A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions

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.

Wokingham Borough Council (25 008 248)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Council administering the statutory children’s complaint procedure. The Council has agreed a suitable remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X. Further investigation by us would therefore not be proportionate.

Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (25 022 703)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s investigation of his statutory complaint. The Council have agreed to provide a remedy for the delay identified. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s investigation to warrant our involvement, and we could not add to the Council’s investigation.

Dorset Council (25 030 952)

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the content of a Council report used for court. This is because the law says we cannot investigate issues considered by a court.

Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (25 031 728)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the conduct of the Council’s Independent Reviewing Officer and information they provided in court. The law prevents us from investigating what happened in court. Also, the complaint concerns issues that could reasonably have been considered by the court.

London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (26 006 917)

Summary: We cannot investigate X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to commence court proceedings in relation to the care of his child. The law prevents us from investigating the start of court proceedings or what happened in court.

Liverpool City Council (26 009 004)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions after X told it about safeguarding concerns relating to a child. There is another body better placed to consider X’s complaint, and it is unlikely we would find fault with how the Council decided on the action it needed to take.

Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (26 005 600)

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

Portsmouth City Council (26 009 039)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a school named in a child’s Education Health and Care plan. This is because it is reasonable for the complainant to use their right of appeal to a tribunal.

London Borough of Bexley (24 021 279)

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of their child’s Education, Health and Care Plan and its linked personal budget. We found fault by the Council, including avoidable delay and unforced errors, that cumulatively caused Mr and Mrs X distress and resulted in the loss of educational provision for their child. The Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mr and Mrs X.

Kent County Council (24 022 927)

Summary: Miss F complained the Council failed to provide alternative provision for her daughter. We have ended our investigation. This is because it is out of our jurisdiction as Miss F could appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) Tribunal.

Nottinghamshire County Council (25 011 012)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed providing physiotherapy and music therapy as required by section F of her son’s Education Health and Care Plan. The Council failed to commission any physiotherapy for approximately seven months and missed one term of music therapy. An appropriate remedy for the missed physiotherapy which includes a symbolic payment and catch up sessions, is agreed. The Council has already provided a remedy for the missed music therapy.

Hertfordshire County Council (25 011 789)

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed issuing an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for her son, Mr Y, after the annual review in January 2024. She also complained the Council did not provide Mr Y with education for the 2024-2025 academic year. Ms X said this distressed her and Mr Y missed education. There was fault in the way the Council delayed issuing the EHC Plan after the annual review, did not oversee the EHC Plan, delayed considering the personal budget request and delayed implementing provision for Mr Y. This frustrated and distressed Ms X and Mr Y missed provision. The Council has acted to remedy this fault in its complaint process.

Cambridgeshire County Council (25 013 248)

Summary: We found fault with the Council delaying outside the statutory timescales in production of Miss X’s child’s Education, Health and Care Plan by just under one year and five months. The Council’s fault was in part caused by a delay in getting Educational Psychologist advice. The Council’s fault caused a delay to the delivery of Miss X’s child’s Education, Health and Care Plan provision and caused Miss X distress and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused.

Surrey County Council (25 015 115)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to fulfil the findings from the Special Educational Tribunal. She says that some educational provision has only been provided after a delay, while the Council has not provided other provision at all. The failure to do so has impacted her child and whole family by causing them avoidable and unnecessary distress. We found the Council at fault. It failed to provide all the provision set out by the tribunal and the Educational Health and Care plan. We found the Council should apologise and make payment to remedy the injustice experienced.

Hampshire County Council (25 016 758)

Summary: I found fault with the Council delaying provision of Mrs X’s child Speech and Language Therapy from their Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and provide a symbolic financial gesture for the impact these delays had on Mrs X’s child.

West Sussex County Council (25 023 374)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council issued the complainant’s child’s Education Health and Care plan without incorporating amendments she submitted, and has failed to communicate appropriately with her subsequently. This is because the complaint has been substantially upheld and investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to lead to a significantly different outcome.

Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (25 023 904)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s action regarding Mrs X’s child’s school attendance. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome or achieve anything more for Mrs X.

Leeds City Council (25 026 561)

Summary: We have upheld this complaint about the Council’s failure to complete an Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment for Mrs X’s child within the statutory timescale. The Council has agreed to provide a proportionate remedy, and this removes the need for us to investigate.

Surrey County Council (25 027 583)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to commission an occupational therapy assessment for her son. This is because Ms X has appealed against its decision not to issue an Education, Health and Care Plan and we cannot separate out the issues or fill any gaps in the remedy provided by the Tribunal.

Essex County Council (25 029 616)

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.

Holy Family Catholic High School (26 005 461)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. There is not enough evidence of fault by the school admissions appeal panel to warrant investigation.

London Borough of Ealing (25 001 150)

Summary: We have upheld Miss X’s complaint the Council did not respond properly to concerns she raised about the foster care placement she was staying in with her baby. The Council agreed a proportionate remedy.

London Borough of Tower Hamlets (25 012 071)

Summary: The Council was at fault in its adjudication of Miss X’s complaint that followed a stage three Panel review as part of the statutory children’s complaints procedure. The Council’s fault caused Miss X and her family frustration and uncertainty and put Miss X to time and trouble. The Council should agree actions to remedy the injustice caused and to improve its service.

Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (25 022 897)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled a statutory children’s services complaint. We could not add to the investigation the Council has already carried out.

Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (25 023 359)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement with Mr X and his family nor its failure to make reasonable adjustments for his disability. This is because the complaint is late; it would have been reasonable for Mr X to bring the complaint to us at the time.

Staffordshire County Council (25 023 611)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s previous involvement with his child. The complaint is late and there are no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now

Liverpool City Council (25 027 765)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint from Mrs X, made on behalf of Ms Y, about the Council’s actions relating to a historic fostering placement. This is because, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant further investigation.

Torbay Council (25 028 649)

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the content of a Council report used for court. This is because the law says we cannot investigate matters considered by a court.

Hertfordshire County Council (25 030 182)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s kinship assessment. This is because the law prevents us from investigating issues considered by a court.

London Borough of Enfield (26 003 223)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled safeguarding investigations for Mr X’s children. This is because Mr X’s complaint is late and there are not sufficient good reasons for us to investigate now.

Kingston Upon Hull City Council (26 007 634)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an assessment completed by the Council in 2012. This is because the complaint is made late and I see no good reason to exercise discretion and consider it now.

London Borough of Hillingdon (26 008 810)

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council safeguarded her when she was a Looked After Child and into her early adulthood. The complaint relates to events from more than 12 months ago and it is unlikely it would be possible to obtain the evidence to effectively investigate now. Additionally, the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider the data protection part of Miss X’s complaint.

Somerset Council (26 008 864)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about information the Council provided during court proceedings. This is because the law prevents us from investigating complaints about what happens in court.

North East Lincolnshire Council (25 009 262)

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to provide him with the provision specified in his Education, Health and Care Plan. We found there was fault by the Council that caused injustice to Mr X and his mother, Mrs Y. The Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment.

Plymouth City Council (25 014 386)

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed in completing an Education Health and Care needs assessment and in issuing a final Education Health and Care Plan for her son. Ms X also complains of poor communication throughout the process. We found the failure to complete the needs assessment within the statutory timeframe was fault, as was the poor communication. These faults caused Ms X stress, frustration and uncertainty and affected her wellbeing. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Ms X.

Worcestershire County Council (25 016 434)

Summary: The Council was at fault in how it reviewed W’s Education, Health and Care Plan and for delay in considering W’s mother’s request for Education Otherwise Than At School. The faults meant W missed out on education they should have had. They also meant W’s mother, Ms X, experienced avoidable frustration and uncertainty. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment. It will also issue a staff reminder on annual reviews.

Bristol City Council (25 017 422)

Summary: Ms X complains about delay in the Education and Health Care (EHC) Plan process for her daughter, Y. Ms X says the Council also failed to provide alternative provision when Y’s school closed permanently. There was fault in the way the Council delayed completing the EHC needs assessment. The Council also failed to consider and provide alternative provision for Y. This has caused significant distress and uncertainty for Ms X and Y has missed education. The Council has agreed to apologise and make symbolic payments to remedy this injustice.

Derbyshire County Council (25 020 531)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about delays following an Education Health and Care Plan annual review. We have upheld Mrs X’s complaint as the Council has now agreed a proportionate way to resolve the complaint.

Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (25 022 825)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled an annual review and management of the personal budget. This is because the Council has already accepted fault and offered an appropriate remedy in line with Ombudsman guidance. A further investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Dorset Council (25 023 051)

Hayfield Cross Church Of England School (25 030 777)

Summary: Miss X complained about the Hayfield Cross Church of England school’s refusal of her application for delayed entry to reception year for her summer born child, Y. She says the school failed to consider her preference and based its decision against guidance. We found the school at fault. It should apologise, make payment to remedy the injustice caused and re-consider Miss X’s request.

Leeds City Council (26 001 989)

Summary: There was fault by a transport appeal panel in deciding to offer a personal travel allowance (PTA) without considering the method, or cost, of transport that would be required. This casts doubt on whether the PTA will facilitate the young person’s attendance in a safe, practical and affordable way. This uncertainty is an injustice. The Council will retake the decision, taking all relevant matters into account.

