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.

Telford & Wrekin Council (24 003 716)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not provide education and Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan provision for her child, Y, since May 2023. She also complained about delays in the EHC Plan review process. Mrs X said this frustrated and distressed her and Y missed education and plan provision. There was fault in the way the Council delayed issuing a final EHC plan. This frustrated Mrs X's appeal right to the Tribunal. The Council has agreed to make a financial payment.

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (24 013 619)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed issuing her child's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and did not provide any education while they were unable to attend school. Based on current evidence, we find the Council was at fault for delay in issuing the EHC Plan and failing to consider if it should provide alternative education. The Council should apologise to Mrs X and make a payment to her, and another for her child's benefit, to remedy the injustice caused in terms of uncertainty, frustration, and distress.

Portsmouth City Council (24 013 897)

Summary: Mrs Y complained that the Council failed to provide her child with a suitable education. We have not found fault with the Council.

Dorset Council (24 015 532)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council incurred delays in securing a specialist education placement for her son. She says the Council has failed to provide a placement resulting in her having to continue to provide home school education. Miss X says the Council's actions have caused avoidable distress to her and her family. She says her son has also missed out on receiving education at a specialist setting. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to provide Miss X with an apology and a financial remedy, and to issue a final Education, Health and Care Plan within one month of this decision.

Buckinghamshire Council (24 020 821)

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.

Cambridgeshire County Council (24 022 780)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the contents of his child's Education Health and Care Plan. This is because it is reasonable for him to use his right of appeal to a tribunal, and because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Essex County Council (25 001 324)

Essex County Council (25 001 547)

Essex County Council (25 001 645)

St Peter's RC High School, Wigan (25 004 503)

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

Nottingham City Council (25 000 473)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions because it is unlikely that we would add anything to the investigation that the Council has already carried out. The council has apologised for one part of the complaint. Additionally, we would not be able to achieve Mr X's desired outcome by investigating.

Devon County Council (25 000 527)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's recording of a safeguarding referral in 2020. This is because this matter is closely related to the matter of alleged safeguarding failings by the Council since 2020, which Mrs X said caused her to have to take court action over a period of four years to protect her children. The existence of court action concerning the children's safety since 2020 creates a permanent and absolute legal bar that prevents us investigating this matter.

Surrey County Council (25 001 418)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's Local Authority Designated Officer. We cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

London Borough of Barnet (24 009 412)

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council's handling of her son, Y's education since 2022. The Council was at fault. It failed to ensure Y received some of his specialist provision outlined in his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan between September 2023 and October 2024 and delayed holding Y's annual review and issuing the amended Plan. The Council agreed to make payments to acknowledge the impact this had on Y's education and social development and for the distress and uncertainty caused to Miss X.

London Borough of Harrow (24 014 689)

Summary: Miss Y complains about the Council's decision to place her son into a shared taxi which transports him from home to school. She says this decision had a direct impact on her son's health due to the longer journey times and the increased exposure to infection from other passengers. The Council wrongly treated Miss Y's concerns as a complaint and did not use the appeal process. This was contrary to its own policy and statutory guidance. The Council has agreed to apologise and arrange an appeal of D's case.

London Borough of Bromley (24 014 971)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to finalise the annual review of her daughter, Y's, Education, Health and Care Plan. Miss X also says Y has not been receiving education. We have found fault in the actions of the Council for delay in finalising the annual review process of Y's Education, Health and Care Plan and for failing to provide Y with appropriate education. The Council has agreed to issue Miss X with an apology and pay a financial remedy.

Essex County Council (24 015 000)

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council's delay in completing an Education, Health and Care needs assessment for her child. We found there had been avoidable delay by the Council in completing the assessment which had caused Ms X injustice. To address the injustice, the Council agreed to send Ms X a written apology and make a symbolic payment of £1,200 in recognition of the avoidable distress caused by its delay.

East Sussex County Council (24 015 399)

Summary: Miss Y complained the Council delayed in issuing her son's Education, Health and Care Plan which meant that Miss Y paid school fees for five weeks longer than she otherwise would have. We find fault and injustice which the Council should remedy with a payment equivalent to the school fees paid by Miss Y between 5 September and 10 October 2024.

Essex County Council (24 018 277)

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council named an inappropriate school in section I of her child, Y's, Education, Health and Care Plan and failed to organise education for Y when they were unable to attend school during a Tribunal period. Mrs X also says the Council provided inaccurate information to the Tribunal and failed to deliver the content of Y's EHC Plan to them following the Tribunal order in December 2024. We have discontinued the investigation into this complaint.

West Northamptonshire Council (24 021 436)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about a failure to provide a suitable education and delays in issuing an Education Health and Care Plan. It is unlikely we would achieve a significantly different remedy than the Council has already offered. The Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to consider a data protection complaint.

West Northamptonshire Council (24 022 623)

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's actions following its refusal to amend an Education Health and Care Plan. This is because she has used her right of appeal to a tribunal. Other issues raised have not caused Mrs X a significant enough injustice to warrant investigation.

Worcestershire County Council (25 000 031)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about missed Occupational Therapy. This is because the Council has accepted fault, apologised, and said it will ensure the provision is delivered. An investigation by the Ombudsman would be unlikely to add anything to the Council's response or achieve a different outcome.

Purbrook Park School, Waterlooville (25 004 623)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel for us to be able to question its decision.

Lancashire County Council (25 005 020)

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 by the panel for us to be able to question its decision.

City of York Council (24 011 592)

Summary: Mrs X complains on behalf of Y that the Council did not deal properly with an annual review of his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan or take seriously reports that he was not safe at school. The Council delayed issuing Y's EHC Plan and took too long to commission alternative transport provision. Y suffered loss of Special Education Needs (SEN) provision and avoidable distress. The Council should pay Y £4,500.

London Borough of Hounslow (24 011 933)

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.

Nottingham City Council (25 000 640)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about treatment from social services during a Special Guardianship Order. This is because parts of the complaint are late, and we there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate Miss X's complaint. Additionally, parts of the complaint relate to matters which a court considered and it's reasonable to have expected these matters to be raised at court at the time.

London Borough of Havering (25 001 305)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's handling of matters involving his children. The law prevents us from investigating anything that is or has been the subject of court proceedings.

Leeds City Council (25 001 816)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to remove inaccurate information it holds about Ms X. This is because the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider the matter.

City of Wolverhampton Council (25 002 125)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about court reports. The law prevents us from investigating anything that is or has been the subject of court proceedings.

Oxfordshire County Council (24 003 250)

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide a suitable education for her son and failed to provide Speech and Language and Occupational Therapy provision set out in his Education Health and Care Plan. We found there was fault by the Council and missing provision over a prolonged period. We recommended an apology and an appropriate payment to recognise the injustice caused.

Suffolk County Council (24 008 302)

Summary: Mr X complained about the delay in the Council issuing his son's Education, Health and Care Plan. We found fault because of the significant delay in completing the assessment process and issuing a final plan for Mr X's son. This caused avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty to Mr X. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr X.

East Riding of Yorkshire Council (24 009 357)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not implement a tribunal order in accordance with the statutory timescales and failed to provide all the provision set out in Section F of her child, Y's, final amended Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council was at fault with delay in issuing Y's EHC Plan after the tribunal order, it was unclear about Y's specialist provision and delayed putting in place all Y's Section F provision and failed to monitor the provision. This caused Mrs X frustration, confusion, avoidable time and trouble and uncertainty and Y missed some education to which they were entitled. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment and put in place service improvements.

North Yorkshire Council (24 013 140)

Summary: Ms X complained the Council has failed to ensure her child, Y received an education or provision in line with their Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan since 2021 when they stopped attending school. I ended this investigation because part of the complaint is late and the other part falls outside of our jurisdiction because Ms X appealed to the SEND tribunal.

London Borough of Waltham Forest (24 013 783)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed in updating his son's Education, Health and Care Plan following an annual review. Mr X also complains his son did not receive support at school and relevant assessments have not been completed. We find the Council at fault for a delay in issuing an amended, final Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused Mr X distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Mr X a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified.

