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.

Surrey County Council (24 002 512)

Summary: Miss X complained that the Council failed to comply with statutory timescales following a Tribunal decision and did not ensure her son, Y, received the special educational provision set out in his EHCP. We have concluded our investigation with a finding of fault by the Council. These faults caused Y to miss education and support he was entitled to, and led to significant distress and uncertainty for Miss X. The Council has agreed to our recommendations and service improvements.

Kent County Council (24 006 766)

Summary: Ms B complained that the Council has failed to implement the provision in her child's Education, Health and Care plan. We did not find the Council to be at fault.

Royal Borough of Greenwich (24 009 484)

Summary: Miss X complained that the Council failed to deliver suitable education or special educational needs support to her daughter while she was out of school. We have found that the Council was at fault. Although it provided adequate alternative education, it failed to find a school which could deliver her special educational needs support. This meant she did not receive some of that support for over a year, which likely affected her education and caused her distress. The Council has agreed to make symbolic payments to Miss X and her daughter to recognise their injustice. It will also take steps to improve its service.

West Sussex County Council (24 009 963)

Summary: Mrs B complained about the way the Council dealt with her son, C's education. The Council was at fault for failing to issue the Education, Health and Care plan within statutory timeframes, delaying in completing an annual review, failing to identify a post-16 placement for C within required timeframes, failing to provide provision set out in the plan and poor communication and complaint handling. This caused C to miss provision and Mrs B and C frustration, distress and uncertainty. The Council will apologise, complete the annual review and make payments to recognise the personal injustice caused.

Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (24 011 956)

Summary: Miss X complains an error within the Council's computer system took her children off the school roll. The school refused to take them back, causing frustration and distress to Miss X and her children, Y and Z. We find fault with the Council for the computer error, but the apologies given already are a satisfactory remedy.

North Yorkshire Council (24 012 152)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to ensure her child D received suitable alternative education when they were out of school. The Council was not at fault in how it considered its duty to provide alternative education to D. However, it accepted it delayed in reviewing D's Education, Health, and Care Plan, and responding to Mrs X's complaint, which caused her distress, time, and trouble. The Council apologised and offered a financial remedy. Following our investigation, it agreed to go further to remedy the injustice caused, by paying an increased financial remedy. It will also report to its relevant oversight committee about how it will address its complaints backlog.

Kingston Upon Hull City Council (24 012 465)

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council delayed providing their child, Y with an education placement or an appropriate education following an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan review in 2023. The Council was at fault. It failed to keep oversight of Y's education or decide whether alternative provision was appropriate when they were out of school. It then failed to ensure Y could attend their named placement in the EHC Plan. It meant Y went without education for three terms. The Council also failed to issue an amended EHC Plan naming a post-16 placement in Y's phase transfer year. The Council agreed to apologise and make payments to Mr and Mrs X and Y to recognise the impact on Y's education and the distress and uncertainty caused.

Hampshire County Council (24 012 790)

Summary: Miss Y complained the Council failed to provide her child, Z, with a suitable full-time education and the special educational needs support in their Education Health and Care Plan. We have found fault by the Council, causing injustice, in failing to secure the proper delivery of Z's special education needs and educational provision from June 2023 to July 2024; and with its communication failures. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising and making payments to recognise the impact on Z of the missed provision and Miss Y's upset and worry.

Wiltshire Council (24 013 198)

Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to follow the correct process following a Tribunal order and it has failed to provide the correct support as detailed in her son's Education, Health and Care Plan. We found the Council at fault for a delay in providing the special educational provision set out in the Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused distress and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused.

Derbyshire County Council (24 014 683)

Summary: We upheld Mrs X's complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care process and about the Council's poor communication. The Council apologised and offered a £1,000 symbolic payment in line with the Ombudsman's Guidance on Remedies. We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about advocacy costs because we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants.

Somerset Council (24 015 059)

Summary: Miss X complained about delays with the annual review process and finding a suitable placement for her child, and they stopped attending school. We found the Council at fault for its delays and not properly considering its alternative provision duty, causing significant frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay a financial symbolic payment to recognise the injustice caused.

Suffolk County Council (24 016 168)

Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not properly consider the religious grounds for her appeal against its decision not to provide school transport for her children. There was no fault in the Council's actions.

London Borough of Newham (24 016 895)

Summary: Miss Y complains the Council did not properly consider D's ability to safely walk to school when it received an application for home to school transport. There is procedural fault in how the Council handled D's school transport application and appeal. The Council will apologise and reconsider D's application, taking into account the relevant tests for eligibility for children with special educational needs.

Milton Keynes Council (24 018 818)

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council's delays during the Education, Health and Care needs assessment process for her daughter. We find the Council was at fault for failing to meet statutory deadlines during the assessment. This has caused Miss X frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to apologise to Miss X and make a payment to her for the injustice caused.