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (26 006 077)

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

Lancashire County Council (26 008 906)

Summary: We will not investigate X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with his questions about safeguarding matters and his subsequent complaints. This is because the issues raised have not caused X a significant injustice.

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (26 010 067)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s role in a school exclusion. This is because the law prevents us from investigating complaints from public bodies.

Derby City Council (24 007 961)

Summary: There was no fault in how the Council dealt with allegations about Mr X while he was employed as a teacher. Its LADO provided appropriate oversight of the case. Much of the injustice he believes he suffered arose from the actions of his then-employer, a school, which is outside our jurisdiction. He has now taken the school to the Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal, which is a more suitable avenue to pursue his complaint.

North Lincolnshire Council (25 021 043)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s adoption preparation training course. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (25 023 364)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of a children’s social worker while completing a Section 7 court report. The law prohibits us from investigating what happens in court.

Hampshire County Council (26 007 455)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled Mr and Mrs X’s complaints. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Also, we are unlikely to add to the Council’s response or achieve anything more for Mr and Mrs X.

Sheffield City Council (26 007 824)

Summary: We will not investigate X’s complaint that the Council’s children’s services has failed to provide support for them or their children. This is because their complaint is made late.

Staffordshire County Council (26 008 776)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about X’s contact with the Council relating to a child. This is because the law does not allow us to consider complaints which are related to ongoing court proceedings.

Southampton City Council (25 010 259)

Summary: The Council was not at fault for failing to provide Mrs X’s child Y with alternative educational provision between September 2024 and March 2025. I cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to secure her child, Y’s specialist provision in their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan between March and September 2025. This is because Mrs X appealed to the Tribunal which puts that period outside of our jurisdiction.

Kent County Council (25 014 482)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed providing her son with suitable home to school transport. We find the Council was at fault for its delay in providing Miss X’s son with suitable transport. This caused Miss X frustration and upset, and her son missed education and specialist provision. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Miss X and implement a service improvement.

Hampshire County Council (25 015 615)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about education provision and therapies as it cannot be separated from a Tribunal appeal.

Essex County Council (25 020 696)

Summary: We found delays by the Council in the Education, Health, and Care needs assessment process, this was a service failure causing Ms X frustration and uncertainty. The Council will make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice its delays caused Ms X.

Essex County Council (25 022 718)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about home to school transport, and any related matters, because the complainant has applied for judicial review.

Cornwall Council (25 023 279)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alternative provision. This is because there’s insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Essex County Council (25 028 352)

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (26 004 253)

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

Buckinghamshire Council (26 004 982)

Summary: We will not investigate X’s complaint about home to school transport. This is because it is made late and I see no good reason to exercise discretion to consider it now.

Leeds City Council (26 008 775)

Summary: We will not investigate X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with their son’s education provision. This is because it is made late and I see no good reason to exercise discretion and consider it now.

Devon County Council (25 023 407)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to act to support the complainant and her daughter, leading to the complainant becoming alienated from her family. This is because the complaint concerns matters which have been, or can be, considered and decided in court.

London Borough of Hackney (25 023 050)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to make alternative educational provision for the complainant’s child while she was out of school. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

London Borough of Ealing (25 008 622)

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council considered concerns about his son, Y. He said the Council had access to evidence from multiple medical professionals saying there was no medical evidence to support the suspicion of abuse, but it continued to take child protection action. Mr X said this distressed him and his family. There was fault in the way the Council produced reports and assessments using incorrect information and its complaint handling was poor. This frustrated and distressed Mr X and his family. The Council agreed to apologise, make a financial payment, place a letter on the children’s case file and send it to other professionals, and create an action plan to quality assure its assessments.

Bath and North East Somerset Council (25 022 236)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how foster carers spent Disability Living Allowance. The council has already examined Miss X’s complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure, and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, so it is not warranted.

North Yorkshire Council (25 029 003)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council asked Ms X to repay overpayments it made to her for foster care. This is because the Council has upheld the complaint and agreed to provide a proportionate remedy during its internal complaints process.

Medway Council (25 029 208)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a foster care matter. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to investigate now.

Portsmouth City Council (26 007 414)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about X’s contact with the Council, relating to child arrangements. This is because the law does not allow us to consider complaints about matters where there are ongoing court proceedings for related matters.

