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.

Manchester City Council (24 004 087)

Summary: The Council failed to review Miss X's child, Y's, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for nearly two years. It also delayed responding to Miss X's complaint. This caused Miss X prolonged uncertainty and frustration. During this time Y stopped attending school and struggled to access alternative provision. The Council has agreed to apologise, review Y's EHC Plan and make a payment to Miss X. It should also review its EHC Plan review processes.

East Sussex County Council (24 016 786)

Summary: The Council was at fault for causing a short delay when deciding Ms X's daughter's special educational needs support. It also caused a delay in sending a copy of the support plan to Ms X. It has already apologised to Ms X and has made service improvements. It has now also agreed to offer her a small, symbolic payment to recognise her injustice.

London Borough of Newham (24 019 833)

Summary: Ms X uses a personal budget to pay for her child's special educational needs provision in school. The Council failed to provide Ms X with a right of review when it decided to end her child's personal budget. The Council also failed to ensure Ms X was sent a direct payment agreement in advance, setting out how the budget should be used. Ms X's child did not miss out on any provision because of these faults. However the Council's actions have caused Ms X frustration and uncertainty. To recognise the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and take action to improve its services.

London Borough of Waltham Forest (24 021 596)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions relating to an Education, Health, and Care Plan. Parts of the complaint are late, and other parts had an alternative legal remedy. Nor will we investigate the delays in completing an annual review, because the Council has agreed to a suitable remedy for Miss X's injustice. There are no wider public interest issues to justify investigating this complaint.

London Borough of Brent (24 021 819)

Summary: Miss B complained the Council failed to properly consider whether to award school transport for her daughter. The Council failed to properly consider Miss B's representations, the discretionary element of its policy and failed to arrange a stage two panel to consider the case. That leaves Miss B with some uncertainty about whether her daughter would have secured school transport. An apology, payment to Miss B and training for officers is satisfactory remedy.

Lancashire County Council (24 022 178)

Summary: Miss B complained that the Council, in respect of her son C, had delayed in issuing a final EHC Plan following an assessment and failed to put adequate alternative provision in place. We found fault in the actions of the Council. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss B and C and make symbolic payments to them.

Cornwall Council (25 001 328)

Summary: The Council was at fault for not putting in place suitable education when a child was out of school and for delaying carrying out and annual review of a child's Education, Health and Care Plan. This meant the child did not receive the education they should have and the complainant had to wait longer than they should have to challenge the content of their child's Education, Health and Care Plan. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the loss of education to the child.

Essex County Council (25 005 453)

Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed completing an Education Health and Care needs assessment. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by providing a remedy for the injustice this caused.

Hampshire County Council (25 006 060)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to reimburse Mr X's transport costs. The Council has agreed to re-imburse Mr X's costs and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Staffordshire County Council (25 006 235)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to name a school in an Education, Health and Care Plan which the complainant says could not meet their child's needs. This is because the complainant has used their right of appeal to the tribunal and an investigation into the complaint would overlap with the role of the tribunal.

Surrey County Council (25 007 704)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about an Education, Health and Care needs assessment. Mrs X has appealed to a tribunal. This places the complaint outside our jurisdiction.

Suffolk County Council (24 017 247)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to act on safeguarding concerns, delayed providing support for his disabled son, and restricted the investigation of his concerns. The Council was at fault in how it responded to safeguarding concerns, delayed support under a Child in Need assessment, and handled both the complaints process and the Stage 2 investigation. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

Kent County Council (25 000 562)

Summary: The Council was largely not at fault for the support it offered to Miss X while her daughter, Y, was subject to a child protection plan. It was also not at fault for considering other family options before arranging a foster placement for Y. However, it was at fault for failing to handle Miss X's requests for financial support properly. It has agreed to apologise to Miss X, and will take steps to improve its service.

London Borough of Barnet (25 004 711)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about alleged harassment and the Council's handling of her complaints. There is insufficient evidence of fault, an investigation would not lead to a different outcome and the Information Commissioner' Office is better placed to consider a complaint about rectification of records.

Kent County Council (25 006 109)

Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council did not complete the statutory children's complaint's procedure. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by providing a remedy for the injustice this caused.

Buckinghamshire Council (25 007 326)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about information the Council presented in a court report. The law does not allow us to investigate matters which have been subject to court proceedings. Of the matters which are separable, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council's refusal to support Mr X.

Luton Borough Council (25 007 589)

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's reports for Family Court 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.

Torbay Council (25 007 701)

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's actions in relation to recent court proceedings for her child because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from considering complaints about matters that have been subject to court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so.

Milton Keynes Council (25 009 726)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint that the Council failed to safeguard a child and breached Miss X's data protection rights. This is because Miss X is not a suitable representative for the child involved and the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider her complaint about a data breach.

