uncertainty to X and Miss Y. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss Y and make a symbolic financial payment to remedy the injustice caused. Plymouth City Council (24 006 101)
Summary: Ms D complained about the Councilâs handling of the Education, Health and Care plan process for her son (X) and its delay in finding him a suitable special school. The Council agreed it was at fault for failing to adhere to the statutory process and causing unnecessary delays in finding a school placement. We also found it failed to put in place alternative provision for X for nearly a year. The Council should apologise and make payment to Ms X to acknowledge the impact its faults had on her and X. Manchester City Council (24 007 821)
Summary: Mr X complained that the Council has failed to explain the education, health and care plan process to him as a new parent when a looked after child moved in with him and his wife; failed to offer any alternative provision; and delayed the process. We find the Council was at fault for failing to consider its section 19 duties. This meant Mr Xâs adoptive son missed out on education. The Council has agreed to make several recommendations to remedy this injustice caused by fault. West Sussex County Council (24 008 286)
Summary: Ms X complained about the Councilâs poor communication and failure to respond to her request for reasonable adjustments and her complaint about the same. The Council is at fault for failing to respond to some communication and delay responding to Ms Xâs complaint. This has caused Ms X distress. The Council has already apologised and offered reasonable adjustments; this is a satisfactory remedy. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (24 016 262)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X complaint about her child B, not receiving an education. B is not of compulsory school age. And it is reasonable to expect Miss X to have appealed the Councilâs decision to cease an Education Health and Care Plan. Lancashire County Council (24 017 204)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council failed to ensure the complainantâs child has access to suitable educational provision. Mrs X has used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and this places the complaint outside the Ombudsmanâs jurisdiction. London Borough of Wandsworth (23 017 554)
Summary: Ms X complains about delays by the Council and the Trust in completing an autism assessment for her child and for not fastâtracking their assessment. We found fault with the initial referral, but the Trust has already remedied this. We also found fault with the triage panel meeting that led to some delay. We did not find fault by the Council and the Trust with how they considered Ms Xâs fastâtrack request. However, fault with a panel meeting led to some uncertainty about whether this could have been considered sooner. We have recommended the Trust and the Council take actions to address the faults and apologise for the distress caused to Ms X. North East Lincolnshire Council (24 002 470)
Summary: We found fault on Miss Dâs complaint about the way the Council dealt with allegations against her which it referred to the Local Authority Designated Officer. Minutes were not accurate and failed to show consideration of a recommendation. There was a failure to follow procedure with the initial allegation and it did not ensure she received its final decision. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused. Suffolk County Council (24 017 443)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs response to a safeguarding concern relating to the complainantâs children. This is because investigation would not add anything significant to the response the Council has already made, or lead to a different outcome. Suffolk County Council (23 019 180)
Summary: Ms X complained that the Council failed to provide suitable full-time education to her son while he was unable to attend school. We have found no fault. The Council provided education which, in its view, met Ms Xâs sonâs needs, and it has explained why it did not consider it appropriate to make more education available to him. These were matters for the Council to decide and we have no power to question them. Hertfordshire County Council (24 000 965)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed provide suitable education for her child who has been absent from school since November 2021. Miss X also complained the Council delayed reviewing her childâs Education, Health and Care Plan. We found fault with the Council for failing to make suitable education available for two terms and five weeks. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss X and pay her £2,980 for her childâs missed education. The Council already accepted its fault for delaying outside the statutory timescales in reviewing the EHC Plan for nine and a half months. We maintain the Councilâs offer of £900 for the distress and inconvenience caused through its delays. Bristol City Council (24 002 809)
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has not made alternative education provision for her son. The Council is at fault because it did not properly consider whether it should make alternative education provision. Mrs X suffered avoidable distress and Y missed educational provision. The Council should apologise, pay Mrs X £4,500 and provide guidance to staff. Cornwall Council (24 005 383)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed issuing her adult childâs education, health and care plan after a review. Miss X said this meant her child did not have any adult education, and it caused unnecessary and avoidable distress to her and the family. We find the Council at fault, and this caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to remedy the injustice caused. Essex County Council (24 008 605)
Summary: Dr P complained about the Councilâs failure to provide Speech and Language Therapy as set out in her childâs Education, Health and Support (EHC) Plan and related matters. We found the Council to be at fault. It did not provide enough therapy and took too long to advise Dr P of its intention to amend the EHC Plan. This caused Dr P distress and uncertainty. To remedy this injustice and the impact of the missed provision, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Dr P and take action to improve its service. Hampshire County Council (24 011 020)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not review her childâs Education, Health and Care Plan within statutory time frames and did not provide the provision in the previous Plan. Mrs X says this caused unnecessary and avoidable distress and impacted her childâs education. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault which caused Mrs X and her child injustice. The Council has agreed to take service improvement action and make a payment and apologise to Mrs X. Cumberland Council (24 014 394)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council did not provide the support child Y was entitled to as a Child in Need. The Council has agreed to consider the complaint through the childrenâs statutory complaint procedure. That is an appropriate resolution to the complaint therefore it would not be proportionate for us to investigate. Gloucestershire County Council (24 015 959)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint that the Council wrongly refused her application for home to school transport for her child. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Darlington Borough Council (24 016 699)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about home to school transport. It is unlikely we could add significantly to the Councilâs replies. Darlington Borough Council (24 016 720)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about delays by the Council in naming a school in an Education, Health and Care Plan for her child following a review. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault in the Councilâs actions. Plymouth City Council (24 017 366)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision to refuse an application and appeal for school transport. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Councilâs part to warrant investigation. Essex County Council (24 018 051)
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. Cheshire East Council (24 006 928)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide a personal assistant to support her disabled child between February-November 2024. She also complained the Council refused her request for residential respite care. The Council was at fault for failing to provide a personal assistant for a period of nine months. However, the Council assessed Mrs Xâs request for residential care in line with the relevant law and guidance without fault. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X to recognise the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by the lack of support that was in place for her child between February-November 2024. Buckinghamshire Council (24 016 368)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council. Most of the complaint relates to actions of the School which is outside our jurisdiction. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Councilâs actions to justify our involvement. Worcestershire County Council (24 016 410)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs involvement with Mr X and his family. We could not add anything to the Councilâs response or achieve a worthwhile outcome for Mr X. Birmingham City Council (24 013 385)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision to award his child a bus pass to travel to school. He says this is not a suitable method of transport as his son cannot travel alone on the bus due to his special educational needs. Leeds City Council (23 019 909)
Summary: Miss X complains the council failed to complete her son Yâs Education, Health and Care Plan within the statutory time frames. We find fault with the Council for delay, failing to provide specialist provision as outlined in the Plan, and lack of communication. We have suggested a symbolic payment for the frustration and distress caused as a result. North Yorkshire Council (24 002 714)
Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council did not deal with her son Yâs education properly. The Council is at fault because it did not consider providing s19 alternative education provision. Mrs X and Y suffered avoidable distress. Y suffered loss of educational provision. The Council should apologise, pay Mrs X and Y £200 each for distress, pay Mrs X £2,000 for missed educational provision and provide guidance to staff. Birmingham City Council (24 004 678)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide suitable transport to school for her child, Y. The Council was at fault for not recording how it considered Mrs Xâs appeals, for poor communication and decision letters and for the way in which it provided a personal transport budget. This meant the family had to transport Y to school. The Council has now agreed to provide Y with suitable school transport. It has also agreed to apologise to Mrs X and make a payment to acknowledge the distress and frustration caused. Sheffield City Council (24 007 094)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint the Council incorrectly advised her childâs school how to record their absence. The Council has fully upheld the complaint, apologised and made service improvements. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Cambridgeshire County Council (24 007 461)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council has not provided an Educational Psychologist report for her child, which has caused delay receiving the Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council delayed issuing both. This is fault causing injustice. The Council agreed a financial remedy of £1,200. Essex County Council (24 007 741)
Summary: Mrs X complained about non-delivery of all special educational provision included in her sonâs (Y) Education, Health and Care Plan. She also said the Council had sent her a misleading letter and had failed to communicate with her. We found fault, which caused injustice to Y and Mrs X. The Council agreed to apologise, make symbolic payments to recognise Yâs loss of provision and Mrs Xâs distress and liaise with Mrs X to ensure Y has proper equipment and all the support included in his plan. West Northamptonshire Council (24 001 146)
Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council when considering a complaint about childrenâs services, failed to remedy the fact that the family had not been provided with appropriate support. We have not found fault with the Council. Hertfordshire County Council (24 015 699)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Councilâs social worker in the course of child protection action. This is because investigation would not achieve the outcome the complainant wants. Hampshire County Council (24 016 806)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs consideration of a safeguarding matter relating to the complainantâs children. The complaint is late and there are insufficient grounds for us to consider it now. London Borough of Ealing (24 018 688)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about information provided to the courts during private proceedings. This is because the law prevents us from investigating what happened in court. North Northamptonshire Council (24 020 182)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the contents of a report written by the Council. The matter has been considered in court and so we have no power to investigate it. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (24 006 544)
Summary: We found fault with the Councilâs initial decision to end Mrs Dâs daughtersâ Personal Travel Budget for home to school transport and to provide them with shared transport instead. It failed to show discussions it claimed it had with her about it. There is no injustice which needs remedying. |
