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. Derby City Council (24 014 779) Summary: The Council was at fault for delay in assessing Mrs X's child, W, for an Education, Health and Care Plan. This meant W missed out on provision they should have had at a key time in their education. To remedy W's injustice, the Council will make a symbolic payment to Mrs X. It has already agreed to take suitable action to prevent similar fault in future. Somerset Council (24 018 744) Summary: Mrs X complained of the Council's handling of her child, Y's, Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan. Based on current evidence, the Council was at fault for failing to ensure Y's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan was reviewed within statutory timescales. The Council was also at fault for a one-month delay in implementing Y's funding for his Education Other Than at School (EOTAS) package. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the distress, frustration and uncertainty this caused Mrs X. The Council was not at fault for putting the money into a managed account for Mrs X. Thurrock Council (24 020 739) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide an appropriate placement and specialist provision for his children Y and Z. The Council was at fault. It failed to secure the provision for Y and Z set out in their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plans and did not uphold Mr X's complaint despite this. The Council has agreed to apologise and make payments to Mr X to acknowledge the frustration and lack of provision. It has also agreed to produce an action plan to address the shortage of special school provision in its area. Surrey County Council (25 000 224) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the annual review of an Education, Health and Care Plan, or the content of the Plan, including how the Council communicated about this matter. This is because the Council has upheld Mrs X's complaint, apologised and offered a suitable remedy for Mrs X's injustice. Therefore, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome and there are no wider public interest issues to justify our investigation. London Borough of Sutton (25 003 211) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about how the Council carried out a review of her child's Education Health and Care Plan. This is because it is reasonable for Miss X to use her right of appeal against the contents of the plan. Investigation into other matters would not lead to a different outcome. Leeds City Council (25 003 473) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about delays in producing an Education Health and Care Plan as the Council has agreed to a proportionate way to resolve the complaint. London Borough of Barnet (25 003 738) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about how the Council dealt with matters concerning her child's Education Health and Care Plan. This is because an investigation by the Ombudsman would not add to the one carried out by the Council. Norfolk County Council (25 003 747) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint that the Council has failed in its duty to make alternative educational provision for her child. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Dorset Council (25 006 751) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint that the Council delayed responding to her following an annual review of her child's Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise for the delay and make a remedy payment to Miss X. London Borough of Haringey (25 002 948) Summary: We will not investigate Ms M's complaint about a child protection plan because there is no evidence of fault which would justify an investigation. West Sussex County Council (25 004 450) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about financial support for a Special Guardian. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons to decide to investigate now. Nor will we investigate the Council's refusal to consider a complaint about this matter, because it is unlikely we would find fault in its decision to refuse. North Yorkshire Council (24 005 587) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's failure to secure the provision in her child, Y's, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. Mrs X appealed to the SEND Tribunal and then a court considered the matter at Judicial Review. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (24 007 121) Summary: The Council failed to secure the special educational needs provision in Mrs X's child, Y's, Education, Health and Care Plan following a Tribunal order in March 2024. It also failed to respond to Mrs X's complaint. This caused Mrs X distress, frustration and uncertainty and meant Y missed out on the provision in their Plan. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X. London Borough of Enfield (24 015 106) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide some Speech and Language Therapy set out in her child's Education, Health and Care plan. We found the Council at fault, which caused Ms X injustice. The Council should make a payment and apologise to Ms X. Kent County Council (24 017 258) Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council delayed in completing the Annual Review of her daughter, C's Education Health and Care Plan and failed to continue funding extra maths tuition or consider funding other support. We have found fault in the actions of the Council which has caused Mrs B and C significant distress, inconvenience and financial hardship. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B and C, make an additional payment to them and confirm the arrangements for the reassessment. Surrey County Council (24 018 213) Summary: Miss C complained the Council named an inappropriate school in her son's, who I will refer to as D, Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) and failed to deliver section F provision in the Plan to him. She also complained the Council's communication with her was poor. There was fault by the Council. It did not ensure D received section F provision in his EHC Plan. It also did not arrange alternative provision for D when it was aware he was not receiving regular full-time education or later when he was permanently excluded. The Council's communication with Miss C was also poor. Because of the fault, Miss C suffered distress, and D suffered a loss of education and provision. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss C and D, and make symbolic payments. Cambridgeshire County Council (24 018 658) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's delay and failure to provide full time education for her son. There was fault, as the Council delayed sending final Education, Health and Care Plans after annual review meetings. And, it did not provide full time alternative provision or Occupational Therapy until the Education, Health and Care Plan was completed. An apology, payment and finalising the Education, Health and Care Plan remedies the injustice to the family. Hertfordshire County Council (24 019 573) Summary: Mr X complained that the Council and his college failed to provide special educational provision in his Education, Health and Care Plan, had poor communication and complaint handling, did not allow him to enrol on courses he wanted and mis-recorded his personal information. We find no fault in the way the Council secured his special educational provision and handled his complaints. We have discontinued the investigation into his complaints about his college. Further investigation into the issues regarding special educational needs would not lead to a different outcome, and we cannot investigate the matters that are not about special educational needs. London Borough of Bromley (24 021 390) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint the Council transferred her son's education, health and care (EHC) plan to the Council where she was housed in temporary accommodation because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. London Borough of Hillingdon (24 022 261) Summary: The Council failed to arrange the provision in Mr X's son, Z's, Education Health and Care Plan for a period of just under six weeks. To recognise the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise to Z, pay Z £200 and outline to Mr X what the Council's current plan is to find post-16 education for Z that is in line with the requirements of his Plan. East Sussex County Council (25 002 988) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the level of alternative provision the Council arranged for Mrs X's son. She has used her right of appeal for her son's Education, Health and Care Plan. The issues around alternative provision are not separable from this appeal. Buckinghamshire Council (25 003 071) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Council assessing Mrs X's child's special educational needs. This is because the Council agreed a suitable remedy for the distress and extra costs Mrs X incurred. Bath and North East Somerset Council (25 003 590) Summary: We could not add to the findings of an independent investigator who was extremely critical of the Council's dealings with Mr F and his children. Mr F is concerned about the children's education now their mother has removed them from school. We cannot investigate this complaint because the Council has not had an opportunity to respond. Derbyshire County Council (25 005 517) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed providing Alternative Provision of education for her child. Mrs X also complained the Council delayed production of her child's Education, Health and Care Plan. We found fault with the Council failing to provide suitable education for Mrs X's child from 30 November 2023 to 26 February 2024. We also found fault with the Council delaying production of Mrs X's child's Education, Health and Care Plan by 10 weeks outside the statutory timescales. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £150 for the frustration, inconvenience and lost opportunity and £1,100 for her child's missed education caused by the fault of the Council. Wakefield City Council (25 005 932) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision not to provide free home to school transport for his son. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. North Yorkshire Council (25 006 114) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about fault in the Council's implementation of its home to school transport policy. This is because the matter complained about has not caused Ms X any significant personal injustice which is serious enough to warrant an investigation. Suffolk County Council (24 016 183) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about a lack of support from the Council's children's services after he left the family home in 2020. This is because the complaint is made late and I see no good reason to exercise discretion and consider it now. Milton Keynes Council (24 020 123) Summary: We have upheld Miss X's complaint because the Council delayed responding to her complaint and considered the complaint under the incorrect procedure. The Council has agreed to provide a proportionate remedy to Miss X. Cheshire East Council (25 004 606) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint regarding Mr X being denied information from the Council about his foster career ending as the Information Commissioners Office is better placed to consider this matter. Mr X's complaint about the Council's involvement in his foster career ending and its refusal to re-register him as a foster carer is made late. Plymouth City Council (25 005 348) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not facilitating contact between Mrs X and her child. This is because further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome than that provided by the Council. South Gloucestershire Council (25 006 218) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of a Child in Need plan and its complaints process. The Council has already investigated under the children's statutory complaint procedures, and further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome. Surrey County Council (24 015 675) Summary: Ms J complains about delays in the Council's Education, Health and Care needs assessment for her son. And that, after an appeal, the Council refused to refund fees they paid for her son's education. We do not find fault as the Council carried out its assessment within statutory timeframes. The question of fees is outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction, as Ms J has used her appeal right. North Yorkshire Council (24 017 810) Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to consider implementing alternative educational provision when it became aware that Mrs X's child, Y was not attending school in February 2024. The Council was also at fault for failing to ensure the review of Y's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan was held within statutory timescales. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the distress, frustration and uncertainty this caused. Surrey County Council (24 018 170) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to issue a final Education, Health and Care Plan following an annual review in February 2024 and delayed issuing a final EHC Plan after an emergency review in August 2024. The Council did not issue a final EHC Plan until March 2025. The delay frustrated Ms X's right of appeal and caused distress to the whole family. The Council has accepted fault and agreed to pay a suitable financial remedy. Cambridgeshire County Council (24 018 250) Summary: We found fault by the Council on Miss Y's complaint about it failing to ensure her daughter received provision set out in her Education, Health and Care plan when on a reduced timetable. It failed to consider whether it needed to provide suitable alternative education and did not meet the statutory timescales following her annual review. The Council agreed to send Miss Y an apology, pay £3,000 for the distress caused, remind officers about the triggering of the section 19 duty for children out of school with a plan, and ensure processes are in place to monitor and review children with plans on part-time timetables. It will review why delays happened, produce an action plan showing how it will meet statutory timescales, and remind officers of the need to communicate with parents whose children are in similar situations. Kent County Council (24 019 201) Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council delayed in completing an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for her daughter, D. She also complained about the complaint-handling and the lack of education for D during this period. We found the Council delayed in completing the process and issuing a final EHC Plan, but we considered that the Council's offer of £450 is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused to Mrs B. Surrey County Council (24 019 820) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's actions regarding the provision of suitable alternative educational provision to child Y. This is because Mrs X appealed the content of Y's Education, Health and Care Plan to the First-tier Tribunal and the law does not allow us to investigate any matter that was connected to the appeal. Suffolk County Council (25 004 591) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint that the Council delayed finding a school for her son in 2016. This is because Ms X's complaint is late, and I see no good reason to exercise discretion and consider it now. St Mary's C of E School (Oxted) (25 008 062) 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. Nottinghamshire County Council (25 012 102) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's decision to refuse a home to school transport application. It is unlikely we would find fault. Derbyshire County Council (25 002 027) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council refused to consider a complaint from him, or its decision to place restrictions on his contact. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about information provided to the courts because the law prevents us from investigating what happens in court. London Borough of Bromley (24 019 717) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay and failure in communication on the Council's part. The fault the complainant has identified is not separable from the process of amending his daughter's Education Health and Care plan and, as such, does not fall to be investigated by the Ombudsman. Portsmouth City Council (24 007 732) Summary: The Council was not at fault for its handling of Miss X's request that her son receive alternative educational provision. It followed the correct process in considering the request, so we cannot question its decision. However, the Council was at fault for a delay in deciding Miss X's son's special educational needs support, and then for a further delay in delivering that support. This likely caused him an injustice, and caused Miss X distress in her own right, which the Council will now take steps to address. Suffolk County Council (24 011 165) Summary: Ms X complained that the Council failed to provide Speech and Language provision as outlined in her child's education, health and care (EHC) Plan. The Council is at fault for failing to provide the provision and it failed to meet statutory timeframes in issuing a final EHC Plan following an annual review. This has caused a loss of provision and avoidable distress. The Council has offered a suitable remedy for the loss of provision and it has agreed to remedy the avoidable distress caused by the delay in finalising the EHC Plan. The Council has also agreed to make service improvements. Birmingham City Council (24 015 498) Summary: The Council was at fault for delay referring Ms X's child for tuition after they were excluded from school, delay assessing the effectiveness of its home tuition trial, and delay exploring other options to engage the child in education. The Council also responded to Ms X's complaint late. These faults caused Ms X uncertainty and frustration. The Council will make a payment to Ms X. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (24 017 790) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide education for her child who has been absent from school since January 2024. We found fault with the Council failing to ensure Y had access to suitable education for time periods totalling two terms and one week from 21 February 2024 to 21 March 2025. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £3,325 for Y's missed education. The Council also agreed to remind staff about the importance of acting in line with government guidance over timescales for considering its Section 19 duty. And, the Council agreed to provide training to staff about how it should consider and carry out its Section 19 duty. Derbyshire County Council (24 017 854) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council wrongly refused to award transport for her son Mr Y who is over 19 and has an Education Health and Care Plan. She also said the Council had failed to carry out transport appeal properly, communicate with her and respond to her complaint. We found fault in the way the Council made its decision about transport for Mr Y and in the way it handled Mrs X's appeal. This fault caused injustice to Mrs X as she was distressed and could not be satisfied her appeal was properly considered. The Council has agreed to apologise, re-take a decision on Mrs X's new transport application and make a distress payment. Lancashire County Council (24 021 786) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to complete the annual review of his child's Education, Health and Care Plan and failed to suitably communicate with him. We found fault with the Council failing to complete the annual review process of Mr X's child's EHC Plan for 28 months outside the statutory timescales. We also found fault with the Council's handling of Mr X's complaint. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X, pay him £500 for the avoidable inconvenience and frustration he experienced and £1,750 for his child's uncertainty and potential lost opportunity caused by the Council's fault. Staffordshire County Council (25 006 355) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's actions in its child protection involvement with her family. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council's decision not to investigate her complaint whilst there are ongoing related court proceedings. Bristol City Council (24 015 611) Summary: Ms X complained that the Council did not put in place all the special educational provision in her child's Education, Health and Care Plan. We have found the Council was at fault for delaying putting in place the special educational provision. This meant Ms X's child has not received the support they should have. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise, make a payment to Ms X and carry out a service improvement. Devon County Council (24 015 638) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to ensure her child, Y, receives suitable education when they were unable to attend school for health reasons. I have found fault by the Council that caused Y to miss out on education and placed strain on the rest of the family who had to provide additional care during school hours. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and implement service improvements. Birmingham City Council (24 015 729) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to secure provision set out in Y and Z's Education, Health and Care Plans, failed to secure Educational Psychology input, failed to complete a review within statutory timeframes, and failed to secure alternative provision while Y was out of school. We find the Council at fault for failing to secure all named provision and for delays in completing a review of Z's plan, causing uncertainty and distress. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to reflect the injustice caused. Leicestershire County Council (24 017 090) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly assess her child's transport needs, did not communicate effectively and caused delays in arranging suitable transport. We find the Council at fault for failing to reflect key information from the application in its risk assessment, and for failing to keep Mrs X updated. As a result, unsuitable transport was arranged, and Mrs X incurred avoidable costs to ensure her child could attend education. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X. Essex County Council (24 017 945) Summary: Miss X complained about delays in the EHC needs assessment process for her child, Y. She also said the Council failed to provide Y with a suitable education when they were unable to attend school. We found delays in the Education, Health and Care needs assessment process, this was fault causing Miss X frustration and uncertainty. We did not find fault in the Council's provision of suitable alternative education. The Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice. Surrey County Council (24 018 432) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide alternative provision for her child, Y when they stopped attending school due to anxiety. The Council was at fault, it failed to consider whether it owed Y a Section 19 duty and failed to maintain an oversight over their education while Y was not attending school. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and make a payment to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty caused. Cornwall Council (25 002 613) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's consideration of Miss X's direct payment request. The Council upheld her complaint and provided a suitable remedy. We cannot achieve the additional remedies Miss X is seeking. Therefore, it is unlikely our investigation would lead to a different outcome. Leicester City Council (25 002 871) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council not providing a bus pass for her child. This is because the Council has agreed to consider an application from Miss X and it is unlikely investigation would achieve significantly more for her. Coventry City Council (25 004 541) Summary: We will not investigate Dr Y's complaint about the Council's decision not to assess their child for an Education, Health and Care Plan. This Is because it is reasonable for Dr Y to use their right of appeal to a tribunal. Lancashire County Council (25 004 609) Summary: We have upheld Miss X's complaint because the Council delayed issuing a final Education Health and Care Plan for her child. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by offering to make a suitable payment to Miss X to remedy the injustice this caused. We will not investigate the school named by the Council because it is reasonable for Miss X to use her right of appeal to a tribunal. Hampshire County Council (25 003 606) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint the Council stopped using him as a driver. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Cheshire West & Chester Council (25 005 960) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about two children and family reports the Council has completed. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council's decision not to consider his complaint via its complaints procedure whilst there are ongoing court proceedings. 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 ·5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT