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.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council (24 004 378)

Summary: We found fault on Mrs D's complaint about the Council failing to pay the full amount of backdated Personal Travel Budget for her children's home to school transport. It failed to give information when it made the payment showing how it had been calculated. This caused some confusion and frustration. It also failed to keep minutes of appeal panel hearings although has now changed its practice. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

West Sussex County Council (24 011 946)

Summary: We found the Council delayed issuing Y's Education Health and Care Plan and failed to provide alternative education between March 2024 and September 2024. We recommended an apology and a payment to recognise the impact.

Somerset Council (24 016 851)

Summary: Ms D complained the Council has failed to provide her daughter J with suitable full-time education that met her special educational needs. We found delay in putting provision in place which caused J to miss out on some education. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Ms D to remedy the injustice that caused.

Buckinghamshire Council (25 004 834)

Birmingham City Council (25 005 514)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the behaviour of a Council employee during a educational needs meeting. There is insufficient injustice and it is unlikely our investigation would achieve a worthwhile outcome. We will not investigate the complaint about how the Council handled the complainants' data as the Information Commissioner Office is better placed to investigate such matters.

Wakefield City Council (25 005 701)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint the Council named an unsuitable school in her child's Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mrs X to use her right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal. An investigation by the Ombudsman could not give Mrs X the outcome she wants.

Devon County Council (25 008 402)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council refusing to assess her child for an Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because it was reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability).

Essex County Council (25 008 944)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in the Education and Health Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused by its delay and it is unlikely further investigation would achieve significantly more for Miss X. We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's decision to name a school in her son's Education, Health and Care Plan because the decision carried a right of appeal which it would have been reasonable for her to use.

Devon County Council (24 019 922)

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council refused to investigate their complaint about matters related to the safeguarding of their grandchildren. The Council was at fault for not considering relevant matters in its decision to refuse Mr and Mrs X's complaint. It will apologise to Mr and Mrs X for the avoidable frustration caused by its fault, re-take its decision in line with the statutory guidance and take steps to prevent recurrence of the same fault.

Lancashire County Council (25 005 392)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the accuracy of information in a court report. The law prevents us from investigating a complaint about what happened in court.

Norfolk County Council (25 005 714)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint the Council refused to change his children's social worker. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Halton Borough Council (25 006 315)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's actions after she was deregistered as a foster carer. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing a significant injustice.

Nottinghamshire County Council (25 007 212)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement with Mr X's family, during family court proceedings. The law does not allow us to investigate matters that are subject to court proceedings. Nor will we investigate the remaining matters, because Mr X could raise his additional concerns in court, and there is another body better placed to consider data protection issues.

London Borough of Ealing (24 010 964)

Summary: Miss X complained that the Council delayed in issuing an amended Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for her child, sent an incorrect draft, and failed to provide agreed educational and therapeutic support while her child was out of school. Based on the current evidence, the Council was at fault. This caused avoidable distress to Miss X and a loss of provision for her child. We have proposed recommendations to the Council.

Central Bedfordshire Council (24 018 080)

Summary: We find the Council at fault for failing to make its own decision on Miss X's request to delay her summer-born child's start at school. This caused Miss X frustration, distress and uncertainty. The Council will apologise and improve its service.

Central Bedfordshire Council (24 020 679)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to finalise her daughter, Miss Y's Education, Health and Care Plan within legal timescales. She also complained the Council failed to complete a phased transfer review. Mrs X said this frustrated and distressed her. The Council was at fault, but it has taken appropriate action to remedy any injustice caused by this fault.

Central Bedfordshire Council (24 021 779)

Summary: We find the Council at fault because it is not clear if its decision about Mrs X's child's delayed school admission was made by the Council or a school headteacher. This caused Mrs X uncertainty and distress. The Council will apologise.

Kingston Upon Hull City Council (24 021 805)

Summary: The Council delayed issuing a final amended Education, Health and Care Plan after Mrs X's child, Y's, annual review. This left Y without an up-to-date Plan and caused them significant frustration. The Council's communication with Mrs X was also poor which added to her frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and make a payment to acknowledge the frustration the faults caused.

Bath and North East Somerset Council (24 022 684)

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to provide school transport for Miss X's child Y to the school named in their Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council will apologise to Miss X for the avoidable frustration caused by its fault. It will also provide school transport for Y, reimburse Miss X for the mileage costs she incurred in taking Y to school, and take steps to prevent recurrence of the same fault.

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (25 003 281)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of the Education, Health and Care Plan process for the complainant's child. It is unlikely our investigation would achieve a worthwhile outcome. We will not investigate the complaint about the Council's complaint handling as a stand-alone issue.

North Yorkshire Council (25 005 546)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about how the Council carried out an Education Health and Care needs assessment for his child. This is because Mr X has used his right of appeal to a tribunal and many of the issues raised are not separable from that appeal.

Cheshire East Council (25 005 547)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about how the Council assessed her child for an Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because it was reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to the Tribunal if she disagreed with the content of the Plan.

Swindon Borough Council (25 005 790)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's handling of her daughter's education. It was reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to the Tribunal if she wanted to challenge the Council's decision not to issue her daughter with an Education, Health and Care Plan. The rest of Mrs X's complaint has either already been considered by the Ombudsman or needs to be raised as a fresh complaint if it has completed the Council's process.

Sheffield City Council (25 007 637)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's school to home transport service. This is because the complaint is late and while Mrs X has provided us with reasons she did not complain sooner, they do not sufficiently explain the long delay here, to allow us to disregard the legislation concerning late complaints.

Whitley Bay High School (25 007 964)

Summary: Mrs H complains about the way the school admissions appeal hearing was conducted following Whitley Bay High School's decision to refuse her child a place. We find procedural fault because the notes of the hearing are not compliant with the School Admissions Appeal Code as they do not demonstrate how the panel made its decision or provide details of the votes cast. The School will arrange a fresh appeal with a different panel and clerk and remind panels and clerks of their duty to record decision making in line with the Code.

Hertfordshire County Council (25 004 920)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about an officer's conduct as Social Work England is better placed. And we are unlikely to find significant fault in his other allegations about a hospital discharge meeting.

Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (25 005 395)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaints about the involvement of the Council's children's social services. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault for most of the complaint, and because Mr X can complain to the Information Commissioner about his right to rectification request.

Derbyshire County Council (25 005 545)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's record of information at a multi-agency meeting. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable from an Ombudsman investigation and other bodies are better placed to investigate Mr X's complaints.

Central Bedfordshire Council (25 005 893)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's involvement with his family. Some of Mr X's concerns are too late for us to consider. It would be reasonable for Mr X to ask the court to consider his remaining concerns.

Liverpool City Council (25 008 731)

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about the contents of the Council's social work report about his family. This is because a court considered the content of the report, and the law says we cannot investigate.

Isle of Wight Council (25 011 401)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about reports for the courts because we cannot investigate a complaint about what happened in court.

Kent County Council (25 011 642)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss X's child being in the care of others. We have no power to change a decision made by the courts and we could not achieve the outcome she seeks.

London Borough of Croydon (24 017 787)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to ensure her child, Y received an education or the specialist provision in line with their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan after they moved to the area in July 2024. The Council was at fault for failing to offer Y a school placement or arrange an education and provision in line with their EHC Plan between September 2024 and May 2025. The Council agreed to apologise and make payments to acknowledge the injustice this caused to Y and Mrs X. It should also carry out service improvements.

London Borough of Bromley (24 018 210)

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to comply with statutory timescales for amending and finalising her son Y's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan following an annual review. It also delayed providing additional funding to his school, which had been agreed to support his continued placement. These faults caused uncertainty and missed opportunities for securing alternative provision or placement sooner, amounting to injustice. However, there is limited evidence the missed funding directly deprived Y of support, as the school covered the shortfall. The Council has agreed to pay a financial remedy and apologise for the injustice caused.

London Borough of Harrow (24 018 268)

Summary: There was fault by the Council because it did not complete an annual review of an education, health and care plan, and because of mistakes it made in complaint handling. The Council has agreed to apologise and offer a financial remedy for the distress this caused. However, there was no fault in a complaint it did not ensure the complainant's son was receiving education.

Devon County Council (24 018 759)

Summary: Mr X complained about issues securing alternative education and Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan provision for his son, Y. He also complained about poor communication from the Council. Mr X said Y missed education and plan provision. We found communication from the Council was poor, frustrating Mr X. The Council should apologise.

Suffolk County Council (24 019 227)

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed completing Y's annual review and failed to provide a personal budget for Y's wheelchair which is outlined as specialist provision in their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council was at fault. The Council panel's decision not to provide a personal budget to maintain Y's wheelchair was flawed. The Council also delayed amending Y's EHC Plan following a 2024 annual review by nine months. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X to recognise the injustice caused to her and reimburse her for wheelchair maintenance expenditure. It also agreed to carry out another annual review of Y's EHC Plan and reconsider how it intends to meet Y's wheelchair provision going forward.

London Borough of Islington (24 020 656)

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide her child, Z, the special educational provision set out in his Education, Health and Care Plan. We find the Council at fault for a delay in issuing the final amended Education, Health and Care Plan following an annual review. This caused Z and Ms X frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise to remedy the injustice caused.

Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (24 022 404)

Summary: We ended our investigation about free school meal payments. Miss X should have complained to us sooner and she had already used her appeal rights to the special educational needs and disabilities Tribunal.

Somerset Council (24 023 469)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about delays in an Education Health and Care Plan assessment following a Tribunal decision. The Council has agreed to a proportionate way to resolve the complaint.

London Borough of Bexley (25 005 607)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in the process of reviewing and amending the complainant's child's Education Health and Care plan. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council's part, and thit would be reasonable for the complainant to use her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability).

Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 005 633)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about her child's Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. This is because she has used her right of appeal to a tribunal.

Whitley Bay High School (25 005 949)

Summary: Mr D complains about the way the school admissions appeal hearing was conducted following Whitley Bay High School's decision to refuse his child a place. We find procedural fault because the notes of the hearing are not compliant with the School Admissions Appeal Code. The notes do not demonstrate how the panel made its decision or provide details of the votes cast. The School will arrange a fresh appeal with a different panel and clerk and organise refresher training to ensure that panels and clerks are aware of their duty to record decision making in line with the Code.

Isle of Wight Council (25 006 069)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to communicate effectively with Miss X regarding her child's placement. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to result in a different outcome.

Oxfordshire County Council (24 017 604)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to deliver provision outlined in her child, B's Education Health and Care Plan. She also complained about delay in reviewing the plan. The Council was at fault. B missed therapies for two years. It is likely the missed therapies had a significant impact on B's education. The Council will apologise to Mrs X and make a symbolic payment to her.

Staffordshire County Council (24 017 969)

Summary: we will not investigate Ms M's complaint because the Council has now responded. The Council followed the correct procedure and explained what Ms M should do if she was still unhappy. There is no role for us.

Reading Borough Council (24 023 338)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement with Mr X's child as part of a child protection plan. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault and we cannot achieve what Mr X is looking for.

Thurrock Council (25 006 337)

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint that the Council recorded inaccurate information in reports, which has affected the care arrangements of her children. This is because the reports have formed part of court proceedings.

Kent County Council (25 006 372)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's child protection proceedings and the conduct of a Social Worker. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Telford & Wrekin Council (25 008 118)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about his son's social worker. 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.

Coventry City Council (25 010 105)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the care and contact arrangements in place for her child. This is because these are matters that have been decided by the courts. If Miss X believes the Council are in breach of a court order it is reasonable for her to raise this in court.

Devon County Council (25 008 410)

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's conduct during an appeal to The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability – SEND). We have no jurisdiction to consider a complaint about the Council's actions during an appeal.

Leeds City Council (25 004 362)

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.

Nottinghamshire County Council (25 008 091)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education, Health and Care Plan process for Mr X's child. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, and it was reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the First Tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). Mr X can submit a late appeal to the Tribunal if he thinks the Council did not properly advise him of his appeal rights.

Lancashire County Council (25 005 507)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council is at fault in refusing to involve the complainant in matters relating to his child. This is because the complaint is closely related to matters which have been, or can be, raised in court.

Somerset Council (24 001 770)

Summary: Ms F complained the Council failed to put in place alternative provision for her daughter and delayed issuing a final EHC Plan. As a result, her daughter's education has suffered and the family was caused significant stress. We found there was a five-month delay in issuing the plan and fault in not providing alternative provision for three school terms. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Ms F £6,000 to be used for her daughter's educational benefit to remedy the injustice.

West Sussex County Council (24 009 544)

Summary: Mrs H complained that the Council did not ensure her son was receiving alternative education after he was unable to attend school. And it delayed reviewing his Education, Health and Care Plan. We uphold the complaint because of both the Council not considering its alternative education duties and a delay in revising the Plan. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

Devon County Council (24 013 421)

Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of Ms Y. Ms Y complained the Council failed to provide her son, Z, with suitable full-time education from February 2023 until November 2023. Ms Y also complained the Council failed to reimburse her for education she funded from March 2023 to July 2023. Ms Y said Z missed education and this impacted her financially. We have ended the investigation as the complaint is outside our jurisdiction.

North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 022 782)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed completing her child's Education, Health and Care needs assessment and communicated poorly. We find the Council at fault for both delays and a short period of poor communication causing uncertainty and distress for the family. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X.

West Northamptonshire Council (25 003 972)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to name a suitable educational placement in her child, Y's, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. Mrs X also complained the Council failed to provide Y with the educational provision it agreed to. I ended this investigation because Mrs X has appealed to the SEND tribunal and the substantive complaints are not separable from the matters at appeal. The remaining matter has not been through the Council's complaints process.

Buckinghamshire Council (25 004 406)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay by the Council in assessing Mrs X's child's special educational needs and issuing a decision that either meets with her approval or opens a right of appeal. The Council has accepted it has taken too long to issue the decision and agreed to provide a suitable remedy for the delay.

Whitley Bay High School (25 005 317)

Summary: Mrs W complains about the way the school admissions appeal hearing was conducted following Whitley Bay High School's decision to refuse her child a place. In our provisional view, we find procedural fault because the notes of the hearing are not compliant with the School Admissions Appeal Code. The notes do not demonstrate how the panel made its decision or provide details of the votes cast. The School should arrange a fresh appeal with a different panel and clerk and organise training to ensure that panels and clerks are aware of their duty to record decision making in line with the Code.

Whitley Bay High School (25 005 877)

Summary: Mrs Y complains about the way the school admissions appeal hearing was conducted following Whitley Bay High School's decision to refuse her child a place. We find procedural fault because the notes of the hearing are not compliant with the School Admissions Appeal Code. The notes refer to another's child's name and do not demonstrate how the panel made its decision and voted. The School will arrange a fresh appeal with a different panel and clerk and arrange refresher training to ensure that panels and clerks are aware of their duty to record decision making in line with the Code.

Whitley Bay High School (25 006 072)

Summary: Mrs F complains about the way the school admissions appeal hearing was conducted following Whitley Bay High School's decision to refuse admission to her child. We find procedural fault because the notes of the hearing are not compliant with the School Admissions Appeal Code. The notes do not demonstrate how the panel made its decision or provide details of the votes cast. The School will arrange a fresh appeal with a different panel and clerk and arrange training to ensure that panels and clerks are aware of their duty to record decision making in line with the Code.