City of Wolverhampton Council (25 006 769)

Summary: On behalf of Ms X, Mrs B complained the Council failed to secure special educational provision and failed to complete an annual review for Ms X’s child, Y. We find the Council at fault for failing to complete the annual review within the statutory timeframe and for failing to secure special educational provision for Y when she was unable to attend school. This caused Y and Ms X distress and frustration and meant Y did not receive access to suitable education for approximately one school year. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and make service improvements to remedy the injustice caused.

Lancashire County Council (25 009 002)

Summary: The Council delayed completing Miss X’s child Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan annual review and delayed amending the Plan. It also failed to consider whether it owed an alternative education duty between 2024 and 2026 when Y struggled to attend school due to a medical issue. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss X and make a payment to acknowledge the injustice the faults caused.

London Borough of Harrow (25 009 666)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to complete a key stage transfer review of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan by the legal deadline which left them with no educational placement. We found the Council at fault for not properly carrying out a key stage transfer review and failing to act on Miss X’s concerns her child was not receiving an education. This caused Miss X and her child uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the injustice its actions caused to Miss X and her child. It has also agreed to make changes to its service to prevent the same faults happening again.

Milton Keynes Council (25 012 421)

Summary: Mr B complained that the Council in respect of his son C, failed to complete the annual review process and issue an amended final Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan with a right of appeal. It also failed to consider its section 19 duty when C was not attending school. We have found fault in the actions of the Council. The Council has agreed to issue an EHC Plan, apologise to Mr B and C, and make a symbolic payment to them.

Essex County Council (25 013 401)

Summary: The Council delayed assessing Miss X’s child Y and issuing their Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused Miss X uncertainty and frustration and delayed her right of appeal to the Tribunal. I cannot say this resulted in Y missing out on the provision in the Plan as Y struggled to engage with education during this time. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Miss X. The Council was not at fault for its efforts to commission and review Y’s alternative education during this time.

Devon County Council (25 014 547)

Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council, in respect of her son Mr C delayed in completing an Education, Health and Care (EHC) assessment and issuing a final EHC Plan and failed to consider its section 19 duty to make alternative provision between October 2023 and March 2024. We found fault in the actions of the Council. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and improve its procedures for the future.

Surrey County Council (25 015 183)

Summary: Miss H complains the Council failed to put adequate support in place for her son when he could not attend school, meaning he lost over a year of education. It twice refused to issue an Education, Health and Care Plan and later, would not agree to her request for a review. Most of Miss H’s complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction due to the appeal rights she had. For the part of her complaint we can look at, the remedy the Council has offered is likely more than the Ombudsman would recommend, we have completed our investigation.

Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (25 021 199)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s Education, Health and Care Plan annual review. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £750, and this provides a suitable remedy for the complaint.

Birmingham City Council (25 021 967)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse post 16 home to school transport for the complainant’s child. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 022 691)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of an Education, Health and Care plan. This is because the complainant has used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and the Courts have decided that the Ombudsman cannot intervene where the right to appeal has been used. We will not investigate part of this complaint as there is not enough evidence of significant injustice.

Swindon Borough Council (25 021 932)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement with her children. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

London Borough of Haringey (25 022 135)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. We are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council has approached his Children Act statutory complaint. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to complete that process.

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (25 022 272)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Special Guardianship Order allowance payments because we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

Isle of Wight Council (25 022 676)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about actions the Council took as part of a child protection process. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part causing injustice to the complainant.

Kent County Council (25 025 756)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with Ms X’s request for contact with a child in foster care. This is because there is not enough evidence the Council is at fault to warrant an investigation.

Luton Borough Council (25 027 301)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s claim for reimbursement for damage caused by a foster child. This is because he can make an insurance claim and if needed to a court.

Buckinghamshire Council (25 029 875)

Summary: We cannot investigate some of Miss X’s complaint about the content of a report for court because the matter was before a court, and the law says we cannot investigate. We will not investigate the Council’s data handling because the Information Commissioner is better suited to consider the issue. We will not consider the conduct of a social worker because Social Work England is better suited to consider the issue.

Telford & Wrekin Council (25 022 778)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about payments for special educational needs provisions. Part of the complaint is late, and the Council has offered a suitable remedy for the rest of the complaint.

Surrey County Council (25 023 037)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainant’s application and appeal for school transport for her son. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

Plymouth City Council (25 025 458)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms 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.

East Sussex County Council (26 004 245)

Kent County Council (26 006 508)


This email was sent to ooseims.archieves@blogger.com using Granicus Communications Cloud on behalf of: The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman ·5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT

Food Blog

Thursday, August 20, 2026

What Are the Latest Home Decor Trends? | Pouted.com

What Are the Latest Home Decor Trends? | Pouted.com

This and That

New children and education complaint decisions

A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions