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.

London Borough of Tower Hamlets (24 013 446)

Summary: There was fault by the Council. There is no evidence the first Education, Health and Care Plan was sent to the family and no annual review was carried out in 2023. There was also delay sending a final Plan after the 2024 annual review. This caused uncertainty, as Mrs X will never know if Y's inclusion in the classroom could have been improved. The Council had already apologised and put in place procedures to improve the service before the complaint was considered by the Ombudsman. A symbolic payment remedies the distress caused to Mrs X and her family from the uncertainty.

London Borough of Croydon (24 021 812)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan to her son following a review. Miss X also complained the Council failed to ensure her son received the required special educational provision while he was attending school and failed to ensure he received appropriate education for the period he did not attend school. Miss X says the Council's actions caused avoidable distress to her and her son. We found some delay by the Council. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X for the fault identified.

Cheshire West & Chester Council (24 023 490)

Summary: The Council is at fault for poor communication and delay in the annual review process, causing distress. It also failed to provide education. The Council has accepted it is at fault and provided a suitable remedy.

West Northamptonshire Council (25 001 155)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to adhere to the statutory timeframes for issuing her child, Z's, Education, Health and Care Plan, and it failed to provide Z with access to suitable education. We find the Council at fault for a delay in issuing a final Education, Health and Care Plan and a delay in securing suitable education. This caused distress and frustration for Miss X and significantly impacted Z's access to education. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment to Miss X and ensure it has a robust section 19 referral process in place available to any staff member working with children out of education.

Suffolk County Council (25 003 138)

Summary: The Council was at fault. It did not issue Mrs X's child, Y's, decision letter or Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan within the statutory timescales after Y's late January 2025 annual review. It also communicated poorly with Mrs X. The symbolic payment the Council has already offered to Mrs X for the delays and associated distress is in line with our guidance on remedies. The Council will pay Mrs X the £500 symbolic payment it previously offered to acknowledge Mrs X's distress, frustration and uncertainty and also issue Y's final amended EHC Plan. The Council has already put in place service improvements.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council (25 007 716)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council changing the final total amount in an offer to remedy a complaint. It is unlikely we would find fault and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable.

Slough Borough Council (25 008 612)

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's provision of education since July 2024 for Y. It is not separable from the matters a Tribunal considered. There are no reasons to justify investigating matters known to Mrs X for more than 12 months.

Kent County Council (25 019 221)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's decision that the walking route to her child, Y's, school is safe and that Y is no longer eligible for home to school transport. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Isle of Wight Council (25 008 592)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Miss X's complaints. One matter is closely related to matters we have already considered. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council operated the statutory complaints process relating to social care matters. And the Council had indicated when Miss X approached us that it would deal with her complaints about educational provision, so there would be no useful purpose in us doing so before it completes its work.

St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (25 010 971)

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council using fabricated reports and lying to the court in proceedings for her son because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters which are being, or have been, considered in court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so.

Kent County Council (25 011 535)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about a report the Council has provided to the court in ongoing family court proceedings. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council's decision not to consider his complaint until the ongoing proceedings have concluded.

Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (25 005 384)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council included inaccurate information in a Child and Family assessment. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Buckinghamshire Council (24 018 549)

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's delays during the Education, Health and Care needs assessment process for her son. She also complained the Council failed to provide her son with suitable alternative provision. We find the Council was at fault for its delay in issuing Mrs X's son's Education, Health and Care Plan. It was also at fault for how it handled Mrs X's son's alternative provision. These faults caused Mrs X frustration and uncertainty, and Mrs X's son missed out on provision. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and make payments to her.

Hertfordshire County Council (24 022 021)

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to maintain oversight of Ms X's child Y's educational provision from October 2023 to April 2024. It has already made a symbolic payment in recognition of the avoidable frustration and uncertainty caused which was in line with our guidance. It will apologise to Ms X and Y to acknowledge the frustration caused as a result of its fault.

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (25 004 184)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay by the Council in completing Ms X and Mr Y's child's Education, Health and Care Plan annual review. This is because the Council has agreed to pay Ms X and Mr Y £400 and this provides a suitable remedy for the impact of its delay.

Bedford Borough Council (25 009 201)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about education matters known to her for more than 12 months. There are no reasons to justify disapplying the late complaint rule. It is reasonable to expect Mrs X to complain to the Council about events since then before we could consider them.

Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (25 003 376)

Summary: The Council failed to properly consider Mr X's complaint through the children's statutory complaints procedure in line with the relevant law and guidance. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, pay them a symbolic amount to recognise the frustration this caused them and arrange a stage three panel to consider Mr X's complaint.

London Borough of Islington (25 007 335)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's children services' complaint because there are no sufficient reasons to justify our reinvestigating a matter which has had a full Children Act statutory complaints' procedure investigation. We are unlikely to achieve a significantly improved remedy for complaint delays.

Cheshire East Council (25 008 285)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss X's contact with the Council and its complaints handling. The Council has already investigated under the children's statutory complaint procedures, and further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

London Borough of Lewisham (25 008 839)

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (25 016 481)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's Section 7 court report. The law prevents us from investigating what happens as part of court proceedings.

Essex County Council (25 010 291)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council refusing to provide her child with free transport to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Sheffield City Council (24 017 244)

Summary: Ms X complains about the way the Council dealt with the care of her children. The Council was at fault for the Investigating Officer failing to consider information when they said they would, failing to clarify at stage three of the complaint procedure its view on whether it could investigate human rights matters, delaying in completing the complaint procedure and delaying in completing some of the agreed remedies. This caused Ms X and her children distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Ms X and the children, and send us an action plan on how it will improve complaint handling times.

North Northamptonshire Council (25 009 606)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about fault on the Council's part in the process of assessing the complainant's son's needs and issuing an Education Health and Care plan. This is because the complaint has already been upheld and investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Staffordshire County Council (25 009 660)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to make appropriate educational provision for the complainant's child. This is because the complaint concerns matters about which the complainant had the right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) or are closely related to such matters, and it was reasonable for her to do so.

Lincolnshire County Council (24 012 773)

Summary: We have found fault with the Council for the delay in securing alternative provision for Miss Y's son, C. This resulted in C missing education and special education need provision for one school term. The Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment in recognition of the missed provision.

Thurrock Council (24 014 594)

Summary: We have found fault with the Council for failing to secure alternative provision for Mrs X's son, Y for a term. This caused Y the injustice of missing a term of education. The Council has agreed to apologise and make Mrs X a symbolic payment to remedy this injustice.

Derbyshire County Council (24 015 560)

Summary: The Council has acknowledged that it took too long to issue a final Education Health and Care Plan for K, and to review the Plan. It also has acknowledged that it did not communicate with K's mother, Ms X properly, or always deal with her complaints in good time. I have found that the Council also failed to properly consider its duty to make alternative educational provision when K could not go to school. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and to K, and make a further symbolic payment in recognition of the impact on them of the further fault.

City of Doncaster Council (24 020 034)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council refused to provide section 19 alternative provision for her son, Y, who could not attend school for medical reasons. As a result, Y had no educational provision. We found the Council was at fault for the advice it gave Mrs X and the way it explained its decision. However, we did not find this caused significant injustice to Y as the fault did not affect the Council's decision.

East Sussex County Council (24 021 493)

Summary: There was no fault in how the Council decided whether it had a duty to make alternative educational provision while Mrs B's son, K, could not attend school. There was also no fault in how the Council decided what educational provision it should offer once it accepted that duty.

Nottinghamshire County Council (24 021 977)

Summary: The Council delayed arranging alternative education when a pupil was too anxious to return to school and delayed securing special educational provision in an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council has agreed to apologise, reimburse tuition costs, make a symbolic financial payment and make service improvements.

Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (24 022 313)

Summary: The Council failed to keep adequate oversight of child Y's part time educational arrangement between September 2024 and April 2025 or consider whether to put alternative provision in place. It also failed to ensure Y received the specialist provision in their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan between February and April 2025. I could not investigate Y's loss of specialist provision between September 2024 and February 2025 as Miss X had appealed Y's EHC Plan to the SEND tribunal. The Council agreed to make a payment to acknowledge the impact the fault had on Y's education.

North Yorkshire Council (24 022 842)

Summary: The Council was at fault as it delayed ensuring Ms X's child Y received all the provision within their Education, Health and Care Plan and its communication was poor. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and Y and to make a payment to acknowledge the distress and frustration this caused.

Lancashire County Council (25 008 274)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to refuse the complainants' application and appeal for home to school transport assistance for their children. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council's part to warrant our intervention.

Kingston Upon Hull City Council (25 009 107)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an Education, Health and Care Plan as it provided a proportionate remedy for the delay in issuing the final Plan. We do not have discretion to investigate the content of the Education, Health and Care Plan as Ms X appealed to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal.

Essex County Council (25 010 711)

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.

North Yorkshire Council (25 010 982)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to provide school transport to Mrs X's child. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Hertfordshire County Council (24 021 641)

Summary: Miss X complained about the standard of the Council's safeguarding investigation under the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) process following a safeguarding allegation made against her. There was no fault in how the Council investigated and substantiated the allegations. However, there was unnecessary delays during the investigation. Further, the LADO process did not apply policy or set clear timescales for actions to be completed after the investigation concluded. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss X for the frustration and uncertainty caused to her and review its policy.

London Borough of Lambeth (24 022 644)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about children services' matters. There are no justifiable reasons to reinvestigate a Children Act statutory complaints' procedure investigation. And the Council has agreed a proportionate way to remedy its delay in that process.

