New children and education complaint decisions

View online 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. London Borough of Haringey (24 001 174) Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide educational provision to two of her daughters. She says the Council's actions caused avoidable stress and anxiety and negatively impacted both daughter's mental health and education. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and her daughters and provide a financial remedy. Bristol City Council (24 001 428) Summary: There was fault by the Council. It took more than double the legal time frame to issue a final Education Health and Care Plan for Miss B's son. The Council's failings caused Miss B significant distress and frustration and meant that her son did not have the support he needed to access all of his schooling. The Council has implemented an action plan to improve its service and is keeping this under regular review. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss B; make payments in recognition of the impact on her and her son; and reimburse Miss B the cost of the private Educational Psychologist assessment it relied on. Essex County Council (24 002 645) Summary: The Council delayed issuing a final Education, Health and Care Plan and did not consider its duties under Section 19 of the Education Act 1996, which was fault causing avoidable distress, uncertainty and a delay in appeal rights. The Council will apologise and make payments to reflect the injustice. Derbyshire County Council (24 004 758) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to finalise her daughter's education, health and care (EHC) Plan within statutory timescales. The Council has acknowledged it is at fault for the delay, it has now issued the final EHC Plan and provided Mrs X with a suitable remedy for the injustice caused by the fault. There is nothing further the Ombudsman can achieve for Mrs X. West Sussex County Council (24 006 289) Summary: Miss Y complained about the way the Council dealt with her application, and appeal, for an infant school place for her child. She also complained children's services should have advised her to amend the application to include the category of exceptional and compelling need. We have not found fault by the Council. Lancashire County Council (24 007 127) Summary: We uphold Miss G's complaint, finding the Council delayed in updating her child's Education, Health and Care Plan, following a review. This caused injustice, including that a delay in updating the Plan, resulted in a loss of education provision for the child. The Council has accepted these findings and at the end of this statement, we set out the action it has agreed to remedy this injustice. This comprises an apology and symbolic payment to Miss G. Derbyshire County Council (24 007 156) Summary: Mr B complained the Council wrongly refused to award travel assistance for his son who has special educational needs, failed to consider his circumstances and delayed responding to his correspondence. The Council failed to carry out the appeal properly, failed to keep notes from the appeal hearing and delayed responding to Mr B's correspondence. Mr B has experienced distress and cannot be satisfied his appeal was properly considered. An agreement to carry out a further appeal, apology and payment to Mr B and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy. Devon County Council (24 007 885) Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed completing her child, 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 a 4 week delay in obtaining Educational Psychologist advice. It then further delayed issuing Y's final EHC Plan by 22 weeks after it received the EP advice. The Council agreed to make payments to Miss X to acknowledge the frustration, uncertainty and delayed appeal rights caused by the delays. Worcestershire County Council (24 008 144) Summary: The Council was at fault because it delayed completing an annual review of a young person's education, health and care plan, which meant she was without educational provision for a period of time. The Council has agreed to offer a financial remedy to the young person, and the complainant, to reflect the impact on them, as well as writing a letter of apology. The Council was not at fault for not reviewing the alternative provision the young person was receiving, because she was over compulsory school age and this requirement no longer applied. Essex County Council (24 009 222) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to arrange education and delivery of Child Y's EHCP, which meant they were without support and provision. We find fault with the Council for failing to ensure delivery of Child Y's EHCP following the tribunal order. The Council has agreed to make a financial payment in recognition of distress and lost provision. Nottinghamshire County Council (24 009 735) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her daughter with an education and the special educational provision in her Education, Health and Care Plan. We have ended our investigation into Mrs X's complaint because she used her right to appeal to the SEND Tribunal. Her complaint therefore falls outside our jurisdiction. Leeds City Council (24 009 972) Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint about special educational need. This is because it concerns matters which we have addressed in previous decisions, which are subject to an ongoing appeal to the Tribunal, and/or which did not form part of a complaint to the Council. Norfolk County Council (24 014 062) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the named placement in Y's Education, Health and Care Plan or the education provision since 2019. This is because Miss X has appealed the named placement to the Tribunal, and the other matters are late. London Borough of Wandsworth (24 016 488) Summary: We will not investigate part of Mrs X's complaint about its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 because the injustice claimed is not significant enough to warrant an investigation. We will not investigate another part of the complaint because the Information Commissioner's Office is better suited to consider the matter. We cannot investigate the final part because it relates to the day-to-day operation of a school, which is outside our jurisdiction. Portsmouth City Council (24 003 373) Summary: Mrs Y complained about the residential placements the Council arranged for Z, as a young person in its care. We have ended our investigation of the complaint because: we cannot add to the previous investigation by the Council under the statutory children's complaints procedure or achieve the outcome Mrs Y wants; and there are other bodies better placed to consider her concerns. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (24 007 341) Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to pay her the allowance due to her as a kinship carer. We have found no fault. The Council properly considered the circumstances of the case and made a decision which was consistent with the requirements of government guidance. Lincolnshire County Council (24 016 052) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions concerning Mr X's contact with his children. Doing so would not lead to any worthwhile outcome. This is because we could not make any recommendations concerning contact arrangements. Only a court can order fresh contact arrangements. It would therefore be reasonable for Mr X to use his right to go to court to resolve the matter. Essex County Council (24 016 397) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the impact of a safety plan on the progress Mr X's son was making. The plan complained about was devised by a charity and other bodies, not the Council. The complaint is thus about a matter that was a not a function of the Council. We cannot consider how the Council dealt with Mr X's complaint about this as the substantive matter lies outside our powers. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (24 016 608) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council refuses to allow the complainant to attend her son's Looked After Child reviews. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council's part to warrant investigation. Herefordshire Council (24 016 808) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's assessment of Mr X's child's case. The complaint is about a Section 7 court report, which the law prevents us investigating, and related matters that are not separable from the court proceedings. Lancashire County Council (24 017 740) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's actions in its Children's Services involvement with his family. 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. Essex County Council (24 017 904) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about information that the Council provided during court proceedings. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about what happened in court. Cheshire West & Chester Council (24 004 856) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's failure to provide a school place for his son (Y) from April to September 2023. He also complained about the Council's failure to engage with the family during the transfer of Y's Education Health and Care Plan from a different council and about naming an unsuitable school for Y from September 2023. We did not investigate the suitability of the school named for Y from September 2023 as Mr X could have appealed to the Tribunal. We found fault in the Council's transfer process and in its communication with Mr X. The Council's fault caused injustice to Y and Mr X. The Council agreed to apologise, to make a symbolic payment to recognise Y's loss of education and Mr X's distress and to carry out some service improvements. South Gloucestershire Council (24 005 060) Summary: Mrs D complained the Council failed to ensure that a nursery did not charge top up fees for free early education places and did not investigate her complaint properly. We found the sustainability charge was in line with the statutory guidance. There was fault in complaint handling which the Council has already apologised for. London Borough of Islington (24 005 288) Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to provide her son Y, with alternative educational provision while he was unable to attend school due to health issues. We have concluded our investigation making a finding of fault. The evidence shows that the Council made a professional judgment regarding Y's school attendance and alternative provision, and there is no indication that this was inconsistent with their obligations. However, I found that Miss X raised valid concerns about communication and timeliness, and the Council could have better communicated with Miss X to keep her informed. The Council has accepted our recommendations. Cheshire East Council (24 007 384) Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed finding a special school for his son, Y. This is having an impact on his mental health and wellbeing. Mr X would like the Council to allocate a special school urgently. We have found there has been delay finding a place at a special school for Y. This has not caused Y significant injustice as the Council provided full-time teaching support in a mainstream school while continuing the search for a special school. West Sussex County Council (24 008 795) Summary: There was fault and delay by the Council in implementing an order of the SEND Tribunal. This delayed Y being able to attend the school the Tribunal had determined was suitable and caused distress and uncertainty. The Council also failed to consider a remedy payment under its own complaint process, which could have resolved the complaint without the need for Ms X to come to the Ombudsman. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and make service improvements. The complaint is upheld. Suffolk County Council (24 009 362) Summary: Miss X complained about the Council's delays with completing her child's (Y) Education, Health and Care needs assessment and delays with issuing his final Plan. Miss X also complained about the contents of Y's final Plan. There were some faults by the Council which caused injustice to Miss X. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice caused. Suffolk County Council (24 009 476) Summary: There was fault and delay in completing a transition review for post 16 education. This caused unnecessary uncertainty and distress; deprived Ms X's child of a planned transition; and, caused inconvenience, time, trouble and lost income to Ms X. The Council has agreed to make payments to Ms X and her child to acknowledge the injustice caused. The complaint is upheld. Suffolk County Council (24 015 549) Summary: We upheld Ms X's complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care process regarding her child. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by apologising to Ms X and paying her a total £900 symbolic payment for the injustice caused. London Borough of Bexley (24 015 656) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to assess Mr X's child for an Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because it was reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). Even if we were to investigate, there is no worthwhile outcome we could now achieve. Somerset Council (24 015 876) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to change the school transport pick-up point for the complainant's children or the collection time. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the matter to justify an investigation. Cumberland Council (24 015 948) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's decision to cease to maintain an Education Health and Care Plan. Mrs X appealed the Council's decision to the Tribunal, and we cannot investigate the same decision. Suffolk County Council (24 016 116) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the content of an Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because Miss X has appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). The complaint is therefore outside our jurisdiction. London Borough of Barnet (23 007 871) Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to adhere to statutory timescales and failed to deliver provision set out in Y's EHCP. We have concluded our investigation having made a finding of fault. The Council failed to adhere to statutory timescales during the EHCP process. Further, the evidence does not demonstrate that much of the provision Miss X complained about was delivered, and on balance I have concluded that it did not. The Council has agreed to our recommendations. West Sussex County Council (23 020 172) Summary: Mr A complained that the Council, took too long to issue an Education and Health Care plan for his son. He also complained his son was not provided with education during the period he was waiting for the updated Plan. We found there was significant delay, a failure to establish what a suitable education was for S. We recommended the Council apologised, made a payment to Mr A and S and reviewed progress on improving its practice. Derbyshire County Council (23 021 000) Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council has dealt with her son, Mr S's, Education, Health and Care Plan and educational provision since November 2023 when his Plan was transferred. She said this caused her distress and negatively affected Mr S's mental wellbeing. We found the Council was at fault for not following the statutory procedure during the two most recent annual reviews for Mr S. The Council agreed to apologise, pay Mr S for the education he lost and make service improvements. London Borough of Merton (24 003 036) Summary: Miss X complains the Council did not deal with her son's education properly. The Council is at fault because it did not provide therapy sessions. The Council should apologise and pay Miss X £600. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (24 003 462) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her child with an education or the provision set out in their education, health and care plan, delayed issuing a plan, and wrongly applied the law. Mrs X said this caused unnecessary and avoidable distress and frustration. We find fault and service failure which caused Mrs X and her child injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to remedy the injustice. Coventry City Council (24 009 126) Summary: The Council failed to properly explain its appeal decision in response to Ms X's request for a Blue Badge. This has caused Ms X uncertainty about whether the Council considered her appeal properly. In recognition of the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X £150 and take action to prevent recurrence of the fault in future. Halton Borough Council (24 015 416) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about where her grandchild is living. It is unlikely we could say any Council fault directly caused Z to be living with their father. Sheffield City Council (24 015 897) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the court's decision following a child protection enquiry. We cannot investigate what happened in court and Miss X can reasonably go back to court to challenge the existing orders. Rutland County Council (24 015 989) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the content of an apology letter the complainant received from the Council. This is because we would not seek to achieve the outcome she is seeking. Medway Council (24 016 462) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council's Local Authority Designated Officer dealt with a concern. This is because the complaint is made late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion and consider it now. Herefordshire Council (24 017 255) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint the Council has failed to respond to her stage two complaint within the statutory timescales. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Cheshire East Council (24 017 459) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint about her children being removed from her care because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that are being considered in court. We have no discretion to do so. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (24 015 842) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in the course of amending the complainant's child's Education Health and Care plan and in responding to her subsequent complaint. This is because the complainant has used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). Kent County Council (24 016 626) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault during the process of the complainant's appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). By law, we cannot consider a council's actions during an appeal. Cheshire East Council (24 016 404) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a Council officer in carrying out an assessment of the complainant's son's needs. This is because investigation would achieve nothing significant. Bristol City Council (24 004 120) Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to finalise her child's education, health and care plan within statutory timeframes. This is fault and the delay resulted in Ms X's child receiving the provision to meet her needs eight months later than she should have. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising to Ms X and making a payment to her to acknowledge the loss of provision and the avoidable distress caused by the fault. London Borough of Sutton (24 008 763) Summary: The complainant complains that an appeal against a transport to school decision did not consider the issues she raised about why her son's nearest school was not appropriate. Nor did it explain its reasoning to refuse her application. We uphold the complaint. The Council has agreed to our made recommendations. West Northamptonshire Council (24 012 168) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with the annual review or Mrs X's son's Education Health and Care Plan. This is because any fault has not caused a significant injustice and because she has used her right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (24 015 063) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint that the Council failed to arrange a suitable school placement or alternative educational provision for her child. This is because these matters overlap with a SEND Tribunal appeal about her child's Education, Health and Care Plan. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (24 015 154) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint that the Council's remedy offer to recognise her child's missed education is insufficient. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Warwickshire County Council (24 016 259) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to make alternative educational provision for the complainant's son. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council's part to warrant investigation. Oxfordshire County Council (24 016 467) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decisions to deny the complainant's requests for specialist educational placements for her daughter. This is because the complainant had the right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) against these decisions, and it was reasonable for her to use that right. Devon County Council (24 007 318) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's handling of his son, Y's care. He also complained about delays in complaint handling. Mr X said this distressed him and Y did not receive the respite care specified in his Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council was at fault. It delayed completing the complaint process and Y missed respite provision. This frustrated Mr X and he was put to time and trouble to complain. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment and provide guidance to its staff. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (24 015 870) Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed considering a complaint under the children's statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint by issuing its stage two response without further delay. It will also apologise and offer to make a payment to the complainant to remedy the time and trouble they have been to. Warwickshire County Council (23 018 941) Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to carry out annual reviews and subsequently did not issue updated Education, Health and Care Plans for her daughter. Miss X says her daughter was unable to access additional support at school as a result. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to provide an apology and a financial remedy and carry out service improvements to prevent a reoccurrence. West Sussex County Council (23 019 984) Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed completing her son, Y's Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment and failed to put in alternative provision in place when he stopped attending school in January 2023. The Council delayed completing Y's EHC needs assessment which caused a subsequent delay in issuing his final Plan. The Council agreed to make a payment to recognise the frustration and delayed appeal rights. The Council did not properly consider at the time whether it had a duty to provide alternative provision, however Y's school did offer appropriate support and a reintegration plan and so any fault did not cause an injustice. The Council will carry out service improvements around its communication and record keeping. Hertfordshire County Council (24 004 447) Summary: Mrs C complains about delays in her son's D's Education, Health and Care plan reviews and in alternative provision. The Council has accepted fault, and agreed to apologise, make symbolic payments, and service improvements. London Borough of Bromley (24 004 521) Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide a full-time suitable education for her son including the provision set out in his Education, Health and Care Plan. She also complained the Council failed to issue the final amended EHC Plan within the statutory timescales. The Council delayed in finalising the EHC Plan and has failed to evidence that it properly considered whether the education provided amounted to a full-time suitable education. The agreed remedy includes a payment for the lost educational provision. Suffolk County Council (24 006 127) Summary: There was fault by the Council. The Council delayed issuing a final Education, Health and Care Plan after two annual reviews. An apology and symbolic payment remedies the injustice to the family, who had no right of appeal during the period of delay and will never know if changes to the provision in the plan might have been made. Suffolk County Council (24 011 007) Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council had failed to provide Occupational Therapy support in accordance with her son C's Education, Health and Care Plan since November 2023. We found the Council's inability to find appropriate provision until January 2025 was service failure which caused injustice to both C and Mrs B. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B, pay her £1650 and has provided us with information about the steps it is taking to improve the supply of Occupational Therapists. East Sussex County Council (24 011 613) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about home to school transport costs. There are no good reasons to investigate events before March 2023. We cannot investigate issues a Tribunal has considered. And we are unlikely to achieve more than the reimbursement already given. Manchester City Council (24 015 406) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's refusal to provide free school transport for her child. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. West Northamptonshire Council (24 015 988) Summary: We have upheld Mr X's complaint about the Council's delay completing his child's Education, Health and Care needs assessment. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (24 016 005) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's concerns about the Council's response to a complaint she made about her child's school. We will not look at complaint handling as a standalone issue and we have no powers to look at complaints about the internal management of schools. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (24 016 230) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to change the pick-up time for his daughter's transport to college. Or the complaint about the Council's post-16 transport policy. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council's actions to warrant our involvement. Somerset Council (24 006 098) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the support the Council provided to her children. The Council has upheld her complaint and provided a suitable remedy. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Torbay Council (24 013 802) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council delayed educational provision being provided to him between September 2022 and November 2023 as it failed to treat him as a minor pending his age assessment. This is because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Peterborough City Council (24 015 714) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a child protection enquiry because investigation would not achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking, and there is another body better placed than the Ombudsman to consider the matter. Shropshire Council (24 016 211) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about delay in the Council responding to his complaint under the statutory children's complaints procedure. This is because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Central Bedfordshire Council (23 012 830) Summary: Ms X complains that the Council failed to deliver the provision outlined in Section F of her son Y's EHC Plan, resulting in delays and unmet needs, including issues with Y's personal budget. We have concluded our investigation having made a finding of fault. The Council acknowledges that it did not deliver the provision, caused delays, and failed to communicate effectively. It has provided a remedy to address the distress and inconvenience caused. We are satisfied that this remedy sufficiently addresses the injustice identified in this complaint. The Council has agreed to our recommendations. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (24 003 980) Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council dealt with her son, Y's education. The Council was at fault for failing to follow the annual review process, failing to keep proper records, issuing the final amended EHC plan before the draft amended EHC plan and failing to provide section F provision and transition support. This caused distress, frustration and uncertainty to Mrs X and Y. The Council will apologise and make a payment to recognise the personal injustice caused. Worcestershire County Council (24 005 022) Summary: There was fault by the Council. There was a months delay in finalising an EHC Plan, which the Council has apologised for, to remedy the injustice of distress to the family. The Council also failed to quickly respond to a request to increase the time in education for a child on a part-time timetable. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the distress and injustice from the loss of full-time education. Lincolnshire County Council (24 005 025) Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to secure the provision set out in her son's education, health and care plan and, as a result, he was denied provision to which he was entitled. We found the Council was at fault. It has agreed to make a payment to Mrs X in recognition of the injustice caused. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (24 005 314) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to secure the provision in her son, Y's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan from September 2023. The Council failed to secure some of the specialist provision in Y's Plan between September and December 2023. The Council will apologise and make a payment for the specialist provision Y missed. Buckinghamshire Council (24 011 024) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to refuse a personal budget application in relation to Mr Z's education placement. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. North Somerset Council (24 015 601) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the safety of home to school transport. It is unlikely we would find she has been caused any significant injustice directly by the Council's fault. London Borough of Bromley (24 016 216) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that fault on the Council's part led to the complainant's son losing the offer of an appropriate educational placement. This is because the complaint concerns the school placement of a pupil with an Education Health and Care plan, which is a matter which carries the right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). Essex County Council (24 017 830) 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. Sunderland City Council (24 002 134) Summary: Mr C complained about the Council's involvement in a child protection investigation for his child and how it handled the children's statutory complaint process. We found no evidence the Council's investigation was so procedurally flawed that the conclusions it reached should be questioned. We therefore found no evidence of fault by the Council. It did cause a short delay in the statutory complaints process, but this did not cause Mr C a significant injustice. Derbyshire County Council (24 015 769) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way an Initial Child Protection Conference was conducted. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, and it would be reasonable for Mr X to apply to the courts if he wishes to have different contact arrangements with his children. Lancashire County Council (24 001 670) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to secure the speech and language therapy in her child, W's, Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council was not at fault. However, it was at fault for failing to respond to Ms X's complaints properly. This caused Ms X avoidable frustration, for which the Council should apologise and pay her £100. Leicester City Council (24 003 956) Summary: We have found fault with the Council for the delays during Ms X's daughter's Education, Health and Care Plan process. This delayed Ms X's appeal rights, caused avoidable distress and meant that Ms X's daughter missed out on education and support. The Council has agreed to an apology, symbolic payments for the distress and missed provision and a service improvement to reduce the chance of this happening again. We look at individual complaints about local public services and all registerable social care providers in England. We remedy injustice and share learning from investigations to improve services. When we find a council or care provider has done something wrong, we recommend how it should put it right. We are free to use and make our decisions independently. Find out more about us at www.lgo.org.uk Manage preferences or unsubscribe Contact us

 

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