A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions

Please note: our decisions are published six weeks after they are issued to councils, care providers and the person who has made the complaint. The cases below reflect the caselaw and guidance available at the time of issue and the individual circumstances of each case.

North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 013 096)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to arrange suitable alternative provision for her child, W, when they stopped attending school. The Council was at fault. This caused Mrs X avoidable frustration, upset and uncertainty but we cannot say, even on balance, that it meant W missed out on education they should have had. To remedy Mrs X's injustice, the Council will apologise and pay her £500. It will also issue a staff reminder to prevent the fault happening again.

Essex County Council (24 018 833)

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.

North Yorkshire Council (25 001 684)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about failure to secure suitable education and special educational needs provision as set out in an Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because Mrs X started legal action against the Council about the same issues.

London Borough of Hackney (25 002 431)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of the Education, Health and Care Plan process for the complainant's child. It is unlikely an investigation would add anything to the Council's response or achieve a different outcome.

Central Bedfordshire Council (25 003 512)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about a school named in her child's Education Health and Care Plan. This is because she has appealed the decision to a tribunal.

Kent County Council (25 004 080)

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

Cheshire East Council (24 023 328)

Summary: The Council was at fault in how it responded to Miss X's complaint about the care it provided to her child. This caused Miss X avoidable frustration, for which the Council will apologise and pay her £200. It will also begin a stage two investigation of Miss X's complaint under the children's statutory complaint's procedure.

Essex County Council (25 002 218)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs M's complaint about her unsuccessful application for a Blue Badge for her son, B, because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Kent County Council (25 002 868)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council recorded and shared information. Some of the complaint is late, and there are no good reasons it was not brought to us sooner. And of the other parts that are not late, it is unlikely we would find fault if we were to investigate further.

Bracknell Forest Council (24 002 890)

Summary: The Council took too long to issue an Education, Health and Care Plan for Mrs X's daughter following an annual review in February 2024. She also complained her daughter was not provided with a suitable education during the period she was unable to attend school from November 2023. We found no fault. We found there were faults with the Council's handling of the school phase transfer review, record keeping and failure to consult with Mrs X's preferred school. The Council agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mrs X and S and review progress on improving its practice.

Bracknell Forest Council (24 005 661)

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's handling of her daughter, S's, Education, Health and Care Plan, school attendance and communication with her about it. We found the Council has already taken appropriate action for its poor communication with Mrs X between November 2023 and January 2024. We found no other fault.

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (24 010 034)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint after a school said it could no longer meet his child's needs. This is because the complaint is made late. I will not investigate the Council's decision to name a new school and the provision in place following this decision. This is because it is reasonable for Mr X to have used his right of appeal to a tribunal.

Lancashire County Council (24 012 735)

Summary: Mrs X complained about delay in the annual review process for her daughter's Education Health and Care Plan. We found the Council's delay was fault. The Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to acknowledge the distress caused to Mrs X and her daughter and the additional frustration caused by the delayed right of appeal.

Central Bedfordshire Council (24 014 612)

Summary: Miss Y complained about way the Council dealt with her child, Z's Educational Health Care Plan, special educational needs provision and social care assessments and support. We have found fault by the Council in; failing to respond Miss Y's request for a re-assessment of Z's special educational needs, and complete the annual review, within the statutory timescales; and its communication and record keeping failures, causing injustice. We have not found fault with, or investigated the other parts of Miss Y's complaint. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused by apologising to Miss Y and making a payment to reflect the upset caused.

Lancashire County Council (24 020 023)

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed holding her child, Y's, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan annual review and delayed issuing Y's amended EHC Plan. She also complained about poor communication from the Council about a gym pass for Y. The Council was at fault. It delayed holding Y's annual review and communicated poorly about Y's gym pass which caused Ms X confusion, uncertainty, frustration and distress. The Council will pay Ms X a symbolic payment and apologise. The Council has already acted to improve its service.

Surrey County Council (25 001 946)

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint about the assessment process, an Education Health and Care Plan wording or the Council's compliance with a Tribunal's directions orders. We cannot investigate issues in a Tribunal appeal. We will not investigate a delay in issuing an amended Education Health and Care Plan as we are unlikely to achieve significantly more than the Council has offered as a remedy.

Essex County Council (25 002 015)

Essex County Council (25 002 537)

Kent County Council (25 007 334)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault.

Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (25 009 750)

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms M's complaint about her son Y's education because she has appealed to the SEND Tribunal and the Tribunal will decide what arrangements the Council must make for his education. We cannot investigate a complaint when someone has appealed to the Tribunal about the same matter.

Devon County Council (24 017 842)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council has wrongly asked her to repay money she received for providing care to a former foster child under a staying put arrangement. We found the Council's failure to properly advise Miss X regarding the staying put arrangement, and in particular when the arrangement and the payments associated with this arrangement would end, is fault. As was the Council's failure to identify that payments had continued for 10 months longer than they should have. This fault has led to a significant debt and caused Miss X significant distress and anxiety. The Council will apologise, write off the debt and make a payment to Miss X.

Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 018 472)

Summary: We have ended our investigation into Mr X's complaint about the involvement of the Council's Children's Services with his family and decisions made. An independent investigation has already investigated the Council's actions. The Council has offered Mr X a suitable remedy for the upheld parts of his complaint. It is unlikely that further investigation of the same issues would lead to a different outcome for Mr X.

Surrey County Council (25 001 738)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr F's complaint about a child and family assessment following an allegation his mother harmed his daughter because we cannot achieve the outcome he is looking for. There are other bodies better placed to consider his concerns, and there is not enough evidence of fault or injustice to justify our involvement.

London Borough of Redbridge (25 002 680)

Summary: We have upheld Ms X's complaint because the Council failed to consider her complaint under the statutory children's complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Ms X.

Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (25 003 693)

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Council's investigation into child protection concerns. There is not a good reason for the delay in Miss X bringing the matter to the Ombudsman. We could not achieve a meaningful outcome in any event.

Wakefield City Council (25 005 929)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a social worker sharing information with a family support worker relating to Miss X's contact with her children. The law prevents us from investigating anything that is or has been the subject to the conduct of court proceedings.

London Borough of Barnet (25 006 830)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions during an assessment for Ms X's children, because it is unlikely that we could add anything to the investigation that the Council has already carried out. Additionally, the Information Commissioner's Office would be better placed to consider some of the matters raised.

West Sussex County Council (24 011 060)

Summary: Mr X complained his child Y did not receive educational provision from April 2023. Most of Mr X's complaint is outside our remit because there was a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal against the school placement the Council named on Y's Education, Health and Care Plan of July 2023. School A offered to provide individual tuition at an off-site building in April 2023, which Mr X refused. So we did not uphold the complaint about a lack of education for Y. There was a two-week delay in amending Y's Plan after an emergency annual review meeting. This was fault, but it did not cause significant injustice.

Wakefield City Council (24 012 296)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to ensure her child D received suitable alternative education when out of school and delayed in reviewing their Education, Health, and Care Plan. There was no fault in how the Council considered its duty to provide alternative education. However, it did delay a review of D's Education, Health, and Care Plan which caused Miss X distress. Miss X also complained the Council ended D's Child in Need Plan when she felt the family still needed support. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify the Ombudsman investigating this issue further. However, the Council was at fault because it failed to consider Miss X's complaint about this via the statutory complaints procedure for children's social care services, which caused Miss X avoidable time and trouble. The Council agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy, and issue reminders to its staff.

Bath and North East Somerset Council (24 014 586)

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to complete an Education, Health and Care needs assessment for Y within statutory deadlines and failed to provide alternative provision while she was out of school. We find the Council at fault for delays, causing uncertainty and distress for Mrs X and Y. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the injustice.

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (24 015 473)

Summary: Miss X complained that the Council failed to secure provision listed in Y's Education, Health and Care Plan between September 2023 and November 2024. We do not find the Council at fault.

London Borough of Bromley (24 016 240)

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to secure the provision set out in Mr Y's Education, Health and Care Plan and failed to review the plan within statutory time limits. We find the Council at fault for not securing all the provision and for delays in completing a review of the plan. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the injustice.

London Borough of Lewisham (24 016 684)

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms M's complaint about her son's education because Ms M has appealed to the SEND Tribunal about the same matter.

Worcestershire County Council (25 001 366)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's failure to provide her child with suitable education and special educational needs provision, and failure to complete an annual review. This is because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused by the likely fault.

Southend-on-Sea City Council (25 002 090)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about delays in issuing his child's final Education Health and Care Plan. This is because the Council agreed during our consideration of the complaint, to take action to remedy the injustice caused by delays in the procedure. There are no wider public interest issues to justify investigating this complaint.

Stretford Grammar School (25 006 901)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault.

The Cressex Community School (25 006 985)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr 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.

Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (25 009 751)

Summary: It is too late to investigate Ms M's complaint about the education, health and care (EHC) plan the Council issued for her daughter's transition to secondary school.

Staffordshire County Council (25 000 808)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about delay in the Council's handling of his 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.

North Yorkshire Council (25 001 215)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement with Mr B because he has already begun court action against the Council to remedy the same injustice from the same Council actions, so we have no power to investigate.

Liverpool City Council (25 001 493)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about a social worker. There are other bodies better placed to consider the accuracy or information and the officer's conduct. We are unlikely to achieve more than a manager's consideration of her wish for the appointed officer to be changed.

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (25 004 283)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with child safeguarding matters. This is because it is made late and I see no good reason to exercise discretion and consider it now.

North Yorkshire Council (25 002 578)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council's social worker was at fault in making a safeguarding referral. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council's part to warrant investigation.

Milton Keynes Council (25 002 568)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council named an inappropriate school in the complainant's son's Education Health and Care plan, and failed to update its admissions system. The complaint concerns a matter about which the complainant could have appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and it would have been reasonable for her to do so.

Trafford Council (24 014 993)

Summary: Mr X complained that the Council did not ensure that the day Nursery, which his son attended, provided itemised invoices for additional services over and above the free education entitlement. We do not find fault with the Council's actions. Therefore, we are closing the complaint.

Cornwall Council (24 015 327)

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's actions when his son (Y) was de-registered from his school. He also complained about the Council's failure to arrange alternative provision for Y when his parents withdrew from Elective Home Education and its failure to comply with the statutory timescales for Education Health and Care Plans. We found fault with the Council. This fault caused injustice to Mr X. The Council has agreed to apologise to Y and Mr X and to make symbolic payments to recognise the impact of its failings on Mr X.

Buckinghamshire Council (24 018 338)

Summary: The Council delayed securing the provision in Mr X's child, Y's, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This caused Y to miss out on the special educational needs provision in their EHC Plan and caused Mr X uncertainty and distress. The Council should apologise and make a payment to Mr X to recognise the impact of the missed provision.

Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (24 018 705)

Summary: Miss X complained about the lack of alternative provision provided to her child who has been off school for two years. Miss X said this caused unnecessary distress and impacted her child's education. We found the Council at fault which caused Miss X and her child injustice. The Council has agreed to make a payment and apologise to Miss X.

London Borough of Haringey (25 002 326)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about a Council's decision not to arrange for a speech and language assessment as part of an Education Health and Care Plan for his son. This is because Mr X has the right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and it would be reasonable for him to do so.

Leeds City Council (24 000 225)

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to provide appropriate education to her two adopted children. The Council has already investigated the complaints and upheld them. We endorse the Council's findings of fault which has caused avoidable distress and a loss of education for the children. The Council has accepted our recommendation for an improved personal remedy for the loss of education and avoidable distress. The Council has also agreed to review its alternative education policy. We are therefore closing the complaints.

Essex County Council (24 019 538)

Summary: Ms A complained about the way the Council has carried out a child in need assessment for her child. She says this has prevented her family from accessing the support they need. We found the Council at fault for failing to deal with the complaint appropriately. The Council has agreed to consider the complaint through the statutory complaints procedure.

Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (24 020 312)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about information the Council has produced for court proceedings involving her children. The law prevents us from investigating anything that has or is the subjection of court proceedings.

Lancashire County Council (25 004 571)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint of the Council's bias against him in matters involving his children. The law prevents us from investigating anything that is or has been to court. Other bodies are better placed to consider Mr X's complaints about an individual Social Worker and the accuracy of Council records about him.

Northumberland County Council (25 005 013)

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about false information that led towards his child being removed from his care. The issues raised relate to what happened in court.

Westminster City Council (25 005 203)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint the Council took matters about her grandchild to court under false pretences. The law prevents us from investigating anything that is or has been the subject of court proceedings.

Kent County Council (25 005 236)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about matters involving the care of his children. The law prevents us from investigating anything which is or has been the subject of court proceedings. It would be reasonable for Mr X to raise any concerns he has directly with the court about existing care arrangements for his children.

Suffolk County Council (25 006 490)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the council's involvement with Miss X's family during family court proceedings. The law does not allow us to investigate matters that are subject to court proceedings.

Kingston Upon Hull City Council (24 003 617)

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council and Integrated Care Board did not deliver the provisions of her daughter, Y's Education and Health and Care Plan. This led to frustration and distress for Mrs X. We found fault with both the Council and Integrated Care Board leading to the distress Mrs X has suffered. The Council and Integrated Care Board agreed to take actions to remedy this situation for Mrs X.

Gloucestershire County Council (24 022 535)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council delayed carrying out an Education, Health and Care needs assessment. The Council has accepted there were delays connected with a shortage of educational psychologists. It has now agreed to suitable remedies.

London Borough of Lambeth (25 001 777)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council allocated funding agreed in an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. This complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion.

Hertfordshire County Council (25 001 977)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to provide the provision outlined in an Education Health and Care Plan. This is because the Council has ensured the provision was in place and there is insufficient injustice to warrant our investigation.

Cheshire West & Chester Council (24 011 818)

Summary: The Council failed to ensure Ms X's child could access education and delayed in issuing their Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused Ms X's child to miss out on education including special educational provision. The Council has apologised, made service improvements, refunded private education costs, and offered a symbolic payment. These actions are a suitable remedy for the injustice caused. The Ombudsman cannot add to the outcome already achieved.

Liverpool City Council (24 011 867)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's handling of her application for a school place. It is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would lead to a different outcome.

Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (24 014 799)

Summary: Ms X complained the Council missed deadlines in her sons Education, Health and Care Plan and the communication has been poor. This has caused distress and her son to miss education. The Council has accepted fault and has offered a package of remedies.

Cheshire East Council (24 015 527)

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide her child with education when they did not attend school due to anxiety, from May 2023 to date. We cannot investigate the period after November 2023 when the Council issued an Education, Health and Care Plan which Ms X appealed. The loss of education is too closely linked to the matters subject to appeal. For the period May to November 2023, we have found no fault.

North Yorkshire Council (24 016 098)

Summary: The Council was at fault as it failed to arrange any educational provision for Ms X's child Y, who is a young adult, from September 2024 to January 2025, and it poorly communicated and handled her complaint. The Council apologised and offered to make a payment of £1600 to recognise the injustice caused from the loss of education and its poor communication and complaint handling. It also proposed to carry out service improvements to prevent recurrence of the faults. The Council's proposed actions are an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the faults identified.

London Borough of Wandsworth (24 016 572)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly decided it would not provide support with post-16 school transport costs for his child D, who is disabled and has an Education, Health, and Care Plan. There was fault by the Council which caused avoidable distress and confusion for Mr X and meant it did not properly consider his appeal about this issue. The Council agreed to reconsider Mr X's appeal, apologise, and pay a financial remedy. It will also ensure its published policy accurately describes its appeal process, review its record keeping procedures for appeals, and provide training to staff about the faults we identified.

Essex County Council (25 002 046)

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (25 007 551)

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

North Yorkshire Council (24 017 115)

Summary: The Council delayed issuing an amended Education, Health and Care Plan for Ms X's child, Y. It also failed to secure the Occupational Therapy (OT) provision in the Plan and make direct payments for Y's tuition. This was fault and caused Ms X frustration and distress. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X, pay all outstanding direct payments, review why it has repeatedly failed to make the payments and make a payment to Ms X to recognise the impact of its failings.

Hampshire County Council (24 017 342)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide his child with a suitable education. Due to limitations on our powers, there are elements of Mr X's complaint we cannot investigate. We have found the Council was at fault for the delay in arranging a suitable education and failing to communicate effectively with the family. This caused a loss of education and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy.

Thurrock Council (24 017 838)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to act to secure her child's special educational provision during the 2023/24 academic year. Miss X said her child did not receive the special educational provision they were entitled to, affecting their attainment and wellbeing. This also caused Miss X avoidable distress. We have found the Council at fault for delays in seeking an early review of Z's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and for not taking sufficient action to satisfy itself Z's provision was being secured. We have also found the Council at fault for the lack of specificity in Z's EHC Plan. We find there is uncertainty over what provision Z should have received and what provision he has received, which has caused avoidable distress and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and pay a symbolic financial remedy to recognise this uncertainty. The Council has also agreed to take clear steps to satisfy itself Z's provision is in place and identify whether any additional interventions are needed.

London Borough of Haringey (24 018 131)

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council's handling of her child's Education, Health and Care Plan. She says this impacted her child's education, emotional wellbeing and caused financial strain. We find the Council at fault which caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X.

Devon County Council (24 018 464)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed issuing her child, Y's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan following an EHC needs assessment during 2024. She also complained the Council failed to provide Y with an education after Y was unable to attend school during the needs assessment period. The Council was at fault. It delayed issuing Y's EHC Plan by seven weeks and failed to put alternative provision in place for Y between May and November 2024 when school was not accessible to them. The Council agreed to apologise and make payments to recognise Y's loss of education and the distress caused.

Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (24 022 184)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council unreasonably declined to carry out an assessment of her child's needs under section 17 of the Children Act 1989. She says the Council's actions caused her avoidable distress and have potentially denied her child access to services to which they may be entitled. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and consider her complaint further via the children's statutory complaints process.

Hampshire County Council (25 003 284)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about how the Council and other bodies dealt with matters concerning the care of his child. Mr X's complaint about the actions of the Council is made late and is about what happened in court. We have no powers to investigate the actions of the police or his child's school.

Coventry City Council (25 005 066)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about reports that the Council provided to the courts. The law prevents us from investigating anything that has been subject to court proceedings.

Kent County Council (25 007 730)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about childrens services because we cannot investigate what happened in court and the issues are intrinsically linked to legal proceedings.

London Borough of Hounslow (25 001 420)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council taking too long to secure a passport for Mr X's foster child. There is not enough evidence of fault or injustice to Mr X in the way the Council dealt with his complaint, or the way it responded to the recommendations made by a final stage panel, to warrant investigation by us.

Essex County Council (24 009 890)

Summary: Miss X complained about a lack of services provided to her daughter, Y, from a local provider, Council and Integrated Care Board. We found fault with the Council which caused Miss X and her daughter frustration and a loss of opportunities. The Council agreed to our recommendations to remedy this situation.

Provide Children & Family Services (24 009 890b)


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, September 18, 2025

New children and education complaint decisions

A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions

No comments:

Post a Comment