A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to complete an Education, Health and Care needs assessment for Y within the statutory time limits, and failed to ensure she received suitable education while she was out of school. Mrs X said this caused her real stress and meant she incurred additional expenses. We find the Council at fault. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to recognise the injustice and act to prevent recurrence.

Summary: We have found fault with the Council for failing to secure the therapy set out in Mrs X’s daughter’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused her to miss out on the therapy she needed. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mrs X in recognition of the missed provision.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to arrange alternative educational provision for her child (Y) after they became unwell and unable to attend school in the 2023/2024 school year. The Council was at fault for failing to consider alternative educational provision when Mrs X raised attendance problems in late April 2024. However, this did not cause an injustice as Y was not absent for 15 days or more which is a requirement for the Council to arrange alternative provision. Y also went on study leave five weeks after Mrs X raised attendance problems and any alternative education provision would not have been arranged before this period.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with her concerns that her child’s Special Educational Needs were not being met. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing a significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a school admissions appeal panel refusing his appeal. It is unlikely we would find fault which caused Mr X to lose out on a school place.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s co-ordination of the school admission process. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to take appropriate action in response to concerns about the welfare of children and an adult. The complaint is late and there are insufficient grounds for the Ombudsman to consider it now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a report written by the Council and passed to Ofsted. Investigation by us would be unlikely to lead to a different or more worthwhile outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s actions in its child protection involvement with her child. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider her complaint whilst the case is subject to ongoing court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council making two payments into a short break account for her child rather than a direct payments account. There is not enough evidence of injustice to warrant investigation by us.

Summary: Mr X complained about delay and poor communication in the education, health and care plan process. In particular, Mr X said there was fault in the consultation process which meant his son missed the opportunity of an earlier specialist school placement. We have found delay and poor communication by the Council causing Mr X avoidable distress. The Council has agreed to apologise and provide a symbolic payment.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not provide suitable education to her child when they were out of school and delayed updating their education, health and care plan. Based on current evidence I intend to find the Council at fault for not providing suitable education and delaying making a decision on Ms X’s child’s annual review. Ms X’s child has missed a significant amount of education. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise, make a payment to recognise loss of education and secure suitable provision for the child.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to issue her child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care Plan within statutory timescales after deciding Y needed a Plan in May 2024. She also said the Council delayed issuing a response to her complaint. The Council was at fault because it issued Y’s final EHC Plan 36 weeks outside of statutory timescales. It was also at fault for not issuing its complaint responses within timescales. The Council has agreed to make a payment of £2300 to recognise Y’s loss of provision and the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Education, Health and Care Plan process. The complaint is late, and Mr X appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). This places the complaint outside our jurisdiction.

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 Mrs X’s complaint that the Council delayed providing home to school travel assistance for her children. This is because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council or achieve a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council conducted reviews of her adult child’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan, alternative education provision and the Council’s conduct while dealing with her Tribunal appeal. Some issues are late. The law says we cannot investigate matters closely related to, or considered by, a Tribunal. Other bodies are better placed to consider issues about health provision and the Council’s compliance with General Data Protection Regulations. We also could not add to the Council’s investigation and responses on matters separable from the Tribunal appeal.

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 Ms X’s complaint about the contents of her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because it would be reasonable for Ms X to appeal.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s home to school transport policy and the Council’s pick-up and drop off arrangements for her child. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the processing of her data by the Council. The Information Commissioner has powers to decide matters relating to data processing that we lack, and so would be better placed than us to consider this matter.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a social worker’s assessment in 2020. The complaint is late without good reason, but we could not achieve anything worthwhile by investigating so long after the original events even if we could do so effectively.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s late complaint about the Council’s handling of safeguarding matters relating to Miss Y’s children in 2018. Miss Y could have complained to us sooner and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate this matter now.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the actions of a social worker. This is because part of Mr X’s complaint is late and there are no good reasons why they could not have been made to us sooner. Of the matters remaining there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify us investigating.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the content of a document provided to a court. This is because a legal bar prevents us investigating any matter raised in court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care proceedings and the Council’s related actions. We already decided in 2022 we could not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to commence care proceedings. Mr X has begun court action in relation to the remaining elements of his complaint.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed issuing an education, health and care plan, did not get or consider important information, failed to provide alternative education, and handled her complaint poorly. She said this caused distress and anxiety, and meant her child lost out on education. We find the Council at fault and this caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mrs X, and improve its service.

Summary: Miss X complained about the delay in her son’s (Y) Education Health and Care needs assessment and the Council’s failure to communicate with her. We found fault with the Council. This fault caused injustice to Y and Miss X as there has been uncertainty about the educational support Y needs. Miss X was distressed by the lack of communication from the Council. The Council agreed to apologise, make symbolic payments for the delay and distress and introduce a system of regular communication for the parents and young people waiting for the assessments.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed reviewing her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan and failed to provide the Speech and Language Therapist provision from her child’s plan. Mrs X also complained the Council delayed handling her complaint. We found fault with the Council for all aspects of Mrs X’s complaint. The Council agreed to pay Mrs X £2,700 for the quantifiable loss of the Speech and Language Therapist reviews, £300 for the distress and uncertainty caused through delays in reviewing her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan and £100 for the frustration and inconvenience caused through the complaint handling delays.

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 home to school transport provided by the Council. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils refusal to provide school transport for the complainant’s child. This is because the Council has decided to offer transport under exceptional circumstances. Therefore further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her request it issue her son with an Education, Health and Care Plan. Mrs X appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). This places the complaint outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the process and content of her child’s Education Health Care Plan. This is because she has used her right of appeal to a tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the way the Council handled a school admissions request. The Council has arranged an appeal and there is nothing significant further we could achieve.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council failed to respond to their contacts about caring for young family members when they were taken into care. They also complained about contact arrangements. We found there was some fault in communication and responsiveness. This caused upset and frustration. However, it did not lead to the children being placed with foster carers when this would not have otherwise been the case.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about children services’ actions as the assessment and tests he wanted could have been ordered by a Court during the proceedings he was involved in.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement with Miss X’s family and the Council starting child protection court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alleged data breach. The Information Commissioner is better placed than us to consider this matter as it has powers to determine a breach and to impose penalties for both that and any failure to report the breach. We lack those powers.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that a Council officer made inappropriate comments. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s refusal to investigate while court proceedings are ongoing.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue an Education Health and Care Plan. The complainant used his right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). This places the matter outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in specifying that the complainant’s son had a social, emotional and mental health need in his draft amended Education Health and Care plan. This is because the complaint concerns a matter which could have been considered in the course of the complainant’s appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability), and this places it outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to regard the complainant as a kinship carer and her granddaughter as a looked-after child. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council wrongly refused her request for direct payments and delayed responding to her review request. Mrs X says this caused her child to miss out on provision and caused emotional distress which impacted their physical health. The Ombudsman finds no fault with the Council’s decision making. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council’s delay responding to Mrs X’s review request. The Council will apologise to Mrs X and her child.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her child, Y with an education in line with their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan between May 2024 and January 2025 after Y was permanently excluded from school. She also complained about a delay in holding an annual review of Y’s EHC Plan. The Council was at fault. It failed to provide Y with any education while they were out of school and has delayed holding the annual review, to date, by four months. The Council agreed to make payments to recognise Y’s loss of education and for the distress and uncertainty caused to Mrs X. It will also arrange Y’s annual review without further delay.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s actions around issuing School Attendance Orders. It is not appropriate for us to investigate as Parliament provided other options to challenge the Orders.

Summary: Ms A complained to the Council that it was not dealing with her child’s special educational needs appropriately. She brought the matter to the ombudsman because the Council did not respond to her complaint. We found the Council is at fault. The Council has agreed to make payments in recognition of the injustice caused and carry out service improvements to avoid a repeat of what has happened.

Summary: Ms C complained the Council has failed to provide alternative provision for her son, who we will refer to as D, and secure the provision set out in his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. There was fault by the Council. It did not arrange alternative provision for D when it was aware he was not receiving regular full-time education, and it did not regularly review this. The Council was also at fault for not ensuring the provision outlined in D's EHC Plan was in place, and for delays in responding to Ms C’s complaints. Because of the fault, Ms C suffered frustration and financial loss, and the delays in the complaint procedure meant she continued to chase the Council for updates. D suffered a loss of education and provision. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms C and D, make symbolic payments, consider reimbursement of the costs of the provisions put in place by Ms C, and issue staff briefings.

Summary: Miss E complained the Council failed to provide a suitable education to her daughter for two years. The school did not follow her Education, Health and Care Plan. It delayed finalising a review of the Plan, was poor in its communications and did not provide any alternative education for times her daughter was not able to attend school. We uphold the complaint because of delay, poor communications and some lack of alternative provision. These faults have caused Miss E and her daughter distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to my recommended remedies.