Devon County Council (24 023 455)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Education, Health and Care Plan delays and a lack of alternative education provision. The complaint is late, and Miss X has appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). This places the complaint outside our jurisdiction.

City of Wolverhampton Council (25 000 258)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs X's son's Education, Health and Care plan because she has appealed to a Tribunal. We will not investigate the remaining matters regarding delay and failure to provide section 19 provision because we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X is seeking.

Warwickshire County Council (25 000 586)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to make appropriate educational provision for her son. This is because the complaint concerns matters which have been the subject of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability), or are not separable from those matters.

Norfolk County Council (25 001 813)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint the Council delayed a decision for an Education Health and Care Plan. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in the length of time it took. We will not investigate his complaint about how the Council communicated this decision as there is no significant injustice to Mr X. Finally, we will not investigate the Council's decision not to issue an Education Health and Care Plan. This is because Mr X has a right of appeal about this and it would be reasonable to expect him to use it.

Suffolk County Council (25 002 315)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's decision relating to an Education, Health and Care Plan for Mrs X's child. This is because Mrs X appealed the decision to the First-tier Tribunal and the law does not allow us to investigate.

West Sussex County Council (25 004 398)

Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council dealt with her son, Y's education. The Council was at fault for failing to issue the Education, Health and Care plan within statutory timeframes, delaying in completing an annual review, failing to provide provision set out in the plan and poor communication and complaint handling. This caused Y to miss provision and Mrs X and Y frustration, distress and uncertainty. The Council will apologise, complete the annual review, send us an action plan and make payments to recognise the personal injustice caused.

Middlesbrough Borough Council (24 013 074)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to recognise his immigration status when he was a looked after child and failed to renew his visa before it expired. Mr X said this meant he overstayed his visa and is unable to apply for indefinite leave to remain for some years. Mr X says, as a result, he cannot afford to go to university as he will be charged as an overseas student and the delays caused significant distress. Mr X would like the Council to meet his education costs. There was fault in the way the Council did not complete the actions from the statutory complaint procedure. This frustrated Mr X. The Council has agreed to apologise, complete the actions from the statutory complaint process and provide guidance to its staff.

Milton Keynes Council (24 019 973)

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about an assessment produced by the Council's children's services. This is because the assessment has been considered in court.

Norfolk County Council (25 000 633)

Summary: We uphold this complaint that the Council did not use the statutory procedure for complaints about children's services to respond to Mrs X's complaint. The Council has agreed to resolve the matter by providing a suitable remedy for the injustice caused to Mrs X.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council (25 001 201)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about how the Council handled allegations about her. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Derbyshire County Council (25 001 343)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's safeguarding officer substantiating a safeguarding concern in a matter involving Mr X. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement.

Leeds City Council (25 002 352)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaints about the Council's involvement with her child, including the content of court reports. The law prevents us from investigating anything that could be reasonably raised in court proceedings.

London Borough of Enfield (25 003 599)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about matters related to Mr X's child. The law prevents us considering the conduct of court proceedings. Mr X can reasonably take court action if he believes the Council has not provided court orders and if he wants changes to his child's living or visiting arrangements.

Cornwall Council (25 005 179)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about delay in the Council's handling of Mr Z's complaint under the statutory children complaints procedure. This is because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused by the likely fault.

Surrey County Council (24 007 437)

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide her son with alternative provision and the specialist provision set out in his Education Health and Care Plan when they moved to its area. She also complained it took too long to issue her son's final Education Health and Care Plan and communicated poorly with her. We found fault by the Council on all matters. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and make her symbolic payment to acknowledge Y's lost provision and the frustration and uncertainty caused to her.

Cheshire East Council (24 013 037)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the refusal of free home-to school transport for Mrs X's child. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the school transport appeal panel reached its decision to warrant our further involvement. We cannot investigate the actions of a school.

Surrey County Council (24 014 876)

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council's failure to provide her child, Y, with a suitable education when he was unable to attend school. We did not find the Council was at fault because it was satisfied with action taken by the school to reintegrate Y back to school during the time we were able to investigate. We did not investigate what happened from April 2024 because Ms X appealed to the SEND Tribunal.

Surrey County Council (24 015 791)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to complete the annual review of her son's Education Health and Care Plan within the statutory timeframes. She also complained he missed education and specialist provision he is entitled to and that communication with the Council was poor. We found fault by the Council in all matters. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and make her a symbolic payment in recognition of her son's missed provision and the uncertainty, distress and frustration caused to her.

Kent County Council (25 001 018)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the arrangements made for her daughter to sit the Kent Test for entry to grammar schools. An investigation would not achieve a different outcome.

Derby City Council (25 001 280)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the delay finalising her son's Education Health and Care plan or its content. This is because the Council has offered a suitable remedy for the delay and Miss X has appealed to a tribunal.

