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. Norfolk County Council (24 013 870) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her son, Y, with suitable education and support during the 2023/24 academic year. We found the Council was at fault for not arranging alternative provision when Y stopped attending school in January 2024, and for delays in issuing the outcome of his annual review and responding to correspondence. This meant Y missed education for around a term and a half at a critical stage, and Mrs X experienced avoidable frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to our recommendations. North Northamptonshire Council (24 017 782) Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to properly apply its home-to-school transport policy and explain its decisions. Miss X also said the Council's policy was inadequate. She said this meant the Council made an incorrect decision about her application for transport assistance. We have found the Council at fault for its deficient policy and for relying on incorrect information when it made its decision. This caused Miss X uncertainty when making her application. This also caused uncertainty about whether the appeal panel would have made a different decision. The Council has agreed to apologise and arrange a new stage two appeal panel to consider Miss X's appeal again. The Council has already amended its published home-to-school transport policy and we make no further recommendations in respect of this. North Yorkshire Council (24 018 585) Summary: The Council delayed taking the action it said it would at mediation to resolve a dispute with Ms X about her child's education. This was fault. This fault caused Ms X frustration and the Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X £200 and take action to prevent recurrence of this fault in future. However we have not investigated the suitability of the education Ms X's child received, because this issue carried a right of appeal to a tribunal which it was reasonable for Ms X to use. Lancashire County Council (24 018 703) Summary: Ms X complained about the Council's handling of her child Y's Education Health and Care Plan. She complained the Council failed to decide whether to amend the plan before 2024, failed to meet statutory timescales when it decided to amend the plan in 2024, and had poor standards of communication and complaint handling. We cannot investigate the matters before 2024 because they are late, but we find the Council at fault for missing statutory deadlines and for its communication and complaint handling from 2024 onwards. The faults caused Ms X and Y significant distress, uncertainty, frustration and time and trouble. The Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice. Essex County Council (24 019 303) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has not dealt properly with school transport for her son, causing distress and financial loss. The Council is at fault because it did not initially respond to Mrs X's complaints and did not properly consider whether transport for Y was suitable. Mrs X suffered distress and financial loss. The Council should apologise, pay Mrs X £150 for time and trouble, backdate Y's travel allowance, pay Mrs X £250 for avoidable distress, review Y's transport provision and review its policy. North Yorkshire Council (24 019 339) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed completing Z's Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment and issuing his EHC plan. Mrs X also complained the Council failed to provide Z with suitable alternative education provision, in line with its section 19 duty, and failed to communicate effectively. We have found the Council acted with fault. This caused Z an injustice in the form of missed education provision. This also caused avoidable distress and time and trouble. The Council has agreed to provide a written apology. The Council has also agreed to pay financial remedies to recognise Z's loss of suitable education provision and Mrs X's avoidable time and trouble. There are parts of Mrs X's complaint we have not investigated. We explain why in our decision statement. North Yorkshire Council (24 019 342) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed completing P's Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment and issuing her EHC plan. Mrs X also complained the Council failed to provide P with suitable alternative education provision, in line with its section 19 duty, and failed to communicate effectively. We have found the Council acted with fault. This caused P an injustice in the form of missed education provision. This also caused avoidable distress and time and trouble. The Council has agreed to provide a written apology. The Council has also agreed to pay financial remedies to recognise P's loss of suitable education provision and Mrs X's avoidable time and trouble. There are parts of Mrs X's complaint we have not investigated. We explain why in our decision statement. Nottinghamshire County Council (24 020 005) Summary: We found fault on Miss Y's complaint about the Council failing to provide her son with a suitably qualified and trained tutor, experienced in working with young people with autism and anxiety. It failed to show it considered whether the tutor was appropriately trained. Nor did it show steps it took to find an alternative tutor when alerted to the tutor's shortcomings. The Council agreed to send her an apology for the failings found and remind relevant officers of the need to check whether tutors meet specified criteria and to consider whether it, or the provider, could act to resolve the problem. It would also remind officers of the need to promptly look for an alternative tutor where criteria are not met. There was no fault on Miss Y's complaint about it failing to reimburse her when she paid the second tutor's shortfall in wages when changing employer. This was a contractual matter for the tutor and employer. Surrey County Council (25 003 208) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to award travel assistance to Miss X's child Y. This is because the Council has remedied any injustice Miss X experienced by providing her with a personal travel budget, which she has accepted. Cornwall