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.

North Yorkshire Council (24 006 842)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council in the course of child protection action. This is because we would achieve nothing significant by doing so.

Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (24 007 051)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alleged lack of financial support from the Council back in 2015 when the complainant was granted a special guardianship order. The complaint is both late and historical. There are no good reasons to exercise discretion and investigate now because the passage of time means there is not a realistic prospect of reaching a sound, fair, and meaningful decision.

London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (24 007 201)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's management of contact arrangements with his children and breaching a court order. The Council has accepted fault in the administration of contact and offered Mr X £500. Investigation by us would be unlikely to lead to a better outcome. The enforcement of contact arrangements can only be resolved by a court, and it would thus be reasonable for Mr X to use his right to return to court if he seeks enforcement.

Birmingham City Council (24 007 342)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council regarding matters concerning its children's services because doing so would not lead to a different outcome, and we cannot achieve the outcome she seeks. We cannot investigate the Council regarding its role as a social housing landlord and cannot investigate schools or the police. The Information Commissioner is better placed to consider complaints about data protection matters.

London Borough of Redbridge (24 007 423)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council's decision not to consider his complaint whilst there are ongoing court proceedings. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make.

Peterborough City Council (24 010 818)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about Mr X's personal information being aired during court proceedings. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We have no remit to consider what happened in court.

Portsmouth City Council (23 009 858)

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to provide suitable education to her daughter who was out of school. We have found that there was no fault in the way the Council considered whether it should provide alternative education. There was delay in how it responded to Mrs X's complaints, but this did not cause an injustice which requires further investigation. We have therefore completed our investigation and are closing the complaint.

Somerset Council (23 011 887)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the educational placement the Council named in an Education, Health, and Care Plan. Mrs X had a right to appeal this decision, and it would have been reasonable for her to use it.

Wiltshire Council (23 014 340)

Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not deliver suitable alternative education to her son when he was unable to attend mainstream education and that it did not deliver specialist provision outlined in his Education, Health and Care Plan. We found fault because the Council did not act decisively to try and secure alternative education for her son and did not have appropriate oversight of what specialist provision was being delivered to him. To remedy the injustice caused by this fault, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Ms X, issue reminders to relevant staff and consider reviewing some of its procedures.

Derbyshire County Council (23 018 787)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about a lack of education. It is unlikely we could achieve significantly more than the Council has already offered.

Devon County Council (23 021 257)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed completing her daughter, Y's Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment in line with statutory timescales. The Council was at fault. It delayed deciding whether to issue Y with an EHC Plan within the statutory timescales, caused by an 18 week delay in obtaining Educational Psychologist advice. It then further delayed issuing Y's final EHC Plan by six weeks after it received the EP advice. This caused Mrs X distress, uncertainty and delayed her right of appeal to the SEND tribunal. The Council agreed to make a payment to acknowledge this injustice.

West Sussex County Council (24 003 357)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's home to school transport team. This is because an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve any additional outcome.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council (24 004 704)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about financial contributions for post-16 home to school transport. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Birmingham City Council (24 006 831)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council failing to seek advice and information from the Speech and Language and Occupational Therapy service as part of the Education, Health, and Care needs assessment process. This is because Mrs X can appeal to the SEND Tribunal, and it is reasonable for her to exercise her right of appeal. Therefore, the complaint is out of the Ombudsman's jurisdiction.

Hampshire County Council (24 007 647)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's Schools Admissions Appeal Panel's decision not to provide his child with a place at School Z. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused them to lose out on a school place, and any remaining injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

Nottinghamshire County Council (24 008 834)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Sheffield City Council (24 003 821)

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council abandoning plans to seek a court order to ensure the return of her child, and instead leaving the child with a parent who harmed them. This is because court action was commenced and a s.37 report ordered, which means the matter of who may safely care for the child has been subject to court action. That removes our legal power to investigate this matter.

Liverpool City Council (24 005 831)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a statement the Council included in a report it produced as part of court proceedings. The law prevents us doing so.

London Borough of Bexley (24 005 987)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's interactions with her in relation to the care of the children she looks after. This is because an investigation would not lead to any further findings. In addition, there are no worthwhile outcomes achievable.

London Borough of Havering (24 006 388)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's response to the complainant's concerns about his child. This is because we would not achieve anything significant by doing so.

London Borough of Hackney (24 007 259)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's report to court. The law prevents us from doing so.

London Borough of Sutton (24 007 926)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the contents of a Section 7 report because it concerns matters that either were or could have been discussed in court. Other bodies are better placed to consider other elements of this complaint.

Hampshire County Council (24 010 385)

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X's complaint about her son being removed from her care because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from considering complaints about matters that have been considered and decided in court. We have no discretion to do so.

Bedford Borough Council (23 019 351)

Summary: The complainant (Mrs X) said the Council failed when carrying out her daughter's (Y) Education Health and Care needs assessment and in not supporting her when she was out of school. We found fault with the Council's delays in deciding whether to issue an Education Health and Care Plan for Y and in issuing Y's final plan. The Council's fault caused injustice to Y and Mrs X. We also found fault with the Council's record keeping. We did not find fault within the actions of the Council's Education Welfare officer and for not providing education to Y when she was out of school. The Council agreed to apologise to Y and Mrs X, make the payment to recognise their distress and issue Y's final Education Health and Care Plan. The Council has already put in place some service improvements.

South Gloucestershire Council (23 020 891)

Summary: We upheld Ms X's complaint about inclusion funding for children with special educational needs in early years settings. The Council's policy and practice at the time was flawed and this caused avoidable frustration, distress and uncertainty about whether additional hours of childcare could have been made available for Ms X's child, Y. The Council has already taken appropriate action to remedy the injustice by apologising, offering a payment and amending its policy and procedures.

Derbyshire County Council (24 000 584)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's failure to find a suitable educational placement for her son. Miss X had a right to appeal this decision, and it would have been reasonable for her to use it. Nor will we investigate Miss X's complaint the Council did not secure the provision named in her son's Education, Health, and Care Plan, because we are satisfied the Council have already remedied any remaining injustice here.

Warwickshire County Council (24 000 745)

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's refusal of his application for delayed entry to reception for his summer born child, Y. The Council was at fault as it failed to consider whether it was in Y's best interests to start reception or year one in September 2025. The Council has agreed to apologise, re-take its decision, review other recent decisions, and review its policy.

Surrey County Council (24 000 973)

Summary: There was a three-month delay issuing Y's final Education Health and Care Plan after the Council conceded Ms X's appeal. The Council has already offered a symbolic payment to reflect the avoidable frustration and time and trouble: this is a partial remedy. The Council will issue a further apology and make an additional payment of £1350 to reflect the loss of a term and a half of special educational provision.

Warwickshire County Council (24 003 379)

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's refusal of her application for delayed entry to reception for her summer born child, Y. The Council was at fault as it failed to consider whether it was in Y's best interests to start reception or year one in September 2025. The Council has agreed to apologise, re-take its decision, review other recent decisions, and review its policy.

St John's Cathedral Catholic Primary School (24 004 290)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about an unsuccessful school admission appeal. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault for us to question the panel's decision.

Worcestershire County Council (24 006 229)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's handling of her son's education health and care plan annual review. This is because Mrs X wishes to challenge the outcome and it would be reasonable for her to appeal to the SEND Tribunal. We will not separately investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's delay in completing the process because it does not cause her such significant injustice that it warrants investigation.

Suffolk County Council (24 006 530)

Summary: We have upheld this complaint because there have been delays completing reviews of a child's Education Health and Care Plan for the last two years. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to the complainant.

Essex County Council (24 006 590)

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.

Slough Borough Council (24 010 457)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about a Council's school admissions appeal panel's decision as it is unlikely we would find fault.

London Borough of Sutton (23 019 659)

Summary: We found fault on Ms M's complaint about the Council's actions when her niece came to stay with her following police involvement which caused her upset and financial loss. It failed to explain to her this was a private family arrangement and what this meant. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Hampshire County Council (24 005 748)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a child protection conference by the Council as there would be no worthwhile outcome from doing so. The decision the Council reached was one within the range available to it, regardless of not having interviewing Mr X before completing an assessment. And an erroneous comment by a police representative was corrected on the record of the child protection conference. The Information Commissioner's Office is better placed than us to deal with a complaint about any remaining disputed data or non-disclosure of data.

Staffordshire County Council (24 006 851)

Summary: We cannot by law investigate this complaint about the actions of a Council social worker and a section 7 report ordered by the court with respect to welfare of the complainant's children. This is because the issues are subject to legal proceedings in court.

Worcestershire County Council (24 007 130)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council's decision not to investigate his complaint whilst there is an ongoing police investigation into related matters.

North Yorkshire Council (24 007 362)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement with the care of the complainants' children. This is because the issues raised form part of court proceedings.

Sunderland City Council (23 013 021)

Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his daughter, Mrs Y. He complains about the delays in the education, health and care plan process, poor communication and lack of support. We find the Council was at fault for delays in the process and poor communication. This caused significant distress to Mrs Y and Mr X spent unnecessary time and trouble contacting the Council. The Council has agreed to make several recommendations to address this injustice caused by fault.

London Borough of Haringey (23 014 900)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a children's social care assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Devon County Council (24 000 238)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed completing her son, Y's Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment in line with statutory timescales. The Council was at fault. It delayed deciding whether to issue Y with an EHC Plan within the statutory timescale, caused by a seven week delay in obtaining Educational Psychologist advice. It then further delayed issuing Y's final EHC Plan by 27 weeks after it received the EP advice. This caused Miss X distress, uncertainty and delayed her right of appeal to the SEND tribunal. The Council agreed to make a payment to acknowledge this injustice and explain what action it is taking to reduce the backlogs in the EHC needs assessment process.

Buckinghamshire Council (24 005 486)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's failure to secure an education placement and the special education provision in her adult child's Education, Health, and Care Plan. Mrs X had a right of appeal about this matter, and it is reasonable for her to have used it. Nor will we investigate how the Council secured therapy related provision, because the Council has already made a suitable offer of a symbolic payment to recognise the injustice.

Essex County Council (24 006 207)

Essex County Council (24 006 301)

Cardinal Heenan Catholic High School, Liverpool (24 006 325)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Devon County Council (24 006 502)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to arrange suitable education provision for a child. This is because the complainant has used their right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal, and this matter is not separable from that appeal.

Notre Dame College (24 007 864)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the School's admissions and appeals process. This is because the School is no longer a body within our jurisdiction. Therefore, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable through an investigation by the Ombudsman, and we cannot achieve the outcome Miss X wants.

Derby City Council (24 007 869)

Summary: We have upheld Mrs X's complaint about delays in issuing the Education, Health and Care Plan for her child. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Cheshire East Council (24 010 732)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's response to concerns about a school's admission arrangements. This is because the school is academy. We have no powers to consider complaints about academy schools and there is no worthwhile outcome from considering the Council's complaint response.

Staffordshire County Council (24 006 887)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to provide the complainant with information. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council's part, and it is open to the complainant to raise the matter in court.

Suffolk County Council (24 005 705)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to ensure the complainant's son has access to appropriate educational provision. The complainant has used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and this places the complaint outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction by law.

London Borough of Hackney (24 000 420)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to consider Mr X's complaint about its actions in removing his children from his care. The matters he complains of are closely related to matters that either were or could reasonably have formed part of court proceedings. A legal bar prevents us investigating them.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (24 006 564)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to act upon a safeguarding referral. This is because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council.

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (24 006 604)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council's children's services between 2010 and 2021. This is because the complaint is made late and I see no good reason to exercise discretion and consider it now.

Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (24 007 157)

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

West Sussex County Council (24 007 251)

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Council's involvement in Mr X's children's case. Mr X could have complained to us sooner. The courts have also considered the substantive matters and we have no power to change court decisions.

Leicester City Council (23 001 653)

Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council handled her son, Y's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and education since 2020 and how it considered her complaints about those matters. The Council delayed issuing Y's amended EHC Plan after an annual review meeting in December 2022 and its complaint response was unclear. The Council will apologise to Ms X for the uncertainty and frustration caused to her and pay her a symbolic amount of £300. The Council will remind its staff to act in line with the timelines set out in statutory guidance for EHC Plans.

Derbyshire County Council (23 016 322)

Summary: Miss X complained that the Council failed to ensure her children received a suitable education. The Council recognised fault and offered a remedy in line with the Ombudsman's Guidance on Remedies. We have ended our investigation as we would be unlikely to reach a different outcome.

North Yorkshire Council (23 018 681)

Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council reviewed and amended her child, W's, Education, Health and Care Plan, about how it found a new school for W and how it provided W with education in the meantime. The Council was at fault. This caused Miss X significant frustration and upset and meant W missed out on education and special educational provision for a year. To remedy their injustice, the Council will apologise to Miss X, pay her a total of £4900, issue a staff reminder and review the information it gives to staff on amending Education, Health and Care Plans.

Suffolk County Council (23 019 356)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council took too long to complete an Education Health and Care (EHC) Needs Assessment and to issue a EHC Plan for her daughter, Y. Miss X also complained Y could not access education between September 2023 to July 2024 and the Council did not properly consider her complaints. We found fault by the Council on all elements of Miss X's complaint. The Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Miss X and Y to remedy the injustice caused to them by the fault we found.

Herefordshire Council (24 000 434)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint that the Council failed to carry out the actions decided at a meeting in April 2023. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

London Borough of Ealing (24 008 761)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the School's Admissions Appeal Panel's failure to provide her child with a place at this school. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused them to lose out on a school place.

London Borough of Redbridge (24 002 309)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's considerations relating to a request for a reasonable adjustment. There is no evidence of fault.

Norfolk County Council (24 005 448)

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

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (24 005 579)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement with Ms X's child, who is a looked after child. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant further investigation and we cannot achieve the outcomes Ms X wants.

Trafford Council (24 010 178)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaints about the Council's handling of a report used in court. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We have no remit to consider reports used in court. And there is no evidence of fault in the Councill's decision not to investigate her complaint about a matter decided in court.

Surrey County Council (23 017 180)

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council administers school transport applications for children in his village. We do not find fault with how the Council assesses these applications. We find the Council at fault for delays in considering Mr X's appeal, but we find the Council has already taken sufficient action to address this.

Leeds City Council (24 000 087)

Summary: Mrs X complained about the significant delays in the education, health and care plan process. We find the Council was at fault. This had a significant impact on Mrs X and her daughter. To remedy this injustice caused by fault the Council has agreed to apologise and make symbolic payments.

London Borough of Wandsworth (24 004 246)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the special educational needs and school transport provision made by the Council for Mr X's child. There is no evidence of fault by the Council in the matter of transport, Mr X has had a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal regarding the provision at school he requires for his child, and there is not enough potential injustice created by others matters on their own to warrant our further involvement.

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (24 005 118)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to make a place available for the complainant's son at an appropriate school. This is because investigation would not achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

Surrey County Council (24 005 903)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a child's education provision. This is because, there is either no evidence of fault, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome or because the complaint had a right of appeal to a tribunal that it was reasonable for them to have used.

Hertfordshire County Council (24 006 361)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about alternative educational provision, the assessment of her child's special educational needs, the Council's conduct in relation to a Tribunal, and transport to a school. Each of the matters complained of is outside our legal powers, and where discretion to waive that exists, there is no good reason to do so.

Staffordshire County Council (24 007 366)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to carry out an Education, Health and Care needs assessment. This is because it would be reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to a tribunal.

Leicestershire County Council (24 008 946)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to issue an Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because it would be reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to a tribunal.

Lancashire County Council (24 009 018)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint the Council did not uphold his school appeal. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Sheffield City Council (24 009 136)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. We would not be able to achieve a worthwhile outcome by investigating this complaint.


This email was sent to ooseims.archieves@blogger.com using GovDelivery Communications Cloud on behalf of: The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman · 53-55 Butts Road · Coventry · CV1 3BH

Food Blog

Thursday, November 7, 2024

New children and education complaint decisions

A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions

No comments:

Post a Comment