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. Staffordshire County Council (24 016 761) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed beginning her child's Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment and issuing their Education, Health and Care Plan. She said it also delayed in responding to her complaint. We found the Council was at fault for some of the delays. The Council agreed to 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 unmet needs. Derbyshire County Council (24 018 679) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed agreeing to, then completing, an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan, and this prevented her son, B, from accessing support. We have found that the Council is at fault for the delays. It has agreed to pay £500 in recognition of the avoidable uncertainty and inconvenience caused to Mrs X and B. Surrey County Council (24 020 495) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint about the named school in her child's Education, Health and Care Plan, the Council's decision-making, or the Council's poor communication. Mrs X appealed to the SEND Tribunal, and the law says we cannot investigate. Cornwall Council (24 021 118) Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council dealt with an appeal against new school transport arrangements. We have completed our investigation. Essex County Council (24 022 634) Summary: The Council was at fault for not issuing an updated Education, Health and Care Plan following an annual review. This meant Ms X's child did not receive the most up to date support. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and make a payment to her. Dorset Council (25 003 593) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council concerning Mr X's special educational needs. Matters between 2018 and 2024 are historic and we could not carry out a robust investigation. Mr X would also have had a right of appeal against a council decision to cease his Education Health and Care Plan in 2024 it would have been reasonable to use if he was still living in its area at that time. Surrey County Council (25 003 732) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the lack of education provision for her child. This is because part of the complaint is late and the Council offered a suitable remedy for injustice caused to Y. We would not achieve more for Mrs X if we investigated the complaint. Somerset Council (25 003 763) Summary: We have upheld Mrs X's complaint because the Council delayed carrying out an Education Health and Care needs assessment for her child. We cannot investigate the contents of the Education Health and Care Plan because Mrs X has used her right of appeal to a tribunal. West Sussex County Council (25 003 971) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of an Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because parts of the complaint are late, we cannot investigate matters that went to tribunal, and there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation. London Borough of Hounslow (25 004 065) Summary: We will not investigate the complaints about the content of an Education, Health and Care Plan, the process the Council used to create it, or delays in the assessment. This is because Mrs X has used her right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (SEND) about these matters and the remaining complaints are late. Surrey County Council (25 004 126) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in the process of assessing the complainant's daughter's needs and in producing her Education Health and Care plan. The matters about which she complains could have been the subject of an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability, or are not separable from those matters. Hampshire County Council (25 004 330) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint that the Council failed to provide suitable educational provision for her child. Some of the complaint is late, and Ms X has a right of appeal to Tribunal that it is reasonable for her to use. St. Bedes Catholic Junior School (25 007 865) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for her daughter. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel for us to be able to question its decision. North Northamptonshire Council (25 008 723) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to refuse Mrs X's application for free home-to-school transport for her child. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Lancashire County Council (25 009 295) 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. Luton Borough Council (24 017 647) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about how the Council has dealt with safeguarding concerns raised about his children. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, the Information Commissioner is better placed to deal with Mr X's concerns about a data breach, and the courts are better placed to make decisions about who his children live with. Liverpool City Council (25 003 638) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about issues around her children being accommodated for a week with extended family. We are unlikely to find Council fault has directly caused significant injustice. We cannot investigate events considered and decisions made within Court proceedings. London Borough of Bromley (25 004 109) Summary: We will not investigate Ms M's complaint about a child and family (CAF) assessment because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Norfolk County Council (25 006 338) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the actions of the Council's children's services. Some elements are late and have formed part of court proceedings, some are about matters that the Courts are better placed to consider, and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by investigating others. Medway Council (25 006 708) Summary: We will not investigate Mr Y's complaint about the Council's actions in its child protection involvement with his family. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council's decision not to investigate his complaint whilst the case is subject to ongoing court proceedings. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (25 007 034) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's actions in its child protection involvement with his child. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council's decision not to consider his complaint further whilst there are ongoing court proceedings. Wokingham Borough Council (23 020 553) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to ensure her child, Y, had sufficient full-time education, put in place the provision outlined in Section F and failed to name a suitable placement. Mrs X also says the Council failed to carry out an annual review, act on or respond to her request for a personal budget and carry out agreed actions or respond to communications. Mrs X says this has caused her and her family distress and that Y has missed educational provision. We have found fault in the Councils actions for failing to complete the annual review process, ensure provision was in place in line with Y's EHC plan and delay in dealing with a request for a personal budget. The Council has agreed to issue Mrs X with an apology and pay her a financial payment. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (24 015 738) Summary: Ms X complained that the Council failed to provide suitable education to her daughter after she was permanently excluded from school. We have found no fault with the Council. It met its statutory duties to Ms X's daughter by offering what it considered to be suitable education and considering Ms X's objections before making its decision. As there was no fault in how the Council decided the education was suitable for Y, we have no power to question its judgment. Cambridgeshire County Council (24 020 096) Summary: The Council was at fault as it delayed reassessing Mrs X's child Y's special educational needs following an annual review in 2024 and failed to ensure Y received suitable education provision. It has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X to acknowledge the distress and frustration and lack of suitable provision for Y caused by these faults. It has also agreed to provide us with an update of its action plan to address delays in its special education needs service. St Bernard's RC Grammar School, Slough (25 006 784) 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 question its decision. Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (25 007 879) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint that the Council failed to arrange suitable education for her son. This is because part of the complaint is late, the Council has already offered a suitable remedy and Mrs X had a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal which it would have been reasonable for her to use. St. Vincents RC Primary School (25 008 296) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about an unsuccessful school admission appeal. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault for us to be able to question the panel's decision. North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (25 000 255) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council conducted a parenting assessment. This is because the Council have amended the parenting assessment and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Somerset Council (25 004 198) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's child protection actions. This is because the Council has started family court proceedings, and we have no jurisdiction to investigate these matters. London Borough of Wandsworth (25 007 113) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint that the Council's children's services failed to advocate for her child to remain on roll at school. This is because the actions of the Council's children's services did not cause the injustice that Mrs X describes. Manchester City Council (24 010 659) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed in completing an annual review of her child, B's, Education, Health and Care Plan. We find the Council at fault for a delay in completing the annual review and poor communication about the personal budget. This caused B to miss education. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and complete service improvements to remedy the injustice caused. Kent County Council (24 016 224) Summary: Ms X complained the Council has not provided Miss Y with a suitable education since 2023. She says this impacted her Miss Y's education and caused her avoidable distress. We find the Council at fault which caused Ms X and Miss Y injustice. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Ms X and Miss Y. Derby City Council (24 018 039) Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed completing an annual review and personal budget request for her son. The Council admitted it caused delay. It apologised and has improved the service. I have also suggested a financial remedy for distress caused. Essex County Council (25 001 461) Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide the occupational therapy support included in her child, Y's, Education, Health and Care Plan, and its communication with her about this was poor. We cannot investigate the Council's failure to provide support for Y, because Miss X has appealed the contents of Y's Education, Health and Care Plan to a tribunal and we cannot investigate any matter connected to a decision that has been appealed to a tribunal. We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's poor communication because it is not proportionate to investigate this issue in isolation. Kent County Council (25 003 444) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of an Education, Health, and Care Plan. This is because the Council have already acknowledged fault for earlier delays, apologised, offered a suitable financial remedy, and further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome. The remaining matters either come with an appeal right or have already been appealed and are therefore outside our jurisdiction. North Yorkshire Council (25 003 719) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's conduct during the SEND Tribunal's process. This is because the law says we cannot investigate matters which the SEND Tribunal can address using its own powers. Essex County Council (25 003 912) 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 (25 004 449) 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. London Borough of Sutton (25 005 550) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's decision not to carry out an Education Health and Care needs assessment. This is because she has used her right of appeal to a tribunal. Other matters have not caused a significant enough injustice to warrant investigation. Broughton Hall High School, Liverpool (25 007 708) 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. Portsmouth City Council (24 020 376) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's actions and decisions in its child protection involvement with her family. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is about matters that have been considered and decided in court proceedings. The law says we cannot consider complaints about such matters. Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 003 172) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about her being unpaid for delivering respite care to a disabled child. It is unlikely we would find the Council had any duty to pay Mrs X. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (25 003 919) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the restriction of Mr X's contact with his child by the Council. Mr X has a right to go to court to seek changed contact arrangements it would be reasonable to use. Staffordshire County Council (25 005 833) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's actions while his children were in foster care. This is because decisions about the children's future are for the court, and it would be disproportionate to look at the remaining issues separately. Coventry City Council (25 007 223) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint about her children wrongly being removed from her care because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been subject to court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so. Cornwall Council (25 009 656) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about children services' actions. We have upheld Mrs X's complaint as the Council has now agreed to follow the Children Act statutory complaints' procedure and has agreed a proportionate way to resolve the complaint. Staffordshire County Council (25 010 090) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about children services' actions. We have upheld Mr X's complaint as the Council has now agreed to follow the Children Act statutory complaints' procedure and has agreed a proportionate way to resolve the complaint. Dorset Council (25 002 268) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to provide a financial allowance to the complainant for the care of a child. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons for us to investigate it now. London Borough of Enfield (25 003 184) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's response to the complainant's concerns about her son's care. This is because the complaint relates to matters which have been considered and decided in court. Surrey County Council (24 017 894) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's handling of her daughter's Education, Health and Care Plan following a Tribunal in 2023 and annual review in 2024. She also complained about delays in securing provision from the Plan and direct payments. We found the Council was at fault for delays in finalising the Plans, direct payments and securing some of the provision. This caused Mrs X and her daughter distress and meant she missed out on some of the provision. The Council offered to pay Mrs X a remedy as well as pay a remedy to her daughter for the provision she missed. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (25 001 337) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's action relating to an Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because we cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, the Information Commissioner's Office is placed to consider a complaint about data protection and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Council dealt with Mrs Y's complaints. Kent County Council (25 004 291) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to refuse single-occupancy home-to-school taxi transport for Mrs X's child. Ther is not enough evidence of fault in the way the transport panel reached its decision to warrant our further involvement. Leeds City Council (25 007 679) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to refuse Miss X's application for free home-to-school transport for her son. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Lancashire County Council (24 005 877) Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to complete a sensory profile assessment for her child, Y and failed to complete a carers assessment for her. Miss X also complains the Council failed to provide the support in her child's Education, Health and Care Plan, failed to complete reviews and failed to act when it was made aware the school could not meet her child's needs. Miss X says the Council failed to support in ensuring her child's medications were administered and did not give advice about food banks. Miss X says this caused her distress and her child's needs have not been properly assessed. We have not found fault in the actions of the Council. Dorset Council (24 017 291) Summary: Miss Y complains about the Council's failure to ensure her disabled child, B, received the care and support they needed when living at home. She also complained about the Council's failure to commission the agreed respite she needed due to carer exhaustion. We find the Council failed to properly deal with Miss Y's statutory children's complaint. We have investigated and found fault causing injustice in some parts of Miss Y's complaint which the Council has agreed to apologise for and make a payment of £1000. Manchester City Council (25 003 714) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about a child protection conference decision. It is a multiagency organisation which we will not investigate, and he has already had a review conference and another is arranged. Our investigation is unlikely to achieve more. Birmingham City Council (25 006 994) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's actions in its child protection involvement with his family. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council's decision not to consider his complaint whilst there are ongoing court proceedings. Also, we cannot consider any matters that are, or have been, subject to court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so. Kent County Council (24 008 268) Summary: Miss X complained about the Council's continued failure to ensure her child Y, received therapy provision in line with their Education, Health and Care Plan. She also complained about personal budget decisions and a failure to provide Y with Free School Meals (FSM). The Council was at fault as Y missed out on therapy provision for four terms between May 2024 and July 2025. There was also fault around its FSM and personal budget decision making and it has delayed carrying out the 2025 annual review. The Council agreed to apologise, make payments and review its decision making to remedy the injustice caused to Miss X and commission the therapy provision without further delay. Devon County Council (24 022 865) Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council has failed to provide an appropriate level of service and failed to abide by statutory timescales in respect of her daughter's special educational needs. We will not investigate Mrs X's late complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan needs assessment. Nor will we investigate Mrs X's complaint about the content of her child's Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because Mrs X appealed to the Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) Tribunal.  Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (25 003 279) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This is because Mrs X has used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and it was reasonable for her to do so. Kent County Council (25 003 559) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint about how the Council dealt with her concerns of bullying at her child's school. This is because the law prevents us from investigating what happens in schools and about how councils investigate these matters. South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (25 003 626) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to discontinue taxi travel to school for Mrs X's child. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision to warrant investigation. Brighton & Hove City Council (25 003 743) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about changes to the Council's Early Years Provider Agreement which he says threaten the viability of his business. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Hertfordshire County Council (25 004 064) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with Mrs X's contacts about her child's special educational needs. The matters she complains of are not separable from decisions made about the child's special educational needs in respect of which she has exercised her right to appeal to a Tribunal. It is not a good use of resources to investigate the Council's complaint handling when the substantive matter is not something we can investigate. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (25 004 175) Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X's complaint about the advice sought by the Council during her child's Education Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment. Ms X has appealed to the SEND Tribunal about the content of the EHC Plan, so we have no power to do so. Kent County Council (23 015 374) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to consider and respond to her request for a personal budget for tuition outlined in her child, Y's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council was at fault. It accepted it failed to respond to her personal budget request or offer her a right of review. The Council was also at fault for significant complaint handling delays. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X to acknowledge the injustice this caused. London Borough of Havering (24 020 699) Summary: Ms X complained about the Council's children's social care service. We have discontinued our investigation, because there is no worthwhile outcome we can achieve until Ms X receives the Council's final response to her complaint. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (25 004 178) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to carry out an assessment after receiving a safeguarding referral involving Mrs X. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council's actions. City of Doncaster Council (25 006 174) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about a social worker not contacting her for over a year about her son who is in the Council's care. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. Manchester City Council (25 008 333) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's involvement with the care and contact arrangements of his children. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault with the Council's decision. Council of the Isles of Scilly (25 002 522) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to properly consider its statutory duties and failed to provide sufficient funding for transport to sixth form aged education for her child Y between 2023 and 2025. The Council made its decision on its post 16 home to school transport policy and funding for families without fault. Nottinghamshire County Council (25 005 169) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about a school placement. This is because there was a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal and it was reasonable for Miss X to appeal. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (24 021 273) Summary: Mrs P complained about problems with the Council in issuing and amending her young son's (Child X) Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan), as well as its alleged failure to provide him speech and language therapy. Based on the available evidence, we found the Council delayed issuing an amended EHC Plan and failed to meet with Mrs P to discuss its proposed amendments. We also found the Council failed to secure the therapy provision identified in Child X's EHC Plans. This caused an injustice to Child X, as well as Mrs P who paid for privately arranged therapy herself. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy this. 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