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.

Kent County Council (23 018 200)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not complete her child, Y's November 2022 annual review and delayed issuing Y's amended Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan following delays after a later annual review and reassessment. The Council was at fault for not completing Y's November 2022 annual review, and delays with Y's subsequent annual review, reassessment and delay in issuing Y's final amended EHC Plan. The Council will apologise to Mrs X for the distress, frustration, uncertainty and time and trouble caused by the delays and pay her a symbolic payment. The Council has already agreed to act to improve its services.

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (24 002 468)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide alternative provision support for her child when they stopped attending school. This caused frustration and distress, with her child missing out on education. We found the Council at fault for not properly considering its duties for alternative provision. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and issue reminders to relevant staff.

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (24 003 984)

Summary: Ms X complained that the Council failed to issue a final amended Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan after her daughter's emergency review, and it failed to provide education in accordance with her EHC Plan. We find some fault, causing a loss of special educational provision and avoidable distress. The Council has accepted our recommended ways to remedy this by making a symbolic payment for loss of education, an apology and service improvements. Therefore, we are closing the complaint.

Kent County Council (24 004 142)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide a suitable education for her daughter Z. Based on the information we have seen, there was fault in how the Council failed to consider whether it needed to arrange alternative education for Z when she stopped attending school. This caused Z to miss out on education and caused Mrs X avoidable distress. The Council should apologise, pay Mrs X a financial remedy and remind it staff of the Council's legal duties.

Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (24 004 666)

Summary: There was fault by the Council. There were delays in issuing final Education, Health and Care Plans after an annual review and a reassessment. This meant the complainant's ability to appeal to the SEND tribunal was delayed. There was also service failure as the Council asked the school to organise tuition but did not monitor whether the tuition was suitable or provide tuition once the child had left school. There was also delay in providing online provision after a new Education, Health and Care Plan was issued. A symbolic payment and service improvements remedy the injustice caused from the loss of education which meant a child did not sit their exams.

Lancashire County Council (24 004 971)

Summary: There was 13 months delay by the Council in amending an Education, Health and Care plan after an annual review. This was fault. Apologising and making a symbolic payment remedies the injustice of distress and uncertainty.

Devon County Council (24 010 206)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint the Council has failed to comply with the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal's non-binding recommendation in relation to her son's social care needs and social care provision. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Cornwall Council (24 012 941)

Summary: We upheld Mrs X's complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care process regarding her child, Y, and about the Council's poor communication. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by apologising and paying Mrs X a total symbolic payment of £900 to acknowledge the injustice caused.

Dorset Council (24 013 073)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged failures to meet Miss X's child's special educational needs. The complaint principally concerns the alleged actions of an academy school in issuing informal exclusions, which we cannot investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in meeting its duties to offer alternative educational provision and to assess the child's special educational needs to warrant investigation by us.

Cheshire West & Chester Council (24 013 559)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Councils appeal process for free home to school transport. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice by apologising and taking action to improve its services.

North Northamptonshire Council (24 014 934)

Summary: The Council failed to adhere to the timescales agreed with the Ombudsman over completing a service improvement recommendation from a previous case; this was fault. The Council agreed to complete a review of why these delays occurred and to advise what it intends to do to prevent a reoccurrence.

Oxfordshire County Council (24 015 109)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not providing Mrs X's daughter with transport to alternative provision. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

London Borough of Havering (23 017 039)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to include Miss X in the lives of her children and that her children have suffered abuse. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing Miss X a significant injustice.

Staffordshire County Council (24 014 003)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has been at fault in the course of child protection action relating to the complainant's children. There is no evidence that the Council is at fault in deciding to pause its consideration of the complaint and there are no grounds for us to intervene.

Nottinghamshire County Council (24 015 137)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council not alerting her or acting to promote contact with her children in line with a court order when there were concerns about her ex-partner and one of her children was allegedly self-harming. We cannot consider matters that are properly for courts to decide, and we could not make recommendations about contact or remedies based on contact issues.

Bracknell Forest Council (24 015 223)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's children's services team. An investigation would not add anything to the Council's response or achieve the outcome Mr X wants. If Mr X wants to challenge the contact arrangements with his children, he should do this in court.

Brighton & Hove City Council (24 017 031)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about matters relating to the Council's 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.

Cornwall Council (24 018 388)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about delay in the Council responding to his complaint under stage two of the statutory children's complaint procedure. This is because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

London Borough of Lewisham (24 003 953)

Summary: Miss X complained that the Council failed to hold an annual review of her son Z's Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) within the required statutory timescale. We have concluded our investigation making a finding of fault. We found fault with the Council for failing to meet the statutory deadline for the annual review. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by these delays.

Central Bedfordshire Council (24 005 340)

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's failure to issue an amended final Education Health and Care Plan for Miss Z following the Plan's annual review. Mrs X said this meant Miss Z did not receive suitable support. We found avoidable delay by the Council in completing the annual review. We could not say what support the Plan should provide for Miss Z. But, as the Council issued an amended final Plan during our investigation, this gave Mrs X and Miss Z legal appeal rights, including about the provision made for Miss Z's special educational needs. However, the Council's delay denied Mrs X and Miss Z their right to appeal for about 20 months. This caused Mrs X and Miss Z injustice. To address this injustice, the Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and Miss Z and pay Miss Z £500.

Birmingham City Council (24 008 700)

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's decision to award his child, Y, a bus pass instead of a council-organised taxi service when he applied for home to school transport support for Y. There was fault with how the Council considered the school transport support application and appeal in Y's case. This caused injustice to Mr X. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mr X. It will also carry out a fresh home to school transport appeal.

Surrey County Council (24 012 590)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about Education Health and Care Plan delays following an annual review. We are unlikely to achieve a remedy significantly different to the financial offer the Council made. We cannot investigate parts of Ms X's complaint which are not separable from a Tribunal appeal.

Devon County Council (24 013 421)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council failed to provide appropriate provision for Mrs X's son. The complaint is late, and it was reasonable for Mrs X to have complained sooner. Mrs X's complaint is also closely linked to her appeal to the SEND Tribunal which places the matter outside our jurisdiction.

Manchester City Council (24 014 341)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's decision not to provide her son with free transport to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Halton Borough Council (24 014 957)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to provide free school transport for the complainant's son outside normal school hours. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision.

Essex County Council (24 015 741)

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.

Essex County Council (24 015 965)

West Berkshire Council (23 018 177)

Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council carried out Child Protection proceedings for her child. There was fault by the Council which caused avoidable distress, time, and trouble for Ms X. The Council agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy, and place a copy of our decision and the faults identified on its records about Ms X. It will also produce an action plan of how it will avoid recurrence of the same faults and report this action plan to its relevant overview and scrutiny committee for monitoring.

Derby City Council (24 011 309)

Summary: We cannot investigate X's complaint about matters relating to the Council's actions in its child protection involvement with her child. This is because it is about matters we have previously considered and decided; or are not separable from the court proceedings; or about an allegation of crime which she has already reported to the police

North Northamptonshire Council (24 012 562)

Summary: We cannot not investigate Mrs X's complaint about child protection because she has taken court action regarding the care of her grandchildren.

Cheshire East Council (24 014 199)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council assessed and then decided on the support it would provide to Mrs X's child. It is unlikely we would find any fault in the Council's actions.

Manchester City Council (24 014 429)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint the Council did not include him in statutory review meetings for his children. This is because the Council has investigated the matter, and we are satisfied with the actions the Council has already taken to remedy any injustice.

Cambridgeshire County Council (24 014 556)

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council organised his supervised contact with his child during his working hours, which Mr X said resulted in a loss of income. This is because Mr X could have raised the matters during court proceedings and it is reasonable to have expected him to do so.

London Borough of Croydon (24 014 810)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's loss of records from when she was in care. This is because we could not now achieve a worthwhile outcome, and the Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to consider her concerns about information handling.

Kent County Council (24 017 372)

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X complaint about a social worker's actions during court proceedings. This is because we have no jurisdiction to investigate events that happen in court.

Birmingham City Council (24 014 822)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to properly consider the complainant's son's medical needs when considering her appeal for appropriate education transport for him. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council's part to warrant our intervention.

South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 014 621)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to provide the complainant with information about his child and has failed to invite him to Looked After Child reviews. This is because our intervention would not add anything significant to the investigation the Council has already carried out, or lead to a different outcome.

Staffordshire County Council (23 017 195)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to meet statutory timescales for reviewing her daughter, Y's Education Health and Care Plan. We found the Council took too long to amend Y's Plan. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment in recognition of the uncertainty, distress and frustration caused to Miss X.

Bristol City Council (23 018 744)

Summary: There was fault by the Council. It failed to ensure that a child's Education Health and Care Plan was reviewed within the legal timeframe. The Council has shown that it made sure the child received the speech and language therapy she was entitled to. However, it failed to make sure that the child received occupational therapy set out in the Plan. The Council made sure this provision was increased so the child could catch up, but did not remedy the distress the shortcomings had caused the child's mother. The Council has agreed to take further action to remedy this complaint.

Surrey County Council (24 001 383)

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council missed statutory deadlines when processing her child's education, health and care plan. The Council has acknowledged there were delays in issuing the final plan and it has agreed to remedy the injustice caused to Mrs X and her child.

London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (24 002 773)

Summary: We uphold Mrs E's complaint finding there were several flaws in the Council's oversight of her child's Education, Health and Care Plan. These meant that for over two years there was no satisfactory review of the Plan which became out of date. We found this caused injustice to Mrs E and her child, including as distress. The Council has accepted these findings and at the end of this statement, we set out the action it has agreed to take to remedy this injustice and improve its service.

Dorset Council (24 004 153)

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide her child with a suitable education. There were delays in arranging alternative provision after the Easter break in 2024 and this is fault. It resulted in a loss of education for a period of nearly seven weeks. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice.

London Borough of Bexley (24 005 655)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed increasing his direct payments in line with the National Minimum Wage increase between April and June 2024. The Council delayed implementing the increase which meant Mr X could not fully pay carers during that period. The Council had already paid the shortfall to Mr X and took action to ensure the same fault does not occur again. It agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to recognise the distress, uncertainty and time and trouble caused to Mr X.

London Borough of Bromley (24 005 979)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to secure the special educational provision in her child, W's, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council was at fault, which meant W missed out on one and a half terms of provision they should have had. The fault also caused Mrs X avoidable upset. To remedy her and W's injustice, the Council will apologise to Mrs X, pay her a total £1500 and review the systems it has to monitor consultations with educational providers.

Lancashire County Council (24 013 701)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about delays in producing an Education Health and Care Plan as the Council has agreed to a proportionate way to resolve the complaint.

London Borough of Southwark (24 014 310)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Y's complaint that the Council failed to provide alternative educational provision for her child since September 2022. This is because the complaint is late. We cannot look at other issues raised by Mrs Y because they concern the actions of a school.

Devon County Council (23 016 058)

Summary: Ms A complained about the way the Council dealt with her child in need matter. She said the Council has caused undue distress and harm to her child. We found the Council at fault and recommended the Council make a payment to Ms A in recognition of any injustice caused.

Blackburn with Darwen Council (24 004 182)

Summary: The Council failed to properly advise Mr and Mrs B when they took care of their grandchild. It failed to progress an assessment to support a special guardianship order application in good time, or to give clear advice about funding for this. The Council did not handle Mr B's complaint in line with the statutory complaints process. The Council's shortcomings have caused Mr and Mrs B distress and uncertainty, and has meant they have missed out on support from the Council. It has made some improvements to its policies and its services, and has offered to backdate financial support. The Council has also agreed to take further action to remedy the injustice.

Leeds City Council (24 013 454)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council meeting his children's needs in foster care. Doing so would not be warranted by the claimed injustice, or be likely to lead to a different outcome or greater remedy. Mr X also has a right to challenge any breach of a court order by returning to court, and it would be reasonable to use this right.

Medway Council (24 014 605)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in its response to a safeguarding referral it received concerning the complainant's daughter's welfare. This is because investigation would not achieve the outcomes the complainant is seeking.

Hampshire County Council (24 015 394)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of matters involving Mrs X's child. The law prevents us from investigating anything that has been the subject of court proceedings.

London Borough of Haringey (24 015 890)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about a children services' officer's conduct. Social Work England and the Information Commissioner's Office are better placed to consider her allegations.

London Borough of Barnet (24 015 911)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's response to his request for information about his son. This is because an investigation by this office could not add to the responses already provided via the Council's own investigation of the matter.

Kingston Upon Hull City Council (24 016 346)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's late complaint about children services matters relating to his child. The law prevents us from investigating anything that has been the subject of court proceedings. We also have no power to investigate complaints about the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS).

London Borough of Sutton (24 016 870)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement in Miss X's family's children's services case. The letter Miss X complains about is not separable to the court proceedings that followed, and we cannot investigate the matter.

Birmingham City Council (24 016 894)

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about a report the Council has submitted to the court in ongoing proceedings because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that are being, or have been, considered in court. We have no discretion to do so.

North Northamptonshire Council (24 014 375)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to refuse Miss X's application for school transport for her child. We have not seen evidence of fault in the way the Council considered her application.

Essex County Council (24 015 285)

Essex County Council (24 015 286)

Essex County Council (24 016 456)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the school named in an Education, Health and Care Plan. It is reasonable for Miss X to use her appeal rights.

Slough Borough Council (23 002 200)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to reassess his child's special educational needs, leading to a delay in issuing an amended final Education, Health and Care Plan. Mr X also said the Council failed to secure the existing education and therapy provision, failed to effectively communicate and keep proper records, and failed to properly manage his complaints. We have found the Council acted with fault, causing an injustice. We have considered the remedy the Council previously offered and made further recommendations. There are parts of Mr X's complaint we cannot investigate. We explain why in our decision statement.

Surrey County Council (23 019 472)

Summary: The Council failed to arrange a suitable full-time education for Ms B's son, K, when he was unable to attend school. It has agreed to apologise and makes payments to Ms B and K. It has also agreed to make service improvements.

Wakefield City Council (23 020 784)

Summary: The Council was at fault for a delay in seeking medical advice after finding out that Ms X's son was not attending school. However, it then offered him full-time educational provision, for which it was not at fault. When it did seek medical advice, this advice did not support his non-attendance at school. This means the delay is unlikely to have caused him a significant injustice, and we have not recommended that further action be taken.

London Borough of Sutton (24 000 482)

Summary: Ms B complained that the Council had failed to ensure the provision detailed in her daughter C's EHC Plan since December 2022 was put in place. This caused her distress as to whether C had missed out on essential support. We have concluded the Council did not ensure all the provision was in place. The Council to apologise to Ms B, make her a symbolic payment of £300 for her own injustice and £1300 to an education provider (agreed to by the Council and Ms B) for the benefit of C's education.

Kent County Council (24 001 423)

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide an education for their disabled son and that it failed to provide the social care and respite set out in his Education Health and Care Plan. We found there was lack of provision over a prolonged period and a failure to respond to their complaint in a reasonable timescale. We recommended an apology, a payment of £9000 to recognise the impact of the missed provision and £500 to recognise the distress the matter caused.

Surrey County Council (24 003 132)

Summary: Miss Y complains on behalf of Miss W that the Council failed in its duty to ensure the delivery of the provision set out in her Education Health and Care Plan and did not review the provision when Miss W stopped attending college. We find fault because the Council did not take prompt action to review Miss W's plan once it became clear the provision was possibly not meeting her needs. The fault caused Miss W injustice because she missed a significant amount of post-16 provision. The Council has agreed to complete the remedial action listed at the end of this statement.

London Borough of Redbridge (24 008 057)

Summary: Mrs X complained about the appeal panel's decision to refuse her son a school place at his preferred secondary school. We find fault with how the panel considered Mrs X's appeal. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

Rutland County Council (24 012 251)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council failure to complete her child's education, health, and care (EHC) needs assessment and final EHC plan within the statutory timescales. This is because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Essex County Council (24 014 091)

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X's complaint the Council failed to provide her child with alternative provision and special educational provision. This is because Ms X has already used an alternative legal remedy when she appealed to a tribunal and these matters are closely related to that appeal. Nor will we investigate her complaint the Council did not provide school transport for her child because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Hertfordshire County Council (24 014 351)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in the process of assessing and meeting the complainant's son's special educational needs, issuing and reviewing his Education Health and Care plan, securing interim provision, communicating with her and responding to her subsequent complaint. This is because the complainant's appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) places the substantive matters outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction.

London Borough of Southwark (24 014 268)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's children's services involvement with her when she was a child between 2008 and 2010. This is because the complaint is late.