Northumberland County Council (25 010 894)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about information that the Council provided during court proceedings. The law prevents us from investigating what happened in court.

Devon County Council (25 000 250)

Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council failed to provide a suitable alternative education for her daughter C since she started attending her current school in January 2025. We have not found fault with actions of the Council.

Whitley Bay High School (25 002 689)

Summary: Mrs Y complains about the way the school admissions appeal hearing was conducted following Whitley Bay High School's decision to refuse her child a place. We find procedural fault because the notes of the hearing are not compliant with the School Admissions Appeal Code as they do not demonstrate how the panel made its decision and voted. The School will offer Mrs Y a fresh appeal with a different panel and clerk and arrange refresher training to ensure that panels and clerks are aware of their duty to document their decision making in line with the Code.

Cheshire West & Chester Council (25 004 459)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision to refuse his application for free home to school transport for his child. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Essex County Council (25 004 482)

Summary: We have upheld Mrs X's complaint because the Council has delayed issuing an Education Health and Care Plan for her child. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mrs X.

Milton Keynes Council (25 004 727)

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. If Mrs X wants to challenge the content of her child's EHC Plan it is reasonable for her to appeal to the Tribunal.

Surrey County Council (25 005 286)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about a delay in issuing an Education Health and Care Plan as it is not sufficient to justify an investigation. It is reasonable to expect Mrs X to have appealed to the Tribunal if the Council's assessment process was so flawed it meant the Education Health and Care Plan does not meet her child's needs.

Surrey County Council (25 005 733)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about missing support under an EHC Plan. The Council have offered a suitable remedy. We will also not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the contents of an EHC Plan. It would be reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to the tribunal.

Milton Keynes Council (24 023 454)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered a safeguarding matter, nor its handling of Mr X's complaint. Further investigation would not add to the findings the Council has already made, and the Council has offered a suitable remedy to Mr X for the injustice caused by delays in complaint handling.

London Borough of Ealing (25 002 996)

Summary: we will not investigate Mr F's complaint the Council has dismissed his concerns about the impact of his ex-partner's conduct on their child because there is nothing we could add to the Council's response and nothing worthwhile we could achieve.

Lancashire County Council (25 003 832)

Summary: we will not investigate Ms P's complaint about the Council's response to her concerns about safeguarding at a local school because there is insufficient evidence of fault or injustice.

Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (25 005 114)

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about children services' actions which have been and will be raised in Court proceedings. The Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to consider his data protection complaint.

Reading Borough Council (25 005 228)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of a Child in Need plan, the work of its social workers and its complaints process. The Council has already investigated under the children's statutory complaint procedures, apologised for delayed complaint handling, therefore further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

Staffordshire County Council (25 007 555)

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's failure to protect her daughter from emotional abuse and neglect because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters which are, or have been, considered in court proceedings.

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (25 010 301)

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.

Milton Keynes Council (23 011 903)

Summary: Mrs X complained about Milton Keynes Council, Milton Keynes Integrated Care Board and First Option Healthcare in relation to the care of her son, Y. She has said the faults in care led to distress for her and her family. We found fault with Milton Keynes Council, Milton Keynes Integrated Care Board and First Option Healthcare, leading to distress and risk of harm which Mrs X has described. We have made recommendations which the organisations have agreed to carry out to address this injustice.

First Option Healthcare (23 011 903c)

First Option Healthcare (23 011 903d)

Herefordshire Council (24 015 133)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of a Children's Services complaint through its statutory procedures. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, it is not our role to reinvestigate the underlying matters as the complainant might want, and we could not connect the claimed injustice from any criminal acts with the Council's complaints procedures. So the matter does not warrant us investigating.


This email was sent to ooseims.archieves@blogger.com using GovDelivery Communications Cloud on behalf of: The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman ·5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT

Food Blog

Thursday, November 20, 2025

New children and education complaint decisions

A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions

No comments:

Post a Comment