Summary: Miss C complained that, after her son’s laptop broke, the Council refused to fund another one, despite the fact he did not have any other way to receive his online tutoring. The Council did not respond to her contacts and delayed arranging a school placement. We uphold the complaint, due to the Council not responding to Miss C’s contacts and delaying its consultation with schools. Miss C and her son experienced avoidable distress and her son missed education. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy this injustice and to carry out a review.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed issuing the amended Education, Health and Care Plan following a tribunal decision in May 2023. The amended plan was provided 31 weeks late and the required provision was not put in place until May 2024 and then not all of it. This resulted in Ms X’s son missing out on suitable education and caused distress to them both. A financial remedy for the distress and lost education provision is agreed.

Summary: Mr K complained that the Council failed to ensure it had suitable childcare provision available for his son (X) which met his needs. He also said it caused delays in the Education, Health and Care needs assessment process. We found the Council at fault for causing delays in the needs assessment process and it caused a service failure due to the lack of available childcare provision for children with disabilities. The Council will apologise and make payment to Mr K to acknowledge the injustice he and X experienced as a result.

Summary: We have found fault with the Council for failing to consider its duties under Section 19 of the Education Act. It did not arrange alternative provision for Miss X’s son when he was unable to attend school. He missed out on nearly a year of education and special educational need provision. The Council agreed to remedy this injustice.

Summary: Mrs D complained on behalf of her daughter that, due to a lack of home to school transport, the Council failed to secure the special educational needs provision set out in her education, health and care plan. The Council has accepted fault. It has agreed to make payments to Miss B and Mrs D to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council failing to provide suitable provision for her child from their Education, Health and Care Plan. We found fault with the Council failing to provide suitable educational provision and for poor handling of her contacts and complaint. The Council agreed to make payments to Ms X to address her child’s missed educational provision and agreed to ensure an Educational Psychologist creates a suitable programme to be delivered by a tutor.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s this complaint about the Council’s assessment of his child’s foster carer. The law prevents us from investigating anything that is the subject of court proceedings. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about court reports the Council has produced about his children. The law prevents us from investigating anything that is the subject of court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council recorded and shared inaccurate information in a report to the courts and failed to respond to the Information Commissioner’s request for information. The law prevents us from investigating what happens in court, including the preparation and contents of court ordered reports. The Information Commissioner is better placed to deal with how the Council responds to its requests for information.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council have failed to use a collaborative approach to agree safe school transport terms for her son Y, as detailed in Section F of his Education, Health and Care Plan. She says the Council failed to complete the school transport travel plan properly. We do not find fault with the Council.

Summary: Ms X complained there were failings in the way the Council dealt with her son Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan and provided him with support. Based on current evidence we found fault by the Council as it failed to carry out annual reviews of Y’s Education Health and Care Plan and responded to Ms X’s complaints about the matter in a timely way causing uncertainty and distress. We have recommended a suitable remedy for the injustice caused so have completed our investigation.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed issuing an education, health and care plan for her child, failed to provide sufficient alternative education, gave her misinformation about a placement, and communicated poorly with her. Miss X said this caused distress, meant she had to leave her job, and her child missed out on education. We find the Council at fault and this caused injustice. The Council will apologise and make a further payment to remedy the injustice.

Summary: Ms X complained that the Council had failed to provide specific funding for her son’s school in accordance with his Education, Health and Care Plan. We find the Council at fault causing a loss of educational provision for Ms X’s son and avoidable distress. The Council has agreed a symbolic payment to remedy this.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alleged threat of legal action made by a Council officer to Miss X regarding school attendance. There is not enough evidence of injustice caused by fault to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to consider Mr X’s appeal against its refusal of free school transport. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision not to accept the appeal to warrant investigation by us.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to deliver the content of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan because she used her right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal and the law says we cannot investigate. We will not investigate the remainder of the complaint because the injustice claimed is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a school admissions appeal panel refusing an appeal. It is unlikely we would find fault which caused Mr X to lose out on a school place.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council has ignored her safeguarding concerns about her child. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in safeguarding a child and adhering to the recommendations of a report. The matters complained of are closely linked to decisions about the care arrangements for a child, which have been subject to court action, and we are thus legally prevented from investigating them.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss Y’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to investigate her complaint under the statutory complaints process. The Council has explained that, to do so, would prejudice care proceedings. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement with her family. This is because the complaint is made late, and I see no good reason to investigate it now.