Northumberland County Council (24 014 507)

Summary: Miss T complained the Council did not properly consider her application for transport support for her child who attends an out of borough post-16 college. Miss T said as a result, the Council refused to award her child with transport support. The Council was not at fault in the way it considered and made its decision in Miss T's case.

Suffolk County Council (24 022 442)

West Sussex County Council (24 022 616)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint that the Council failed to meet the provision detailed in her child's Education Health and Care Plan or about how it carried out annual reviews. Part of the complaint is made late and there is either insufficient evidence of fault with how the Council dealt with recent matters, or investigation into them would not lead to a different outcome.

Leicestershire County Council (24 022 815)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint that the Council delayed completing her child's Education Health and Care needs assessment. This is because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council or achieve a different outcome.

East Sussex County Council (25 003 432)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about educational support. We cannot investigate whether the support level should have been higher as this was subject to a Tribunal appeal. We are unlikely to gain a significantly different outcome than the Council's offered refund.

Birmingham City Council (24 022 938)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement with Mr Y's child because it is unlikely that we would be able to add anything significant to what the Council has already said, and we cannot deliver the outcome that Mr Y is seeking.

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (24 023 476)

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint that her child was unlawfully taken into care. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about the start of court action or what happened in court.

Portsmouth City Council (25 000 034)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's handling of his application for a blue badge for his daughter. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to add anything to the Council's response or achieve a significantly different outcome.

Liverpool City Council (25 000 487)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about what the Council has written about Miss X's care of her child. She has a right to go to court to seek greater contact it would be reasonable to use as only a court can change the current arrangements. The Information Commissioner is also better placed than us to deal with a complaint about any factual inaccuracies in the Council's records, as they have powers we lack to require rectification of incorrect data, and to impose penalties.

Isle of Wight Council (25 000 995)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's handling of concerns he has raised in relation to his daughter over the past year. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council's decision not to consider his complaint until the ongoing court proceedings have concluded.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council (25 001 435)

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's involvement with her child, who is in care. The law prevents us investigating how the Council conducted court action. Miss X could also reasonably have raised her concerns in court.

Durham County Council (25 002 481)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a section 7 report. This is because the law prevents us from considering what happens in court.

Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (24 012 928)

Summary: Ms X complained that the Council failed to provide her child with suitable education and delayed issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan. There was an eight month delay in issuing the Plan, however we have not found fault in the Council's decisions that Ms X's child had access to suitable schooling and it was not necessary for it to provide alternative education. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to acknowledge the impact of the delayed Plan.

Essex County Council (24 013 437)

Summary: Mrs X complained her child had not received the speech and language therapy (SALT) provision in their Education, Health and Care Plan. We have ended the investigation as there is insufficient evidence of fault. The Council has agreed to arrange a private SALT assessment and further investigation is unlikely to achieve more. Mrs X also complained about the actions of the School which we cannot investigate and the Council's efforts to arrange mediation, which we will not investigate further as it is unlikely we would find the Council at fault.

Medway Council (24 014 785)

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed issuing her child's first Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan, did not provide a suitable secondary school place, and failed to provide alternative education. There was delay in issuing a final EHC Plan and delayed appeal rights, but no failure to provide education. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X £1000 to acknowledge the fault, and make service improvements.

Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (24 015 718)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to suitably consider his application and appeal for home to school transport for his child. We did not find fault with the Council's decision to refuse home to school transport for Mr X's child. We did find fault with the Council failing to follow its process. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X for failing to follow its process. The Council also agreed to provide training to staff about following its process and including relevant information about how to appeal decisions.

West Northamptonshire Council (24 023 141)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council is failing to make alternative educational provision for the complainant's daughter while she is not attending school. This is because the complainant has used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and this places the matter outside our jurisdiction.

Hampshire County Council (25 002 530)

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr Y's complaint the Council named an unsuitable school placement in his child's Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because Mr Y has appealed to the SEND Tribunal about the same matter. Will not investigate Mr Y's other complaints because they are premature.

Hampshire County Council (25 001 059)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's involvement with her family. The complaint is late and we are unlikely to find evidence of fault even if we did investigate.

London Borough of Bexley (25 001 900)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint the Council has recorded false information about her and her child. The law prevents us from investigating anything that is or has been the subject of court proceedings.