Kent County Council (24 018 698)

Summary: Mrs C complained the Council failed to put in place education provision for her son, delayed issuing a final EHC Plan following a review and failed to carry out an annual review in 2024. There is evidence of delay issuing an EHC Plan following a review, delay carrying out a second annual review and failure to engage with Mrs C about the education available to her son. That delayed Mrs C's right of appeal and meant her son missed out on special educational needs provision. The remedy the Council has already offered is satisfactory, along with an agreement to issue a final EHC Plan.

Cornwall Council (25 004 412)

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed finalising her daughter's Education, Health and Care plan. The Council was at fault. It caused a delay of six months. This likely meant her daughter missed out on some support that she needed and impacted on her wellbeing. Ms X herself also likely experienced inconvenience and distress and her right to appeal was frustrated. The Council has agreed to take action to address their injustice.

Essex County Council (25 004 940)

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 (25 006 272)

Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (25 006 567)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the education and special educational support provided to her child, Y, since 2022. Part of the complaint is late and the Council has not yet had the opportunity to consider and respond to a complaint about more recent matters.

London Borough of Tower Hamlets (25 006 785)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Education, Health and Care Plan process for Mr X's children. This is because Mr X has appealed to the Tribunal. This places the matter outside our jurisdiction.

Kingston Upon Hull City Council (25 006 865)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to issue fixed penalty notices for children not attending school. Mr X had the option of not paying and, if the Council prosecuted him, he could have argued his case in court. The law prevents us investigating the school's refusal to authorise the children's absence.

Surrey County Council (25 007 917)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to decline Mr X's application for travel assistance for his child Y. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

City of York Council (25 008 628)

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to reimburse the cost of school fees for the independent school named in her child's Education, Health and Care Plan. We have upheld this complaint because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mrs X.

Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (25 010 157)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of 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.

Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (24 012 402)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to progress Mr X's representations under the three-part children act procedure. It is unlikely we would find fault.

Leicestershire County Council (24 013 450)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the actions of the Council's children's services. This is because it concerns matters that have either been considered in court or can be raised with another body.

Norfolk County Council (24 013 810)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to appropriately safeguard Mrs X's children whilst in foster care. This is because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome for Mrs X.

Devon County Council (25 002 124)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's decision to restrict her contact, the scheduling of contact sessions with her child and information contained in court reports. There is insufficient evidence of fault and we are unlikely to achieve a worthwhile outcome. We cannot consider the content of court reports.

Dorset Council (25 006 305)

Summary: We will not investigate most of Miss X's complaint about the Council's early help services because an investigation is unlikely to achieve any additional outcome. We will not investigate some of the complaint because the Information Commissioner's Office is better suited.

Lancashire County Council (25 007 639)

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint that she was issued a passport in the incorrect name when she was a child because it lies outside our jurisdiction. This is because the matter complained about is not an administrative function of the Council.

Bristol City Council (25 007 891)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to seek removal of Miss X's child via the courts, and related matters. The law prevents us investigating what happened in court and the Council's decision to pursue court action. Peripheral matters are inextricably linked to the court proceedings.

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (25 013 741)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss X's contact with the Council. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable. We cannot investigate what happened in court, or overturn decisions made by the court. Nor can we direct the Council to alter any assessment it made about Miss X.

Essex County Council (25 006 092)

Birmingham City Council (25 006 212)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education, Health and Care Plan process for Mrs X's child. This is because it was reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). An investigation into the remainder of Mrs X's complaint would not lead to a different outcome.

Pudsey Grammar School (25 008 567)

Summary: We have ended our investigation into Mrs X's complaint about how Pudsey Grammar School dealt with her appeal for her child, W, to have a place at the school. That is because W now has a place, so any fault did not cause a significant personal injustice.

Essex County Council (25 009 805)

Summary: We have upheld this complaint about the Council's failure to complete an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment for Mrs X's child within the statutory timescale. The Council has agreed to provide a proportionate remedy and this removes the need for us to investigate.

Leeds City Council (24 013 157)

Summary: Mrs X complained about delays by the Council during her son's Education, Health and Care needs assessment. She said the delay left him without the support he needed, and he was unable to attend school. We have found the Council at fault for not completing the assessment within the legal timescales, which caused Mrs X uncertainty and frustration. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise Mrs X's distress.

Kent County Council (24 018 846)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint that the council did not make the provision specified in his Education Health and Care Plan while waiting for a Tribunal hearing to consider its decision to cease the Plan. Investigation would be unlikely to lead to any worthwhile outcome.

Isle of Wight Council (24 018 866)

Summary: The Council was at fault. It failed to provide Miss X's child, Y, with a suitable education, failed to secure Y's special educational provision and communicated poorly with Miss X when it changed its decision to provide education other than at school (EOTAS). This caused Miss X confusion, frustration, distress and uncertainty and Y missed education to which they were entitled. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment. The Council has already put in place actions to improve its service.

Dorset Council (24 020 081)

Summary: Ms X complained the Council referred to her daughter, D, as a year five student instead of being five years old in consultations it sent to special schools, causing delay finding her a place. She also said the Council delayed responding to her complaint. The Council delayed finding D a school place, causing Ms X uncertainty, however it was not caused by misinformation. The Council delayed responding to Ms X's complaint which caused her distress. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to remedy this.

Slough Borough Council (24 021 479)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council has failed to follow the Tribunal order and has not provided her son with an appropriate full time education or the provision set out in his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. Based on the documentation currently available I am minded to find the Council's delays in providing tuition and failure to ensure Mrs X's son received the provision in his EHC Plan is fault. As is the failure to identify a suitable special school. This fault has meant Y has missed out on educational provision and has caused Mrs X distress and uncertainty. The Council should take action to remedy this injustice.

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (25 002 480)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about school attendance action taken by the Council. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our further involvement.

Surrey County Council (25 005 521)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of Miss Y's Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because the Council has offered a suitable remedy for its delay and any dispute over the contents of the final Plan is a matter for the appeals process.

Leeds City Council (25 005 719)

Summary: We have upheld Mrs X's complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. The Council have agreed to resolve the complaint by offering a suitable remedy.

Oxfordshire County Council (25 005 552)

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X's complaint the Council would not fund a social activity for her child. That is because Ms X has appealed the amount of social care support her child receives to the Tribunal. Therefore, the law says we cannot investigate.

Kingston Upon Hull City Council (25 006 465)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X's contact with children's services. The complaint is late, and there are no good reasons why we should consider it. Additionally, the Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to consider his complaint about a Subject Access Request.

Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 006 704)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a Council social worker. There is another body better placed to consider the complaint.

Cambridgeshire County Council (25 003 103)

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.

Wiltshire Council (25 006 649)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to make educational provision for the complainant's child while she was unable to attend school. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council's part to warrant our intervention.

Liverpool City Council (24 019 799)

Summary: The Council failed to implement alternative educational provision for Mr X's child, Y after they stopped attending school. This was fault which caused Y to miss out on education. The Council has apologised and offered Mr X £7200 to remedy the injustice caused. We are satisfied with the Council's actions. The Council was also at fault for its delayed complaint responses. It has agreed to apologise and pay Mr X £100 to remedy the injustice caused by this.

London Borough of Haringey (24 021 154)

Summary: We upheld a complaint from Ms B that the Council failed to make suitable education provision for her son who has special educational needs. As a result, he experienced a loss of provision and Ms B suffered distress. The Council accepted these findings and agreed actions to remedy these injustices. It also agreed to make a service improvement to prevent a repeat of some of the fault found in this case.

Worcestershire County Council (24 021 652)

Summary: Mrs C complained the Council failed to provide education for her son, who has special educational needs, following his exclusion from school. We upheld the complaint finding for more than four months the Council made either no education provision, or inadequate provision for Mrs C's son. This loss of provision was an injustice. The Council proposed action it would take to remedy the complaint, set out at the end of this statement. We agreed this would provide a fair outcome to the complaint and so completed our investigation.

Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (24 021 752)

Summary: Miss X complained about a failure to put alternative provision in place for her child, Y, between 2024 and 2025, delayed annual reviews and a failure to update Y's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council failed to provide adequate oversight of Y's provision between January and July 2024 and then failed to put any education in place for Y between September 2024 and January 2025 when they were not on roll at any school. It also delayed amending Y's EHC Plan by five months following an annual review. The Council agreed to apologise and make payments to acknowledge the injustice this caused. It also agreed to provide us with updates of action it is taking to improve services under its SEND improvement plan.

Cheshire East Council (25 000 199)

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's failure to secure the provision in her child, Y's, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan or provide Y with a suitable alternative education. Miss X appealed to the SEND Tribunal. We cannot investigate any matter which was part of, was connected to, or could have been part of, the appeal to the Tribunal.

City of Doncaster Council (25 005 338)

Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed completing the review of an Education Health and Care Plan. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by providing a remedy for the injustice this caused. The complainant needs to complete the complaints process about other matters.

West Northamptonshire Council (25 005 613)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint that the Council delayed naming a school in her child's Education Health and Care Plan. This is because it was reasonable for Miss X to have appealed to a tribunal.

Essex County Council (25 006 074)

London Borough of Croydon (24 020 526)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about children services' actions as we are unlikely to add to the Council's reply to her complaint.

Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (25 005 830)

Summary: We have upheld Miss X's complaint about the Council's refusal to consider her complaints under the statutory procedure for children's social care. The Council has now agreed to investigate Miss X's complaint under the statutory procedure. This provides a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Leeds City Council (25 006 327)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's actions following a safeguarding incident involving her family. The Council has already apologised that its initial contact and communication was not in line with best practice. Further investigation is unlikely to achieve anything more.

London Borough of Newham (25 006 933)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's handling of information related to her adopted children and its previous decision on her earlier complaint. Part of the complaint has already been considered and decided. The remaining matters concern data handling issues which are for the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) to consider, or have not caused Mrs X a significant enough injustice

Luton Borough Council (24 018 180)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide a suitable education for her son following an exclusion. We found there was a lack of alternative provision. There was also a delay in completing the 2024 Education Health and Care Plan review process. We recommended an apology and a payment to recognise the injustice caused by the fault.

North Yorkshire Council (24 021 888)

Summary: The Council delayed issuing the Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for Ms X's grandchild, Y. It also delayed responding to Ms X's complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X. The Council was not at fault for not arranging alternative provision when Y stopped attending school. The Council was entitled to allow the school to try and reintegrate Y. We cannot investigate Ms X's complaint about Y's education from September 2024 as Ms X had appealed to the special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) Tribunal and the matters are linked.

Buckinghamshire Council (24 022 388)

Summary: Miss X complained about delays by the Council in her Education, Health and Care needs assessment. She said the delay left her without the support she needed. We found the Council at fault for not completing the assessment within the legal timescales, which caused Miss X uncertainty and frustration. The Council will apologise and make a higher payment to recognise Miss X's distress.

Lancashire County Council (24 023 453)

Summary: We have upheld Ms X's complaint about delay in the Education, Health and Care needs assessment for her child. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. We cannot investigate her complaint about the assessment process or the content of the final EHC Plan as she has appealed to the Tribunal.

Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (25 000 450)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about delays in securing an educational placement for her child. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Essex County Council (25 004 559)

Essex County Council (25 004 864)

Essex County Council (25 004 911)

Liverpool City Council (25 005 234)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the handling of Miss X's child's Education, Health and Care needs assessment. This is because it would have been reasonable for Miss X to appeal to the tribunal.

Lancashire County Council (25 005 296)

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.

Essex County Council (25 005 792)

Central Bedfordshire Council (25 006 056)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to properly consider and respond to the complainant's concerns about the conduct of it officer. Our intervention would not add anything significant to the investigation the Council has carried out or lead to a different outcome, and is not therefore warranted.

Kent County Council (25 006 672)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about ceasing an Education Health and Care Plan. It was reasonable for Ms X to use her right of appeal to a tribunal, therefore the matter is out of our jurisdiction.

Warwickshire County Council (24 015 433)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about how the Council dealt with her complaint under the statutory children's complaints procedure. This is because it is made late.

Birmingham City Council (24 019 096)

Summary: We found fault by the Council on Mr Y's complaint about it failing to properly justify why it rejected the Independent Investigating officer's recommendation about reimbursing his legal and private investigator's costs under its complaints procedure. The decision it sent Mr Y was too brief, failed to show and fully explain what was considered and how, and was selective in its use of evidence it relied on. The Council agreed to send him a written apology for the identified failures. It agreed to reimburse his legal costs of £12,459 and private investigator costs of £462. It will pay him £200 for the injustice the failures caused. It will also ensure full, reasoned, and objective decisions are sent when it decides not to follow an Independent Investigator's recommendation. It will ensure lessons are learned from the failures to ensure they are not repeated on future cases.

London Borough of Newham (25 001 727)

Summary: Mr X complained about how he and his 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 his complaint. This caused him an injustice, which the Council has already addressed. But we will not conduct a further investigation of Mr 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 Mr X. However, the Council will now take steps to eliminate complaint handling delays in future.

Norfolk County Council (25 006 744)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about arrangements for contact with Mr X's grandchildren. The complaint is late and there is also not enough evidence of fault with the Council's actions. Even if we investigated, we could not achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Hampshire County Council (25 006 809)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about his contact with his child. There is nothing more we could add to the Council's responses to Mr X's complaints to justify us investigating this matter further. It would also be reasonable for Mr X to ask the court to decide on child contact arrangements as neither we nor the Council have the power to do so.

Kent County Council (25 012 300)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's representations to court regarding Mr X's child's welfare. The law prevents us from doing so. We will not investigate the Council's earlier assessment of the child and its complaint-handling because these matters are inextricably linked to the court proceedings.


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, December 4, 2025

New children and education complaint decisions

A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions

No comments:

Post a Comment