Suffolk County Council (25 001 919)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council failed to name a school in his son's Education Health and Care plan. This is because Mr X has appealed to a tribunal. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council made its decisions around Mr X's son's reduced timetable.

Essex County Council (25 002 093)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care Plan process. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £100 per month for the delay. This is an appropriate remedy and further investigation is unlikely to achieve anything more.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (25 002 327)

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's refusal to carry out an Education Health Care needs assessment or the contents of the Education Health and Care Plan. This is because Ms X has appealed to a tribunal.

London Borough of Harrow (24 012 853)

Summary: We have found no fault with how the Council handled Mrs X's son's blue badge application. It followed the correct procedure as required by the Department for Transport's guidance.

Hertfordshire County Council (25 001 097)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms M's complaint about her dealings with the Council in connection with the care of her daughter because the Council has addressed all her complaints and there is nothing more we could add.

Hampshire County Council (25 001 272)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's decision to cease a care package for her child, Y. This is because the Council considered the complaint via the statutory children's complaints process. There is insufficient evidence of fault and an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to add anything further.

Liverpool City Council (25 001 320)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about a social worker's conduct and the Council's delay in handling his complaint. This is because further investigation would not add to the one carried out by the Council or achieve a different outcome.

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (25 002 197)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about allegations of abuse towards his son. This is because the matters could reasonably be mentioned in court proceedings, and the complaint has been made late.

Sheffield City Council (25 002 344)

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about the contents or preparation of reports to the courts. This is because the law prevents us from investigating matters that have been considered in court. Other matters have either not caused Mr X a significant enough injustice or are better considered by the Information Commissioner.

London Borough of Bromley (24 019 102)

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed accepting her son, Mr G's, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan when it was transferred from another Council's area in July 2022 and failed to provide any educational provision in the Plan. The Council was at fault. It also failed to provide Ms X and Mr G with relevant appeal rights in relation to Mr G's EHC Plan. The Council will apologise to Mr G and Ms X for the avoidable frustration they were caused, pay Mr G £7,200 for the two years of specialist provision he missed, and take action to improve its service.

London Borough of Merton (24 022 949)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms M's complaint about the education her son B missed because much of it is too old and there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigation of more recent events. We cannot investigate Ms M's complaint once she appealed to the SEND Tribunal.

Oxfordshire County Council (25 000 156)

Summary: We have upheld part of this complaint about delay in issuing Miss X's child's Education Health and Care Plan. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Miss X and her child. We will not investigate part of her complaint about the content of the plan or locating a school for her child, because Miss X has a right of appeal about this and it would be reasonable to expect her to use it.

Leicestershire County Council (25 000 462)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint that the Council named an unsuitable college in Miss Y's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan or that it failed to deliver the content of the EHC Plan to Miss Y. This is because Mrs X had a right to appeal the content of the EHC Plan to the SEND Tribunal.

Hampshire County Council (25 001 666)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about matters concerning her children's education. This is because the law prevents us from investigating what happens in schools and because her complaint about the actions of the Council is made late.

London Borough of Islington (24 016 440)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to properly consider the evidence and her son's needs when it decided he met the Universal Plus short breaks criteria. We do not find fault with the Council's decision making.

Lincolnshire County Council (25 000 173)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's decision not to allocate a specific social worker or the Council's decision to maintain a child protection plan. We cannot achieve the outcome Ms X wants for part of the complaint, and there is insufficient evidence of fault in the reminder to warrant investigation.

Sheffield City Council (25 000 406)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions following child protection concerns that Mr X shared with it. This is because we are satisfied with the actions the Council took and unlikely to find fault.

London Borough of Wandsworth (25 001 879)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council failed to provide adequate support for children in his care. This is because his complaint is made late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion and consider it now.

London Borough of Lewisham (25 006 314)

Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed considering a complaint at stage two of 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.

Derbyshire County Council (24 012 396)

Summary: The Council was at fault because it delayed issuing an education, health and care (EHC) plan for the complainant's son, causing distress. The Council has agreed to offer a financial remedy for this. However, there is no objective evidence to show the Council misled the complainant that it could convert a foreign special educational need (SEN) document into an EHC plan; and nor was the Council at fault for a delay in finding a school placement.

Hertfordshire County Council (24 013 889)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to consider statutory guidance when it decided to charge for his son, Y's post-16 transport support. We found fault by the Council because it did not consider the statutory guidance when deciding to charge for Y's post-16 transport support. The Council agreed to apologise, refund Mr X the cost of his contributions towards Y's transport support and make him a symbolic payment for the avoidable time and trouble caused to him.

London Borough of Bromley (24 014 728)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed carrying out a review of her son's Education, Health and Care Plan. The review should have been completed by 24 November 2024 but the final plan was not issued until July 2025, after Miss X complained to the Ombudsman. This delay is fault and has caused Miss X and her son distress and frustrated her appeal rights. A symbolic payment to recognise this is agreed.

Somerset Council (24 020 977)

Summary: Mrs X complained her child's school removed the one-to-one support for her child detailed in their Education, Health and Care Plan and the Council failed to restore this. We found fault with the Council failing to provide Mrs X's child one-to-one support from September 2024 until April 2025. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X, pay her £500 for her child's lost provision, £100 for the inconvenience and frustration its delays caused and confirm it will rebate her the cost of paying a deposit to her child's new school on receipt of evidence of this cost.

Surrey County Council (24 022 266)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about delay in the annual review of her child's Education Health and Care Plan. This is because the Council has already offered a remedy for this part of her complaint. Nor will we investigate her complaint the final plan is out of date, because Miss X had a right of appeal about this and it would be reasonable to expect her to have used this.

West Northamptonshire Council (25 001 676)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs X's complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to pay her £100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more.

Knightlow C Of E Primary School (25 005 796)

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

Cheshire East Council (24 016 531)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council's children's services department did not effectively communicate with her when her child was placed into voluntary care arranged by the Council. We found fault because the Council failed to consider her complaint under the children's statutory complaints procedure. This caused Miss X avoidable distress and frustration. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to consider Miss X's concerns through the statutory procedure and apologise for failing to do this originally. It has also agreed to make a payment to her and issue guidance to staff.

London Borough of Bexley (24 016 952)

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to appropriately manage her child's care since accommodating her child under a Section 20 agreement. We found fault with the Council failing to progress to stage 3 of the children's statutory complaint procedure and for delays in producing the stage 2 response. The Council agreed to consider Ms X's complaint under stage 3 of the children's statutory complaint procedure. The Council also agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her £150 as a symbolic gesture for the avoidable frustration and inconvenience its handling of this matter caused. The Council also agreed to review how it handles complaints under the children's statutory complaints procedure and provide training to staff.

London Borough of Tower Hamlets (25 000 621)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a safeguarding referral. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (25 000 960)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about contact arrangements. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing a significant injustice. The Information Commissioner is better placed to deal with concerns about data protection matters.

Bedford Borough Council (25 001 101)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the actions of the Council relating to an incident that led to a substantiated safeguarding concern. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation. Another body is better placed than us to consider an alleged data breach. We cannot investigate the actions of a representative of a school.

Bedford Borough Council (25 001 130)

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (24 015 561)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to meet statutory requirements when amending her child's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. We have found the Council at fault for delays in completing Z's annual review and issuing their amended final EHC Plan. We have found the Council at fault for failing to respond to mediation requests in line with the SEN Code of Practice, for its inconsistent responses to Mrs X's request for a personal budget, and for its communication and complaint handling. These faults caused Mrs X and Z avoidable frustration, uncertainty and distress. The Council has agreed to provide a written apology to Mrs X and Z and pay a financial remedy to recognise the injustice caused. The Council has agreed to share a copy of the Ombudsman's focus report about personal budgets with relevant officers. The Council has also agreed to consider the findings of this investigation and provide a report to the Ombudsman, setting out the steps it will take to improve its services. There are parts of Mrs X's complaint we have not investigated. We explain why in our decision statement.

London Borough of Enfield (25 000 897)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint that the Council failed to transfer her child's Education, Health and Care Plan to another Authority. This is because the Council apologised and an investigation is unlikely to achieve any additional outcome, and because we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants.

Essex County Council (25 001 859)

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 (25 001 876)

Essex County Council (25 002 331)

Essex County Council (25 007 098)

Lancashire County Council (24 008 671)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more.

North Northamptonshire Council (24 009 788)

Summary: Mr X complained that the Council delayed in issuing a final Education, Health and Care Plan for his son, and failed to provide suitable alternative education while he had no school place. We find there has been fault causing a loss of suitable education for the son and avoidable distress and frustration for the family. The Council has agreed a symbolic payment for this injustice. We are therefore closing the complaint.

Derbyshire County Council (24 010 754)

Summary: it is too late to investigate Ms P's complaint the Council took too long to issue her son B's education, health and care (EHC) plan. B has not received all the speech and language therapy in section F of his plan. We have recommended a symbolic remedy.

Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (24 010 490)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about how the Council considered an incident that occurred when she was working as a teacher. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Reading Borough Council (24 019 790)

Summary: Ms M complained about matters related to a paediatric assessment of her child. Her Council complaint is part of, or connected to, a Tribunal appeal. The rest of her complaint is about NHS organisations. The law prevents us from investigating all these matters.


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, August 28, 2025

New children and education complaint decisions

A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions

No comments:

Post a Comment