West Sussex County Council (25 003 057)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not following court orders. This is because the law prevents us considering the Council's actions during court proceedings. Also, Mr X could reasonably have raised some matters in court.

Manchester City Council (24 012 289)

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council's care of her when she was a looked after child and the way it handled her complaint. Miss X said she felt blamed for things that happened when she was a child. She said this affected her mental health, and caused unnecessary and avoidable distress. We find the Council at fault and this caused injustice. The Council will apologise to Miss X.

Cornwall Council (24 022 867)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about words used by the Council following a safeguarding referral it received. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council responded to the referral to warrant investigation by us. Any factual inaccuracy in its records would be a matter the Information Commissioner is better placed than us to consider as it has powers we lack to require rectification and impose penalties.

Hertfordshire County Council (25 000 231)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's involvement with her child (C), who is now a young adult. Some of Mrs X's concerns are too old to bring to us now. Other concerns relate to court proceedings and the law prevents us from investigating those issues.

Birmingham City Council (24 010 085)

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's handling of his son, Y's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and annual reviews between 2023 and 2024. The Council was at fault. It failed to process an early annual review and then delayed issuing an amended Plan following a subsequent review. It also failed to provide sufficient oversight and delayed providing additional funding to the school after Mr X raised concerns about Y's provision. There was also evidence of poor communication throughout. The Council agreed to make payments to Mr X to acknowledge the injustice caused to him and to recognise the impact it had on Y's education.

West Northamptonshire Council (24 011 390)

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has not dealt properly with her daughter Y's Special Educational Needs (SEN) and has suffered distress and loss of educational opportunity. The Council is at fault because it delayed issuing Y's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and it did not ensure all Y's SEN provision was made. Mrs X suffered avoidable distress and Y missed SEN provision. The Council should apologise to Mrs X and Y and pay Mrs X £3,000.

Norfolk County Council (24 014 134)

Summary: Miss B complained the Council failed to comply with a tribunal order to name a specialist placement in section I of her child, X's, Education, Health and Care Plan. Miss B says her mental health has been impacted, causing mental and physical exhaustion. Miss B also says her son is experiencing burnout which has heightened due to his needs not being met. We have found the Council at fault for failing to consider its section 42 duty. This has caused X to miss out on education and support. The Council has agreed to apologise, consider providing catch-up provision, make a symbolic payment and review its process for securing alternative provision.

Dorset Council (24 014 834)

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has not dealt with her daughter Y's education properly and she has missed educational opportunity. The Council delayed considering whether it should make alternative education provision for Y. Y suffered delay and the loss of educational opportunity. The Council should apologise and pay Mrs X £1500.

Surrey County Council (24 015 469)

Summary: Mr X complained that the Council unfairly restricted communication with him. The Council accepts it did not follow the correct process when it did this. We found the Council at fault. The Council has apologised and lifted the restrictions in response to Mr X's complaint. It has also agreed to carry out some service improvements.

London Borough of Wandsworth (24 017 501)

Summary: We found Mr Y's complaint about the Council failing to pay the independent school where he works a fee increase for two children with Education, Health and Care plans, was not within our jurisdiction. This was because the school could seek a legal remedy through the courts.

Essex County Council (25 001 300)

Essex County Council (25 001 323)

Latimer Arts College, Kettering (25 004 134)

London Borough of Hounslow (25 005 224)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about home to school transport. It is unlikely we would find fault in the Council's decision not to hold an appeal.

Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (25 000 479)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's child protection investigation. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate it now.

London Borough of Camden (25 001 835)

Summary: Mr X complained that the Council caused a delay in responding to his complaint about its children's social care service. We have discontinued our investigation, because there is no worthwhile outcome we can achieve until Mr X receives the Council's final response to his complaint.

Hertfordshire County Council (25 004 557)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about how the Council replied to her children services complaint. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council's decision to initially use the corporate complaints procedure. And it is reasonable to expect Miss X to complete the statutory complaints procedure.


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

Food Blog

Thursday, July 31, 2025

New children and education complaint decisions

A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions

No comments:

Post a Comment