A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council making Miss X’s children subject to a child protection plan. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached the decision to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement with Miss X and Miss Y’s family. This is because some of the action complained of is about the conduct of court proceedings, which could reasonably have been raised in court. We will also not consider the Council’s complaint handling where we are not investigating the substantive issues.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a request to amend information the Council holds about Miss X. The Information Commissioner is best placed to consider the matter.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about a social worker’s court ordered report because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been considered in court. We have no discretion to do so.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the care of a child. The law prevents us from investigating matters that have been subject to court action.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council prepared a Section 7 report. This is because the matter has either been considered in court of could reasonably be raised in court.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of her ‘Subject Access Request’ and also about the Council’s actions in court. We will not investigate. This is because this complaint does not meet the tests set out in our Assessment Code on which complaints we should investigate. It is reasonable for Ms X to complain to the Information Commissioner’s office as it is better placed to investigate the complaint about her Subject Access Request. And we have no power to consider what happened in court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council deciding it is not safe for Mr X to return home to be supervised with his children while court proceedings about a serious matter are still awaited. The decision is one the Council was entitled to make given the nature of the matter and it is unlikely that investigation by us would lead to a finding of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council is treating him unfairly in its children’s services involvement with his family. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider his complaint whilst the case is subject to ongoing court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a social worker’s handling of her granddaughter’s case. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to investigate the complaint whilst the matter is subject to ongoing court proceedings.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s section 7 court report and contact arrangements with his child. We have no jurisdiction to look at matters subject to court proceedings.

Summary: Ms X complained about delays in the EHC needs assessment process and in issuing an EHC Plan for her daughter. Ms X also complains the Council failed to provide her daughter with a suitable education when she was unable to attend school. We found the delays in the EHC plan process and in issuing a final EHC Plan is fault. As was the failure to provide suitable alternative educational provision. These faults have caused Ms X frustration, distress and uncertainty and have meant that Y has missed out on education. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and Y and make payments to remedy the injustice.

Summary: Mr B complained the Council delayed in issuing a final Education, Health and Care Plan following an annual review and failed to communicate throughout the process. We have found the Council at fault for a delay in issuing the final amended Education, Health and Care Plan and for its poor communication. These faults caused distress, frustration and uncertainty to Mr B. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and complete service improvements to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed putting alternative provision in place for her child, Y and also delayed completing Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment. The Council delayed considering whether to put alternative provision in place for Y which on balance meant they lost out on tuition between April and October 2024. It also delayed deciding whether to issue Y with an EHC Plan within the statutory timescales which subsequently meant a delay in issuing the final EHC Plan. The Council agreed to make payments to Mrs X to acknowledge the injustice caused.

Summary: Ms Y complained about the time the Council took to assess her child and issue an Education, Health and Care plan. She also complained about the Council’s communication with her during the process. We found the Council at fault. It has agreed to make a recognition payment to Ms Y and to her child for the resulting injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel for us to be able to question its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the support offered with home to school transport. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan for her child. This is because the Council has provided a suitable remedy for the issue. We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the contents of the final Education, Health and Care Plan because Miss X has used her right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the naming of a school in her child’s Education Health and Care Plan. This is because Mrs X used her right of appeal to a tribunal, and the issues she has raised are not separable from that appeal.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council has not provided her child with a suitable education. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more.

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 to.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about her experience as a looked-after child between 2005 and 2010. This is because significant time has passed since and we could not complete a robust investigation of this historic matter.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council removing Mr X’s grandchild from his care and restricting his contact. A legal bar prevents us doing so because the residence and contact arrangements for the child have been subject to court action and only a court could vary them.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with her family. The law prevents us from investigating anything that is the subject of court proceedings. We also cannot achieve the outcomes Mrs X wants.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council placed her child in an unsuitable residential home. This is because we have no jurisdiction to look at court decisions.

Summary: We upheld Ms X’s complaint about delay in issuing Y’s Education Health and Care Plan and delay in arranging alternative educational provision. This caused avoidable frustration, uncertainty, distress and a loss of provision. The Council will issue an apology, and make payments for missed provision, distress/uncertainty and reimburse the cost of an Educational Psychologist's report.

Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council reviewed and amended her child, W’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. Miss X also complained the Council failed to provide W with education when they struggled to attend school. The Council was at fault in how it carried out W’s EHC Plan reviews and made changes to their Plan. The Council was also at fault in how it decided whether it should arrange alternative education for W. We cannot say, even on balance, that this fault meant W missed out on education. The faults caused Miss X upset, frustration and uncertainty. To remedy her injustice, the Council will apologise and pay Miss X £700. The Council will remind staff they must keep suitable records of their decision-making on alternative education provision.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed completing her child’s (Y) Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment in line with statutory timescales. This in turn caused a delay in issuing the EHC Plan. She also complained the Council has delayed carrying out an Occupational Therapy (OT) assessment as part of the EHC needs assessment. The Council was at fault because it failed to issue Y with an EHC Plan within the statutory timescales, caused in part by a delay in obtaining Educational Psychologist advice. There was also a 10 month delay in carrying out the OT assessment. The Council has agreed apologise and make a payment to recognise the distress, frustration and some loss of provision.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and pay her £100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more.

Summary: We upheld Miss 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 apologising to Miss X and paying her a symbolic payment to acknowledge the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to deliver provision in an Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council has offered a suitable remedy and an investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We upheld Mrs X’s complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care needs assessment regarding her child, Y. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by apologising to Mrs X and paying her a symbolic payment to acknowledge 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: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide her son with home to school transport. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more.

Summary: We have upheld Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in completing her child’s Education, Health and Care needs assessment. 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 that the Council has failed to make educational provision for the complainant’s son. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

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 Mr X’s complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more.

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 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 Miss X’s complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and pay her £100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and pay her £100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed investigating her complaint via the statutory children’s complaint procedure and failed to carry out recommendations it agreed to as part of the process. Ms X says the Council’s actions caused her avoidable stress and frustration. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to provide an apology and financial remedy to Ms X and to carry out the actions it agreed to as part of the statutory complaints process.

Summary: Mrs Y complains about the Council’s decision to implement Child Protection plans for two of her children last year. She says the Council based its decision on false information and malicious allegations and professionals breached her data. The Council upheld some parts of Mrs Y’s complaint due to administrative errors. There is no evidence of procedural fault by the Council which calls into question the decisions it made.

Summary: Mr D complained about the Council’s special educational needs and disability service. We upheld his complaint finding the Council delayed in completing reviews of his child’s Education, Health and Care Plan between February 2023 and July 2024. It also communicated poorly and we considered it should have done more to review his child’s access to education. These faults caused injustice as distress and lost education provision. The Council has accepted these findings and at the end of this statement we set out action agreed by the Council to remedy that injustice and improve its service.

Summary: Ms X complained about delays and faults by the Council in its administration and review of her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan. We found the Council was at fault for delay in updating the plan; in carrying out an assessment and in reimbursing her for the cost of an occupational therapy assessment. These faults caused significant distress to Ms X and her son. The Council has accepted these findings. At the end of this statement, we set out action it has agreed to take to remedy this injustice and improve its service.

Summary: Miss X complained that the Council had delayed a review of her son’s (Y) Education Health and Care Plan in the year when Y was moving to his post-16 education. We found fault with the Council which caused injustice to Y and Miss X. The Council has agreed to apologise and make symbolic payments to Y and Miss X to recognise their distress.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide alternative provision for her son Y who has missed two years of school. We do not find fault with the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained that the Council delayed in completing his son’s Education, Health and Care Plan after an annual review and failed to carry out a reassessment or communicate with him. As a result, his son did not receive the required assistance to make a successful transition from education to a work-based placement or apprenticeship. We find fault causing a lost opportunity to ensure a better transition for Y and avoidable distress. The Council has agreed to make a payment for this and to remind staff of the importance of completing annual reviews on time and how to deal with requests for reassessments.

Summary: Mrs Y complained the Council failed to provide her child, Z, with a suitable education or make appropriate alternative provision for them. We have found fault by the Council, causing injustice, in failing to: consider its duty to make arrangements for alternative provision for Z in April 2023, properly consider the type of alternative provision suitable for Z in December 2023/January 2024 and complete Z’s Education Health and Care needs assessment within the statutory timescales. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising to Mrs Y, making a payment to reflect the distress caused and a service improvement.

Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to seek advice from an Occupational Therapist (OT) during the Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment process for her daughter, C, and there were also delays. The Council was at fault for its failure to consider alternative ways to get OT advice, and for the delays. Because of the fault, Mrs B suffered distress and frustration, and it meant she continued to contact the Council for updates. Because of the delays, C also missed out on provision she should have received sooner. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B and C, and make symbolic payments.

Summary: We upheld a complaint from Mrs E, finding the Council failed to adequately consider her child’s access to education during the 2023-24 academic year. We also found fault in it delaying issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan following a review. We considered the injustice caused by these faults included a loss of provision for the child and distress caused to Mrs E. The Council accepted these findings. It has agreed to apologise to Mrs E and make a symbolic payment to her.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to secure all the speech therapy set out in her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council has accepted service failure in that three sessions were missed. It has apologised and provided catch up group provision. It has agreed to also refund the cost of three private sessions Mrs X organised.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to meet statutory timescales when finalising her child’s education, health and care (EHC) Plan. The Council is at fault for the delay in issuing the final EHC Plan and failing to communicate with Mrs X effectively. It has agreed to provide Mrs X a financial remedy to acknowledge the delay and avoidable distress caused.

Summary: Ms X complains about delays in the Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment process regarding her child, Y. Ms X also complains Y has been out of education since September 2023. Ms X says this has caused both her and Y distress and frustration. We have found fault in the actions of the Council for delays in the Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment for Y and for failing to provide alternative education. The Council has agreed to issue an apology and pay Ms X a financial payment.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in completing her child’s Education, Health and Care needs assessment. The Council has apologised and provided an award in recognition of the delay. A further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to agree to provide Education Otherwise Than at School for the complainant’s son. This is because the complainant had the right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and it would have been reasonable for her to do so.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed carrying out an Education Health and Care needs assessment 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 involvement with her grandchild, following her daughter’s death. The courts are better placed to consider care arrangements for Miss X’s grandchild. We also could not add to the Council’s complaint responses to Miss X or achieve the outcomes she wants.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that he has been accused of being racist. This is because a further investigation by this office could not add to the responses already provided via the Council’s previous investigation of the matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in the course of a child protection enquiry relating to the complainant’s children, and in its response to her subsequent complaint. Our intervention would add nothing significant to the response the complainant has already received and is not therefore warranted.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council employee. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council has responded to Mr X’s complaint about a Council employee.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in seeking a renewed passport for the child looked after by Mrs X. As it is always necessary to ensure a person meets the passport and entry requirements for an overseas destination before booking a holiday, investigation would be unlikely to lead to a finding that fault by the Council caused the claimed injustice.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide suitable education provision for Z, from the point Z stopped attending School D. Ms X said this affected Z’s educational attainment and wellbeing. She said it also led to avoidable distress and expense. We have found the Council failed to consider its section 19 duty at key points. We cannot say the Council would have acted differently, but for its faults. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay a symbolic financial remedy in recognition of the avoidable distress and uncertainty caused. The Council has also agreed to provide guidance to its officers. There are parts of Ms X’s complaint we cannot investigate. We explain why in our statement.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of the Annual Review of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan, which impacted her child’s education, her health and her family’s lives. We found avoidable delays by the Council, which caused Mrs X distress. To put matters right, the Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and make financial redress of £550.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to secure the special educational provision in her daughter, W’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan after W struggled to attend school. The Council was at fault, but we cannot say it meant W missed out provision she should have had. The Council was at fault for delay in reviewing and amending W’s EHC Plan. That fault caused Ms X avoidable frustration, meant W missed out on some special educational provision and delayed W receiving free school transport. To remedy their injustice, the Council will apologise to Ms X, pay her £450 and issue a reminder to staff.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed assessing her child’s education, health and care (EHC) needs, delayed issuing his EHC Plan and it failed to respond to her complaints. The Council is at fault. The identified faults caused Mrs X avoidable distress, uncertainty, delayed her appeal rights and unnecessary time and trouble. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice by apologising and providing Mrs X with remedy payments to acknowledge the avoidable distress.

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to provide education to Miss Y for eight months, losing the paperwork from an annual review of her Education, Health and Care Plan, and delay issuing an amended Plan. Miss Y did not receive any of the provision in her Plan, causing significant injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise, make payments, and act to improve its service.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to issue her child’s education, health and care plan within statutory timescales and it failed to communicate with her effectively. The Council is at fault for delay in finalising the EHC Plan, failing to communicate with Ms X effectively and failing to hold an annual review within 12 months of a previous review. This caused avoidable distress to Ms X and to her child. The Council has agreed to provide a payment of £500 to Ms X and a payment of £500 to her child to acknowledge the avoidable distress caused. The Council has also agreed to make service improvements.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to ensure her child (Y) received the specialist provision set out in their Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council failed to ensure Occupational Therapy (OT) and Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) provision was in place as outlined in Y’s EHC Plan for the 2023/2024 school year. This caused Mrs X distress, frustration and uncertainty and Y’s needs went unmet for longer than necessary. The Council should apologise and make a payment to recognise this.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed carrying out an Education Health and Care needs assessment 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 this complaint about the Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) process for the complainant’s child. If Mrs X is unhappy with the EHC Plan it is reasonable for her to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). An investigation by the Ombudsman would be unlikely to add anything to the Council’s complaint response or achieve a different outcome. The delay by the Council in issuing a final EHC Plan is not significant enough to warrant an investigation and we will not look at complaint handling in isolation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to make appropriate alternative educational provision for the complainant’s daughter and failed to ensure the delivery of provision set out in her Education Health and Care Plan. Our intervention would not add anything significant to the outcome which has already been achieved and is not therefore warranted.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a social worker’s actions in relation to family court proceedings because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that are being, or have been, considered in court. We have no discretion to do so. The data matters Mrs X raises are best considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about children services’ actions. We have upheld Mrs X’s complaint as the Council has now agreed to follow the Children Act statutory complaints’ procedure.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to safeguard his children. This is because the complaint is made late, and I see no good reason to exercise discretion and investigate it now.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of matters related to her children’s care since 2010. Miss X’s complaint is late with no good reason to exercise discretion.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to complete annual reviews and amend her child Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. She also complained it failed to deliver hydrotherapy provision. The Council was at fault. It failed to amend Y’s EHC Plan after an annual review in early 2024 which mean Y has an outdated Plan. The Council agreed to make a payment to acknowledge the distress caused to Mrs X and the delayed appeal rights and amend Y’s Plan without further delay. The hydrotherapy provision is provided by the Local Integrated Care Board and therefore falls outside of our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the school transport offered to Mrs X’s child. This is because it is reasonable for her to use the Council’s appeals process.

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 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 refusal to reimburse the complainant’s legal costs. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

Summary: Mrs P complained the Council did not make arrangements to receive alternative provision when her daughter’s attendance at school deteriorated. We do not consider the Council was at fault for its decision not to arrange alternative provision, but we find fault for the Council’s extensive delays in responding to Mrs P and for arranging a meeting it had promised, which caused distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and offer a financial remedy to reflect this.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide appropriate education for her child, Y and delayed issuing him with a final Education Health and Care Plan. She also complained its communication with her was poor. We found fault by the Council on all parts of Mrs X’s complaint. As a result Y missed education he was entitled to, and he and Mrs X were caused distress, frustration and put to avoidable time and trouble. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X and Y in recognition of the injustice caused to them.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to ensure his child’s nursery provided funded childcare hours free of charge and said the provider instead applied mandatory top-up fees. Because of this, Mr X said that over five months, he was charged £1,173 more than he should have been for childcare hours that should have been free. The Council delayed carrying out an audit into the nursery and this was fault. However it took appropriate action by auditing the provider and instructing it to make changes. The provider still has not made the required changes but this is not due to lack of action by the Council. The Council has agreed to take further steps to bring the childcare provider into compliance.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to provide suitable alternative education when her daughter was unable to attend school for medical reasons. We find that the Council failed to reconsider its original decision on the suitability of the alternative education, which it had provided, in the light of new facts. The Council has now agreed to review its decision and Mrs X will be able to provide relevant information. We have therefore completed our investigation and we are closing the complaint.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to secure provision in Section F of her child’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. While a few visits were missed, we have not identified a significant injustice linked to fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to apologise for the service failure of three missed visits.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to make education provision for her son Y when he was unable to attend school. The Council was at fault as it delayed in making education provision for Y and did not ensure he received some provision in his Education, Health and Care Plan. As a result, Y missed education provision for two terms and the fault caused distress to Mrs X. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising to Mrs X and Y, making a symbolic payment of £1800 to Y and a symbolic payment of £300 to Mrs X.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide her child, Y, with suitable Education other than at School and the provision set out in their Education, Health and Care Plan. She also complained the Council delayed in making personal transport budget and free school meal payments. The Council delayed in issuing Y’s amended Plan causing Y to miss out on their special educational needs provision. It also delayed making transport and free school meals payments to Miss X. The Council has apologised and offered Miss X a payment to recognise the impact of these faults on Y. We are satisfied with the Council’s proposed remedy.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s actions in relation to her child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council was at fault. It delayed issuing a draft amended EHC Plan following an annual review meeting and failed to issue a final amended EHC Plan. The Council has already apologised. The Council has agreed it will pay Ms X £200 to acknowledge the distress and frustration it caused her.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council had not completed the annual review process of her child’s (Y) Education, Health and Care Plan. Mrs X also complained about the Council’s poor communication with her and how it dealt with her complaint. The Council was at fault in how it dealt with Y’s annual review process, Mrs X’s complaint and its poor communication with her. This caused injustice to Y and Mrs X. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed reviewing her child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care Plan at a school transition point, and that the delay meant that Y missed out on a place at the family’s preferred school. We found fault causing injustice. The Council has apologised to Ms X but should agree to make a payment to her to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s actions in relation to her child, Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council was at fault. It delayed issuing a draft amended and final amended EHC Plan following an annual review meeting. As a result, Y missed out on some specialist educational provision. It also caused Miss X frustration and uncertainty. The Council has already apologised to Miss X. The Council will also pay Miss X a symbolic payment of £250 to recognise the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in carrying out a care assessment and meeting the needs of Ms X’s child. Doing so would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome from that already offered by the Council, and we could not recommend the Council does anything more than the assessment it has already offered.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in respect of Mr X and his children between 2021 and 2024. The matters he complained of are closely related to matters that were or could reasonably have been mentioned during family court proceedings. A legal bar prevents us investigating them. We cannot investigate how the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint as it concerns matters we are legally prevented from investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling and decision to end a fostering placement. The complaint is late and we are unlikely to add anything to the investigation the Council carried out or achieve the outcomes Mrs X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council failed to respond to their stage two complaint under the children statutory complaint procedure within the required timescales. This is because the Council has provided a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to ensure her child, Y received an education in line with the provision set out in their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan between October 2023 and July 2024. The Council was at fault. Y’s school only let them attend for two hours a day and the Council failed to maintain oversight or resolve this despite Miss X’s complaints. This meant Y did not receive the specialist provision in the Plan during this period. The Council agreed to make payments to acknowledge the impact this had on Y’s education and the distress and uncertainty caused to Miss X. It will also carry out service improvements.

Summary: Miss X complained there was delay in providing her daughter, Y, with an Education Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan). She also complained there was a failure to provide Y with an education following her permanent exclusion. There was also a failure to provide agreed equine therapy and the provision set out in her EHC Plan. We found there was delay in issuing the EHC Plan and there was a lack of education and provision. This set back her daughter’s education and caused distress. We recommended an apology and payment to recognise the impact.

Summary: Mrs X on behalf of her daughter Miss Z, complained the Council failed to provide suitable alternative education when she was unable to attend school due to illness. The Council failed to consider what education Miss Z could manage and failed to provide alternative provision for a year affecting Miss Z’s mental health and causing her to fall behind her peers. An apology and a financial remedy for the uncertainty is agreed.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to put in place special educational provision in an Education, Health and Care Plan following a Tribunal decision. The Council has acknowledged Ms X’s child received virtually no education for a period of sixteen months. It is now belatedly taking steps to resolve this. The Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment and make service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alledged failure by the Council to provide the complainant’s daughter alternative education provision in 2023 which resulted in her incurring solicitors costs. This is because the complaint is late and it could and should have been brought to us much sooner. We therefore have no jurisdiction to investigate the issues raised.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed carrying out an Education Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment for Mrs X’s 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. We cannot investigate the contents of the final EHC plan issued or the education in place. This is because Mrs X has used her right of appeal to a tribunal.

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 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 Mr X’s complaint that the Council did not name a specialist provision in his child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to have used his appeal rights to a tribunal.