| 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. Staffordshire County Council (24 009 953)
Summary: Mrs Y complained that the Council failed to provide her child with a suitable education and delayed completing their Education Health and Care needs assessment. Mrs Y also complained about delays by the Council in responding to her complaint. We have not found fault by the Council regarding the provision of a suitable education or the completion of the Education Health and Care needs assessment. We have found fault, causing injustice, with its handling of Mrs Yâs complaint. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising to Mrs Y, making a payment to reflect the upset caused and a service improvement. Surrey County Council (24 012 381)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan after an annual review. And that her child, Y, missed education because of illness. There was a delay of four months in issuing a final Education, Health and Care Plan after the annual review. There was also a failure to adequately monitor Yâs education when they were ill for extended periods of time and not in school. A payment and apology remedies the injustice from the delay and uncertainty to Miss X and Y. Wokingham Borough Council (24 013 118)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide support to her son when he could not attend school due to mental health needs causing distress and lost educational opportunities. Ms X also complained the Council issued an Education Health and Care Plan for her son and failed to include an Education Other than at School package it agreed. The Councilâs offer is a suitable remedy to Ms X for missed provision and she has appealed to the SEND Tribunal, so we have ended our investigation into the complaint. London Borough of Redbridge (24 014 806)
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 Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) was in place between December 2023 until February 2025. This caused Mrs X distress, frustration and uncertainty and meant Yâs needs went unmet for longer than necessary. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise this. Birmingham City Council (24 019 293)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision not to provide the complainantâs child with home to school transport. This is because there is inadequate evidence of fault. Milton Keynes Council (24 020 562)
Summary: We upheld Mr Xâs complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care process regarding his child, Y. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by apologising to Mr X and paying him a symbolic payment to acknowledge the injustice caused. Worcestershire County Council (24 020 668)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr Xâs complaint about how the Council handled his childâs Education, Health and Care Plan because we cannot investigate any matter connected to a decision that has been appealed to a tribunal. London Borough of Newham (24 021 012)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision to cease her sonâs Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because it is reasonable to expect Ms X to ask the tribunal to consider a late appeal of the Councilâs decision. Lancashire County Council (24 021 438)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision not to provide the complainantâs child with home to school transport. This is because there is inadequate evidence of fault. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 000 013)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a school admissionsâ application appeal. It is unlikely we would find fault. London Borough of Enfield (24 017 056)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision to put Mr Xâs children on Child in Need plans and a Child Protection Plan. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its decision making process, and investigation would not achieve a different outcome. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (24 019 016)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about children servicesâ actions. We have upheld Miss Xâs complaint as the Council has now agreed to follow the Children Act statutory complaintsâ procedure. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (24 021 235)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Miss Xâs complaint. Investigation by us of the substantive child protection matters underlying the complaint would be unlikely to lead to a finding of fault, and there would thus be no worthwhile outcome from investigating how the Council dealt with the complaint about these matters. London Borough of Bromley (24 021 416)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council is at fault in considering child protection action in respect of the complainantâs children. Investigation would not achieve the outcome the complainant wants and is not therefore warranted. Essex County Council (24 021 449)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about safeguarding concerns relating to her children. The issues raised are not separable from matters that are being considered in court. Leicestershire County Council (24 021 494)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the actions of the Council concerning his family. The matters he complains of are closely linked to matters now subject to court action regarding the care and residency arrangements for a child. A legal bar prevents us from investigating them, both now and permanently after the end of the court action. West Sussex County Council (24 021 607)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about what the Council wrote about Mr X. This matter is closely related to matters that either were or could reasonably have been raised during court proceedings regarding Mr Xâs child. A legal bar permanently prevents us investigating these matters. Derby City Council (24 021 661)
Summary: We cannot investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the actions of the Councilâs childrenâs services in relation to her children. This is because the law prevents us from investigating matters that have been before a court. Birmingham City Council (23 016 021)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to arrange school transport for her son, Y. Mrs X says this has caused her frustration and she has had to arrange her own transport for Y. I have found fault in the Councils actions. We recommend the Council issues Mrs X with an apology, pays her a financial payment and completes service improvements. Lancashire County Council (24 003 212)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed issuing her child Yâs Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan within the statutory timescales. The Council was at fault for delay in finalising Yâs EHC Plan. The Council has already apologised for the delay. The Council will also make a symbolic payment to Miss X for the frustration, uncertainty and distress the delays caused. The Council has already put in place an action plan to improve its service. All Hallows Catholic High School, Preston (24 008 896)
Summary: Miss X complained about a school admission appeal panelâs decision to refuse her appeal. The admission authority was at fault for failing to record how it made decisions, failing to consider all of the evidence and failing to properly explain decisions. This caused Miss X and Y uncertainty. The admission authority will apologise, arrange a fresh appeal and remind staff of the importance of recording decision making and explaining decisions. London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (24 019 806)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaints about delays in the annual review of her childâs Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan, the decision to name a specific school within the EHC Plan, or her concerns about the Councilâs consultation with schools. This is because Mrs X had a right to appeal to a Tribunal and it was reasonable for her to use that right. For the remainder, an investigation is unlikely to achieve any additional outcome. West Northamptonshire Council (24 020 017)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about delays in producing an Education Health and Care Plan as the Council has agreed to a proportionate way to resolve the complaint. Surrey County Council (24 020 347)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the complainantâs son was not provided with temporary washing aids. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Essex County Council (24 021 322)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to act to ensure that the complainantâs daughterâs special educational needs are met. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Councilâs part to warrant investigation, and it would be reasonable for the complainant to use her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) about the content of her daughterâs Education Health and Care plan. West Sussex County Council (24 022 062)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Council ignoring his concerns about his childâs welfare since 2015. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now. West Northamptonshire Council (24 022 864)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs actions in completing a court ordered assessment. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Councilâs decision not to consider his complaint until the ongoing court proceedings have concluded. London Borough of Waltham Forest (24 020 367)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the permanent exclusion of the complainantâs daughter from school. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Councilâs part to warrant investigation. Devon County Council (24 021 192)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to properly identify and meet the complainantâs daughterâs special educational needs. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Councilâs part to warrant investigation, and it would have been reasonable for the complainant to use her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). Derbyshire County Council (24 020 787)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs decision to decline to consider a complaint about the welfare of a child in its care. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Councilâs part to warrant investigation. Liverpool City Council (24 003 213)
Summary: Miss B complained about the Councilâs handling of her daughterâs Education, Health and Care Plan. We have found the Council at fault for a delay in completing the annual review held in May 2023 and its failure to consider a request for a personal budget in this time. These faults have caused Miss B distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make symbolic payments to Miss B and issue a reminder to its staff to ensure they are aware of the Council duty to respond to personal budget requests. London Borough of Lambeth (24 009 793)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Councilâs decision to refuse her request for delayed entry to reception for her summer born twins. We found the Council was at fault because it failed to properly consider whether a delayed entry was in their best interests. This caused Mrs X distress and frustration. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mrs X. It will also take action to improve its service. Milton Keynes Council (24 010 350)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the changes the Council made to move its short breaks booking scheme online as there were no activities available for young adults over 18 with an Education, Health and Care Plan, like her son. This meant she could not use her allocated vouchers and had to privately fund activities for her son. We found the Council at fault. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to apologise, reimburse Mrs X for activities privately paid for, and make a symbolic payment to recognise her injustice. Birmingham City Council (24 010 957)
Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to make alternative education provision for her child and delayed in issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan for her. The Council was at fault as it did not consider if it had a duty to provide alternative education provision when Y struggled to attend school from September 2023, delayed in issuing Yâs final Education, Health and Care Plan and delayed in securing the speech and language therapy provision in the Plan. These faults caused distress and uncertainty to Mrs X and disadvantaged Y. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising to Mrs X and making a symbolic payment of £1100 to acknowledge the distress caused to her and the disadvantage caused to Y. Brighton & Hove City Council (24 011 813)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the content of an Education Health and Care Plan and education provided as Ms X has appealed to the Tribunal. There is not sufficient injustice in a short delay to warrant an investigation. Milton Keynes Council (24 014 906)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs 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. Kent County Council (24 017 335)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs Yâs complaint about the content and school named in her childâs Education, Health and Care Plan. These issues are the subject of a SEND Tribunal appeal. We cannot investigate Mrs Yâs complaint about the adequacy of an educational psychologist report. This is because it is closely linked to the appeal. Durham County Council (24 021 243)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council failing to make adjustments for Mr Xâs disability in conducting a school admission appeal hearing. This is because Mr X has started court action against the Council regarding these matters and a legal bar thus now permanently prevents us investigating them. Surrey County Council (24 021 290)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs in-year admissions process. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to reach a finding of fault. If Mr X believes the Councilâs admission arrangements are unlawful it is a matter for the Office of the Schools Adjudicator. Mr Xâs claim the Councilâs actions have led to him suffering a financial loss is best considered by the courts. Worcestershire County Council (24 021 421)
Summary: We cannot investigate Miss Yâs complaint about changes made to an educational psychologistâs report concerning her child. This is because it is closely linked to her SEND Tribunal appeal about her childâs Education, Health and Care Plan. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (24 009 166)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide adequate support to her and Mr Y, meaning their needs were not met and causing distress. We do not find the Council at fault for how it considered Mrs Xâs complaint as part of the statutory complaints procedure. We will therefore not consider the substantive matter. London Borough of Haringey (24 011 330)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly investigate or address her complaints about the Councilâs actions following the decision to remove her son from her care. She also complained the Council has failed to provide an appropriate remedy. We found the Councilâs delays, poor record keeping, failings in communication and use of an inappropriate contact centre are fault. This fault caused Mrs X and her son unnecessary distress. The Council has agreed to make payments to Mrs X and Y to remedy this injustice. London Borough of Bexley (24 020 620)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Miss Xâs complaints. The substantive matters in the complaints are closely linked to matters concerning the care of children which are or have recently been subject to court action. We are legally prevented from investigating these matters. Devon County Council (24 020 858)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs handling of matters involving his children. We could not add to the Councilâs investigation and responses under all three stages of the statutory complaints process. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (24 021 393)
Summary: Ms X complained that the Council had failed to re-assess her sonâs (Y) social care needs, prepare a child in need plan for him and carry out a carerâs assessment for her. We found fault with the Council for its failure to consider Ms Xâs complaint through its childrenâs statutory complaint procedure. The Councilâs fault caused injustice to Ms X. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment for Ms Xâs distress. Brighton & Hove City Council (25 000 457)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a Council social worker. This is because we would achieve nothing significant by doing so. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (24 006 858)
Summary: Mr X complained about the Councilâs failure to complete his childâs (Y) Education, Health and Care Plan annual review. He also complained the Council did not provide Y with suitable education and with the provisions contained in his Plan after he was excluded from his school and its poor communication with Mr X. There were various faults by the Council which caused injustice to Y and Mr X. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (24 010 087)
Summary: The Council failed to review Mrs Mâs son Bâs education, health and care (EHC) plan in 2023 and acknowledged that it missed opportunities to check he was receiving suitable education. However, the evidence available suggests it is unlikely there was a need for the Council to have made alternative arrangements for Bâs education. Kent County Council (24 010 382)
Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council supported his child, Yâs, special educational needs. There was fault in how the Council failed to act when it became aware some of Yâs support was not being provided and in significant delays responding to Mr Xâs complaint. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him a financial remedy. Kent County Council (24 011 968)
Summary: Miss X complained about the Councilâs delay issuing her child, Yâs amended final Education, Health and Care Plan, failed to provide suitable alternative provision while Y was out of school, communicated poorly and delayed responding to her complaint. We find the Council at fault, causing Miss X avoidable distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Miss X, and issue Yâs amended final EHC Plan. Cornwall Council (24 020 243)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the special educational needs provision made by the Council for Mrs Xâs child. We cannot investigate the content of the schoolâs curriculum. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reacted to the childâs placement breaking down to warrant investigation. And Mrs Xâs desired outcome of having her childâs Education Health and Care Plan amended to name tuition at home is something where there is a right of appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal it would be reasonable to use if the Council declines to amend it as she wishes. Investigation by us would be unlikely to lead to any worthwhile outcome. Essex County Council (24 022 086)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs 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. London Borough of Havering (24 008 441)
Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council manged her savings as a looked after child. There was fault in how the Council delayed transferring Miss Xâs savings to her Child Trust Fund account and how it failed to provide Miss X with clear information about her savings. This caused Miss X avoidable distress for which the Council agreed to apologise and pay her a financial remedy. It also agreed to review its policy and practices around savings for looked after children. Norfolk County Council (24 008 885)
Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about a LADO investigation and the removal of a child they were fostering. There was no fault in the Councilâs response to allegations by a child Mr and Mrs X fostered. London Borough of Ealing (24 010 445)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councilâs representations to court. The law prevents us investigating the content of court reports. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (24 018 804)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the Councilâs involvement with her children. The law prevents us from investigating anything that is the subject of court proceedings and could reasonably be raised in court. Devon County Council (24 019 724)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about child protection action and alleged failures by the Council. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate it now. Sunderland City Council (24 021 462)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint the Council has failed to properly safeguard her grandchild. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement. We also could not add to the Councilâs response. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (24 021 885)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Xâs complaint about the Councilâs actions in its child protection involvement with his child. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider it now. Also, the law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been subject to court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so. Liverpool City Council (24 021 949)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Xâs complaint about the Councilâs actions in its child protection involvement with her child. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Councilâs decision not to consider her complaint whilst the case is subject to ongoing court proceedings. London Borough of Enfield (24 021 955)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful blue badge application for the complainantâs child. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Northumberland County Council (25 000 850)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms Xâs complaint about the delay in the Council responding to her stage two complaint under the children statutory complaints procedure. This is because the Council has already provided an appropriate remedy to recognise the injustice caused by the faults accepted. Cambridgeshire County Council (24 021 663)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs 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. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (24 006 939)
Summary: We have found the Council at fault for the delay in securing alternative education provision for Miss Xâs daughter when she could not attend school. This caused her to miss a half term of education. The Council has agreed to apologise and make Miss X a payment in recognition of the missed education. Nottinghamshire County Council (24 018 157)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Xâs complaint about the Councilâs decision to refuse her application for free home to school transport for her son. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council. |