Council (25 004 326) Summary: We will not investigate Ms M's complaint about arrangements for her daughter G's education because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Cambridgeshire County Council (25 004 432) 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 (25 004 469) 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 (25 004 539) 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. Southend-on-Sea City Council (25 004 656) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the school named in an Education, Health and Care plan. This is because Mrs X has already appealed to the tribunal about this and we cannot investigate a complaint when someone has appealed to the tribunal about the same matter. We will not investigate the Council's poor communication as the injustice caused is insufficient to justify investigating. Lancashire County Council (25 004 879) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about how the Council managed her child's education. We cannot investigate issues which are not separable from Miss X's appeal to a tribunal and part of her complaint is made late. Surrey County Council (25 004 964) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about fault in the production and content of an Education Health and Care plan. The complainant has used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) which means the Ombudsman cannot intervene. Leicestershire County Council (25 006 831) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education, Health and Care plan process. This is because the Council apologised and offered a suitable remedy and it is unlikely further investigation would achieve anything more for Mr X. Surrey County Council (25 004 797) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about how the Council dealt with his concerns about an investigation into bullying at his son's school. This is because the complaint is made late to us. Reading Borough Council (25 006 946) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision not to consider his complaint until ongoing family court proceedings have concluded. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. Hertfordshire County Council (25 004 548) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision to name a mainstream school in his child's Education, Health and Care Plan because he had a right to appeal the matter to the SEND Tribunal, and it was reasonable to expect him to use that right. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (25 009 263) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing free home-to-school transport for Ms X's child. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Kent County Council (25 010 339) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision to refuse home to school transport. It is unlikely we would find fault. Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (24 008 000) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed reviewing her child, Z's, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and failed to ensure Z received the therapies in the EHC Plan. She also complained about the Council's complaint handling. We will not investigate this complaint. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council's refusal to provide the therapies in Z's EHC Plan. We are unlikely to add to the Council's own investigation in relation to the delayed review and complaint handling. Wokingham Borough Council (24 016 383) Summary: Mrs B complained the Council delayed completing an annual review and in issuing a final EHC Plan, failed to put in place provision in the EHC Plan, delayed providing her with a personal budget and gave her conflicting information about whether the Council would complete a full reassessment. The Council delayed completing the annual review and in issuing a final EHC Plan, the Council's decision making and communications about the reassessment were not clear and the Council delayed paying the personal budget and in responding to a complaint. That caused Mrs B significant distress, denied her right of appeal and meant her son missed out on provision. An apology, payment to Mrs B, a training session for officers and review of procedures is satisfactory remedy. West Northamptonshire Council (24 018 373) Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to act after Mrs X notified the Council that her child, Y, was not receiving a suitable education at home between January 2024 and May 2025. The Council was also at fault as it failed to issue Y's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan within the statutory timescales, caused in part by a delay in obtaining Educational Psychologist advice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise Y's missed education. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (24 023 195) Summary: We have upheld this complaint about the Council's failure to complete an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment for the complainant's child within the statutory timescale. The Council has agreed to provide a proportionate remedy and this removes the need for us to investigate. London Borough of Bexley (25 004 374) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision not to include therapies in his child's Education, Health and Care Plan. 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. Buckinghamshire Council (25 003 447) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about his dealings with the Council in connection with the care of his grandchildren because there is nothing we could add to the independent investigation commissioned by the Council. Derbyshire County Council (25 005 311) Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X's complaint about a court report because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been considered in court. We have no discretion to do so. Royal Borough of Greenwich (25 007 217) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about a court ordered report because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been considered in court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so. Surrey County Council (25 012 204) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about how the Council has dealt with his complaint under the statutory children's complaints procedure. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Cornwall Council (25 012 210) Summary: We have upheld Mr X's complaint because the Council delayed considering his complaint at stage two of the children's statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X. Hampshire County Council (24 002 186) Summary: The Council was at fault. It provided Mrs X's child ,Y, with intermittent alternative provision and did not provide all the special educational provision to which they were entitled. Y's father, Mr X was caused frustration supporting Y. The Council will apologise and pay £1,250 to Mrs X to acknowledge Y's missed education and provision and make a symbolic payment of £300 to Mr X. The Council has already put in place actions to improve its service. East Sussex County Council (24 011 027) Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council delayed in providing alternative education to her daughter and that, when it was provided, it was unsuitable. We find that there was fault by the Council on the first complaint and a lost opportunity on the second but with limited injustice. The Council has agreed to make symbolic payments for the loss of education and opportunity. The Council has already amended its alternative education policy for pupils medically unfit to attend school and has agreed to consider further service improvements. Slough Borough Council (24 011 804) Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not provide a school placement for her child Y who should have started Reception class in September 2023. There was fault causing injustice. Y's amended Education, Health and Care Plan with her educational placement was delayed by about eighteen months. She did not receive any educational provision between September 2023 and the end of June 2024 which was not in line with legal requirements. Complaint handling was poor. The Council will apologise and make a payment of £500 to reflect avoidable distress, time and trouble and delay in appeal rights. It will also make a payment of £7000 to reflect Y's lost educational provision. Staffordshire County Council (24 017 599) Summary: Mrs B complained the Council delayed in completing an annual review for her child, Y. We have found the Council at fault for a delay in completing the annual review and providing a stage two complaint response. This caused Mrs B distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused by the faults. East Sussex County Council (24 018 009) Summary: We found there was delay in the Council finding Mr X's daughter, Y, a new school place and delay issuing a new Education Health and Care Plan. The Council also failed to ensure Y received a suitable education while she was out of school. We recommended an apology and payments to reflect the impact of the lost education on Y and the distress caused to her parents. Surrey County Council (24 019 139) Summary: The Council failed to consult sufficient school placements for Ms X's child, Y, when they stopped attending school. The Council also failed to properly consider whether the alternative provision it offered Y was reasonably accessible to them and failed to ensure Y received key therapies in their Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council's faults have caused Y and Ms X uncertainty and caused Y to avoidably miss out on special educational provision for eleven months. The Council has paid Ms X £3,250 to recognise the injustice caused by these faults. We have also recommended that the Council make service improvements. Staffordshire County Council (25 000 157) Summary: Mrs B complained the Council delayed in completing an annual review for her child, X. We have found the Council at fault for a delay in completing the annual review and issuing a final complaint response. This caused Mrs B distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused by the faults. Surrey County Council (25 003 585) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about missed Special Educational Needs provision. This is because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council. We cannot investigate the contents of a final Education Health and Care plan issued by the Council because Miss X has used her right of appeal to a tribunal. Leeds City Council (25 004 435) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about Education Health and Care Plan delays because we are unlikely to achieve a significantly different remedy. It is reasonable to expect her to appeal to the Tribunal a dispute over which is the suitable school for home to school transport purposes. Leicester City Council (25 004 497) Summary: We cannot investigate most of Miss X's complaint about the Council's failure to obtain updated health information for her child's Education, Health and Care Plan because she could have included this matter in her appeal to the SEND Tribunal. We will not investigate her complaint about the Council's complaints process because we cannot investigate the primary complaint. Corpus Christi Catholic High School (25 005 028) Summary: Ms X complained about how a school admission appeal panel handled her appeal for a place for her son at his preferred secondary school. The panel is at fault for the way it handled the appeal and documented its decision making. This means we cannot be satisfied the process was carried out fairly. The School has agreed to apologise, arrange a fresh appeal and remind staff of the importance of recording decision making. North Yorkshire Council (25 005 620) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the safeguarding actions of the Council. It found a safeguarding allegation against Mrs X to be unsubstantiated, so it was not responsible for her dismissal from work. We are legally prevented from investigating the actions of her former employer. Salford City Council (25 008 470) Summary: We will not investigate Miss 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. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (25 010 109) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's school's admissions appeal panel refusing her appeal. It is unlikely we would find fault which caused X to lose out on a school place. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (25 010 433) Summary: We will not investigate X's complaint about the Council's school's admissions appeal panel refusing their appeal. It is unlikely we would find fault which caused X to lose out on a school place. Surrey County Council (24 014 057) Summary: Ms X complained the Council refused her request for overnight care for her disabled child Y and did not deal with her complaint about this adequately. There was a delay in agreeing funding and the decision-making process was not made clear to Ms X causing her avoidable frustration and confusion. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment Surrey County Council (24 021 602) Summary: Ms X complained about the Council's handling of a safeguarding investigation following the death of her baby. She said it failed to include critical medical evidence in its safeguarding report. The Council was not at fault. It carried out the safeguarding enquiry in line with relevant law and policy. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (25 003 975) Summary: Mr X disagreed with the Council's summary of his complaint. He asked us to investigate instead. We will not investigate Mr X's complaint because the Council is willing to investigate and there is no evidence of fault in its complaint handling to justify our involvement. Norfolk County Council (25 006 241) Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council committing a data breach during adoption proceedings because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that are being, or have been, considered in court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so. West Sussex County Council (25 006 764) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's actions in its children's services involvement with his family. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council's decision not to consider his complaint whilst the case is subject to ongoing court proceedings London Borough of Lewisham (25 013 025) Summary: We have upheld Miss X's complaint because the Council delayed considering her complaint at stage three of the children's statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Miss X. Milton Keynes Council (25 003 538) Summary: We have upheld this complaint about the Council's failure to complete an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment for the complainant's child within the statutory timescale. The Council has agreed to provide a proportionate remedy and this removes the need for us to investigate. North Somerset Council (25 004 488) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to make alternative provision for the complainant's son while he is unable to attend school full-time. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council's part to warrant investigation. Cornwall Council (25 004 550) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to make alternative educational provision for the complainant's son while he has been out of school. Investigation would not lead to a different outcome and is not therefore warranted. Surrey County Council (24 012 666) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's handling of her son's Education, Health and Care annual review and alternative provision after he stopped attending school in summer 2024. We found the Council delayed proper assessment of its section 19 duties after June 2024 and delayed putting alternative provision in place for the child. The Council also failed to consult special schools and was late to issue a final amended EHC Plan following and annual review in June 2024. This caused Mrs X and her son frustration and delayed support the Council agreed to in December 2024. The Council agreed to remedy the injustice its actions caused them. London Borough of Bromley (24 012 965) Summary: Ms X complained that the Council failed to provide her son, Y, with suitable full-time education and failed to secure Section F provision of his EHCP during the 2023/24 academic year. The Council failed to implement the education package it proposed and did not secure the specialist dyslexia provision required in Y's Plan. As a result, Y missed out on significant education and specialist support, and Ms X was caused avoidable distress and frustration. The Council has agreed to our recommendations. Derby City Council (24 016 984) Summary: We have found fault with the Council for failing to meet the Educational, Health and Care Plan annual review timescales. This caused Mrs X and her daughter avoidable distress. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy their injustice. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (24 019 391) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to amend his daughter, Y's, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan after the 2023 annual review. He also complained the Council delayed completion of the 2024 annual review and EHC Plan reassessment. Mr X also complained about poor complaint handling. Mr X said this distressed him and frustrated his appeal right to the Tribunal. There was fault as the Council did not issue the final EHC Plan within statutory timescales and its complaint handling was poor. This frustrated Mr X and frustrated his right of appeal to the Tribunal. The Council will apologise, issue the final EHC Plan, make a financial payment and issue guidance to its staff. Devon County Council (24 020 011) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide alternative provision for Z when Z was unable to attend school. I have found fault in the Council failing to properly consider if it had a duty under s.19 Education Act 1996 to provide alternative education in early 2025. The Council has agreed to apologise and review the situation by taking fresh decisions. Derby City Council (25 000 439) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to make appropriate educational provision for the complainant's daughter. Investigation would not lead to a different outcome and is not therefore warranted. Somerset Council (25 003 947) Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed completing an Education Health and Care needs assessment for a child. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by offering to make a suitable payment to the complainant to remedy the injustice this caused. Staffordshire County Council (25 004 399) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions in issuing an Education Health and Care Plan for Mrs X's child. There is not enough evidence of injustice flowing from the Council's actions to warrant investigation. London Borough of Redbridge (25 004 586) Summary: We have upheld Mrs X's complaint because the Council delayed completing the annual review of her son's Education Health and Care Plan. It also missed the phased transfer deadline. The Council has agreed to provide a proportionate remedy to Mrs X. London Borough of Haringey (24 016 201) Summary: Ms X complained about how she and her children were treated by the Council's children's social care service. We have found that the Council was at fault for a significant delay in its handling of her complaint. This caused her an injustice, which the Council will now take action to address. However, we will not conduct a further investigation of Ms X's complaint. An independent investigation has already found no fault in most of what the Council did. It is unlikely that further investigation of the same issue would lead to a different outcome for Ms X. Oxfordshire County Council (25 000 888) Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it decided Mr X's special guardianship allowance. Its approach to deciding allowances appears in line with its statutory responsibilities. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (25 003 624) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council making a safeguarding referral about Mr X as there is insufficient evidence of injustice to justify an investigation. Part of Mr X's complaint is late and there are no good reasons to investigate it now. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (24 010 104) Summary: Ms X complained about the Council's handling of her son's Education, Health and Care needs assessment and alternative provision after he stopped attending school in September 2023. We found the Council failed to properly assess its section 19 duties after March 2024 and failed to consider putting alternative provision in place for the child. This caused Ms X and her son uncertainty about what support he would have received had the Council made a decision about its duties. The Council agreed to our recommendations on remedying the injustice its actions caused to Ms X and her son. Derbyshire County Council (24 015 971) Summary: Mrs C complained about the Council's handling of her daughter's (X) education when she was unable to attend her school placement, and it caused delays in the Education, Health and Care Plan process. The Council accepted it had caused delays in the statutory process and failed to act on an offer from her preferred school placement. We also found fault in its failure to provide some suitable and timely alternative provision, and delays in its complaints handling. The Council will apologise and make payment to acknowledge the injustice this caused Mrs C and X. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (24 016 032) Summary: We have found fault with the Council for failing to deliver alternative provision to Mrs X's son when he was unable to attend school. This caused him to miss out on education. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment in recognition of the missed education. We have also found fault with the Council for the delays during the annual review process. This delayed Mrs X's appeal rights and caused the family avoidable distress. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice. Royal Borough of Greenwich (24 016 355) Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council was blocking access to her property preventing her son, C from accessing school transport directly outside her house. We have not found fault with the Council's actions because it has approved the provision of two personal assistants to safely to escort C from the house to the taxi and made reasonable efforts to provide them. Neither have we found fault with the access arrangements for ongoing building work. Bristol City Council (24 020 732) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council removed her son's, Y's, short-term targets from the Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan after these were agreed at the 2023 annual review. I have ended this investigation as there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. Leicestershire County Council (24 020 872) Summary: Mrs Y complained about the way the Council dealt with her child, Z's special educational needs and educational provision following a move to the Council's area. We have found fault causing injustice by the Council in failing to: place Z temporarily at another school; secure their special educational needs provision; and make suitable alternative provision following the transfer of their Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council has agreed to remedy this by: apologising to Mrs Y and Z; making payments to reflect the distress caused and the impact of the missed education on Z; and service improvements. Staffordshire County Council (25 002 382) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about how the Council dealt with the review of her child's Education Health and Care Plan and their education provision. This is because Miss X used her right of appeal to a tribunal and any separable matters happened too long ago. Portsmouth City Council (25 002 882) Summary: We upheld Mr X's complaint about delays and uncertainty caused in relation to Y's Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by paying Mr X a symbolic payment of £300 for the injustice caused. Redcar & Cleveland Council (25 003 210) Summary: We will not investigate Ms M's complaint that her son, B, has not received the occupational therapy (OT) in his education, health and care (EHC) plan because he has now had the therapy and has been discharged by the OT service. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable. Cheshire West & Chester Council (25 004 468) Summary: We will not investigate X's complaint about the Council's failure to sign a contract for their child, Y's, school which meant they missed out on four transition half-days. This is because the Council apologised, offered a symbolic payment, and an investigation is unlikely to achieve a different outcome. Lancashire County Council (25 004 981) 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. Northumberland County Council (25 005 413) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's delays following an annual Education Health and Care Plan review. This is because the Council upheld this part of Mr X's complaint and has now agreed to a suitable remedy for his outstanding injustice. Devon County Council (25 006 311) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about the college named in his daughter's Education, Health and Care Plan. Mr X has used his right of appeal to a tribunal and so the complaint is outside our jurisdiction. Cheshire West & Chester Council (25 008 112) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs 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. Leicestershire County Council (25 011 951) Summary: Mrs Y complained about the way the Council dealt with her child, X's special educational needs and educational provision following a move to its area. We have found fault causing injustice by the Council in failing to: place X temporarily at another school; secure their special educational needs provision; and make suitable alternative provision following the transfer of their Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council has agreed to remedy this by: apologising to Mrs Y and X; and making payments to reflect the distress caused and the impact of the missed education on X. Birmingham City Council (24 017 734) Summary: We will not investigate Ms M's complaint about the care of her daughter because there is nothing we could add to the independent investigation that has already been carried out. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating Ms M's complaints. And we cannot achieve the outcome Ms M wants. London Borough of Havering (24 022 507) Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide suitable housing after adding her to the housing register in March 2023 and again when she was at risk of homelessness from August 2024. She also complained the Council failed to provide adequate support while her children were subject to a Child Protection Plan, and about the significant delays in handling her complaints. We find the Council at fault for delays in processing her housing application, failing to accept a homelessness application, not offering interim accommodation, and failing to provide adequate advice and support. We also find the Council at fault for failing to provide the support required under the Child Protection Plan, and for delay and poor handling of her complaints. This caused Miss X significant distress, prolonged uncertainty, and left her and her children living in unsafe conditions without necessary support. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Miss X, and take action to improve its housing, children's social care, and complaints services. Essex County Council (25 000 838) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to investigate Miss X's concerns about how it safeguarded her while she was a Looked after Child. The complaint relates to matters which occurred over 12 months ago, and it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council's decision, not to consider it. Durham County Council (25 003 256) Summary: There was no procedural fault in the Council's decision not to investigate Mrs X's complaint about safeguarding failings in the 1990s. Because of this, we have no power to question its decision. Surrey County Council (25 004 105) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint the Council failed to properly support her child for seven years. Some elements of the complaint are late and we have no remit to investigate others. We also cannot achieve the outcome Ms X wants. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (25 004 122) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about children services approach to her offer to care for a child. We cannot investigate her suitability or the Council's consideration of this as the Courts are now deciding whether she should be the child's carer. Social Work England is better placed to consider a social worker's professionalism and the Council needs an opportunity to reply to her complaint about safeguarding referrals. Derbyshire County Council (25 004 441) Summary: We will not investigate X's complaint about the actions of the Council's Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) regarding a safeguarding referral the Council made to a professional regulator and the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). There is insufficient evidence of fault. Sheffield City Council (25 008 364) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X's contact with the Council. This is because the Council has already investigated, apologised for fault for some of the complaint and provided an explanation for its actions. Therefore, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Sheffield City Council (24 018 160) Summary: Mrs Y complained the Council failed to secure part of the special educational provision set out in her child, Z's Education Health and Care Plan. We have found fault causing injustice by the Council because of its service failure in failing to deliver support for Z to attend the physical activity provision in their Plan. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice, by apologising to apologise to Mrs Y and Z and making payments to reflect the impact of the missed provision on Z and the upset caused. London Borough of Redbridge (25 002 434) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to invite the complainant to a meeting where he was arrested by the Police. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to investigate. West Berkshire Council (24 002 956) Summary: We will not investigate Ms H's complaint about a dispute over the Council's actions towards her adult daughter because we cannot investigate the start or conduct of court action, and the Court is best placed to resolve the matters in dispute and decide on the arrangements, so we could achieve nothing worthwhile. 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