London Borough of Redbridge (24 014 495)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council failed to act on safeguarding information it received regarding his child, Y. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

North Yorkshire Council (24 017 218)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's decisions relating to Ms X's grandchildren. This is because the matter was subject of court proceedings and the law does not allow us to investigate.

Lancashire County Council (24 018 247)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's decisions relating to Ms X's access to her grandchildren. This is because the matter is subject of court proceedings and the law does not allow us to investigate.

Isle of Wight Council (24 000 282)

Summary: Ms C complains the Council delayed in completing an Education Health and Care (EHC) plan, failed to communicate and take follow up actions, and to provide support identified in an EHC Plan. The Council is at fault for failing to provide services identified in an EHC Plan and in its general communication with Ms C. To remedy the complaint the Council will apologise to Ms C, make a symbolic payment and service improvements.

North Yorkshire Council (24 000 333)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her child, Y, with a suitable alternative provision and the content of their Education, Health and Care Plan from July 2023. She also complained the Council failed to finalise Y's annual review and provide free school meals. The Council failed to properly communicate the outcome of Y's annual review. We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint about Y's alternative provision as she appealed to the SEND Tribunal. The Council was under no duty to provide free school meals while Y was out of school. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X.

Nottinghamshire County Council (24 004 036)

Summary: Ms C complained the Council failed to provide their child with access to a full-time education over two academic years. We upheld the complaint finding the Council did not show enough consistent attention to the case despite knowing of the child's absence. As a result, it caused unnecessary distress for Ms C, as she did not know if their child could have had a greater access to education. The Council has accepted these findings and agreed actions to remedy this injustice. However, we note these does not differ significantly from proposals the Council previously made to Ms C, following its own investigation of the complaint.

Leeds City Council (24 012 581)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about delays in issuing an Education Health and Care Plan because we are unlikely to achieve significantly more than the Council has already offered. We cannot investigate issues connected to a Tribunal appeal.

West Sussex County Council (24 014 455)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to make contact with the complainant while her daughter was out of school. This is because the alleged fault on the Council's part has not caused a demonstrable injustice.

Essex County Council (24 015 076)

Liverpool City Council (24 017 058)

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about a social worker's actions in relation to a section 7 court report. We have no jurisdiction to investigate matters subject to court proceedings.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (24 003 816)

Summary: There was fault by the Council because it did not involve Mr X in safeguarding enquiries about his child, it cannot show that Mr X and his family failed to cooperate with the enquiry, and it did not deal with his complaint properly. There was no fault in how the Council weighed up police evidence and how it involved another local authority. The Council's shortcomings caused Mr X and his family distress and frustration. It has agreed to take action to remedy this.

North Yorkshire Council (24 006 141)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to provide support to Mrs X's daughter. Any complaint about the Council's actions here are late and there are no good reasons why it could not have been made sooner.

South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 012 981)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to ensure the complainant's son's cultural, linguistic and religious needs are met. The matter has not completed the statutory procedure for complaints about children's services, and the Council is not at fault in declining to escalate it to the final stage while legal proceedings are ongoing.

Derbyshire County Council (24 013 403)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the conduct of a child protection enquiry. The decisions the Council reached were within the range open to it, and the errors it made are unlikely to have affected the outcome. Investigation by us of the Council's actions would be unlikely to lead to a different or worthwhile outcome.

City of Wolverhampton Council (24 013 527)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's handling of his subject access request. This is because this is a complaint about a data matter which is best considered and decided by the Information Commissioner's Office.

Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (24 014 215)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's children's social work team or the conduct of a social worker. This is because an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve a different outcome.

London Borough of Wandsworth (24 014 296)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council failed to offer appropriate children's social care support. That is because the complaint is late.

Suffolk County Council (24 014 510)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's actions concerning her. Investigating these matters would be unlikely to lead to a better or worthwhile outcome. Some of these matters also either concern other parties for whom we have no consent, or would be better dealt with by another body.

Lincolnshire County Council (24 015 615)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's representations to court. We have no power to investigate matters that have been considered in court.

Manchester City Council (24 016 937)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about a Council child protection plan requirement made in March 2022. This is more than 12 months ago and there are no reasons the late complaint rule should not apply.


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, March 20, 2025

New children and education complaint decisions

A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions

No comments:

Post a Comment