Kingston Upon Hull City Council (25 008 647)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about children services' action. There are no reasons to justify investigating events known to Ms X since 2021. We cannot investigate the Police's actions. And the Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to consider a data sharing complaint.

Leicestershire County Council (24 017 917)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not provide full time education suitable for her daughter's needs when she could not attend school. We found the Council at fault for not putting in place provision it agreed her daughter needed, impacting on her educational progress. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to recognise the injustice caused.

Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 021 187)

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council's failure to secure part of the provision set out in her child's Education, Health and Care Plan, which she said adversely impacted her child's transition to adulthood. We found the Council at fault in not securing the provision. To put right the injustice arising from its fault the Council agreed to apologise to Miss X and her child and make a symbolic payment.

Cornwall Council (24 021 940)

Summary: There was fault by the Council when it failed to make alternative educational provision for a child who could not attend school. The Council also took too long to issue a final EHC Plan. The Council's failings meant that the child was without a suitable education, causing distress to the child and her mother. The Council has already made improvements to its service. It has agreed to apologise to both the mother and the child, and make a symbolic payment in recognition of the education missed.

Derbyshire County Council (25 009 125)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about evidence collected and presented to a Tribunal. We do not have jurisdiction to consider the evidence presented to a Tribunal. We cannot investigate matters which formed part of a Tribunal. We will also not investigate Mr X's complaint about delay reviewing his child's Educational Health and Care Plan. The remaining injustice is not significant enough to justify investigation.

Dorset Council (25 009 225)

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint about her child's Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because she has appealed to the SEND Tribunal.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council (25 009 270)

Summary: We will not investigate X's complaint about delays in amending an Education Health and Care Plan. It is reasonable to expect X to have appealed to the Tribunal and the delay is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Essex County Council (25 010 644)

Leicester City Council (25 008 559)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint the Council has ignored his safeguarding concerns about his child. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. It would be reasonable for Mr X to take any concerns he has about care and contact arrangements for his child to court.

Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (25 011 960)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to place Miss X's child on a child in need plan. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to provide Miss X with a different outcome.

Lincolnshire County Council (25 016 463)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's Section 7 court report. The law prevents us investigating matters considered in court.

Milton Keynes Council (24 021 702)

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's delays with an Education, Health and Care needs assessment. She also said the Council did not provide alternative provision for her son when he struggled to attend school. We found fault with the Council's delay and for not being able to evidence how it made its decisions about alternative provision. This caused frustration, uncertainty, and missed education. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice.

Gloucestershire County Council (24 021 843)

Summary: We found fault with the Council failing to provide Mrs X's child's full Education, Health and Care Plan provision and suitable education from 8 November 2024 to the end of the academic year. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X, pay her £300 for the frustration, distress and uncertainty caused to her and £2,500 for her child's missed educational provision.

Staffordshire County Council (24 023 155)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not complete Miss Y's annual review and the issue a final Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan within the required timeframe. She also complained the Council delayed in securing a place at a college following the Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) Tribunal order in November 2024. We found the Council's failure to complete the EHC Plan annual review in accordance with the statutory timeframes is fault. As is the failure to ensure Miss Y received the provision set out in her EHC Plan between November 2024 and January 2025. This fault has caused distress, uncertainty and frustration and meant Miss Y missed education and SEN provision. The Council will apologise and make payments to Mrs X and Miss Y and review its procedures.

Surrey County Council (25 001 188)

Summary: Mrs B complained about the Council's failure to provide alternative education for her son D who was not attending school. We found fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B and D and make a symbolic payment.

Wyvern School (25 003 827)

Summary: The School was at fault for failing to properly consider Mrs X's request for admission outside of chronological age group for her two summer born children in line with the relevant law and guidance. This caused Mrs X distress, frustration and uncertainty about her children's education. The School has agreed to apologise and review its decision.

Cornwall Council (25 004 475)

Summary: The Council was at fault for a delay in amending Mrs X's daughter's special educational needs support. This likely caused her to miss out on some support and likely caused Mrs X some inconvenience and distress. The Council has already accepted that it was at fault and has apologised. It has now also agreed to make a symbolic payment to recognise the injustice to Mrs X and her daughter.

Essex County Council (25 008 857)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to obtain a Speech and Language assessment as part of Mrs X's son's Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment. This is because it would be reasonable for Mrs X to raise the point at the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) as part of an appeal.

Essex County Council (25 004 053)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to investigate his concerns that his son did not receive adequate education. He says the Council's actions have caused significant harm to his son's development. I have ended our investigation because Mr X's substantive complaint falls outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction.

Sheffield City Council (25 005 807)

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about information the Council shared with the Court. That is because the law says we cannot investigate matters that have formed court proceedings. We will also not investigate his complaint about a social worker. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

London Borough of Islington (25 008 591)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the investigation of a social services referral. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (25 009 080)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to backdate fostering allowance payments. The Council has already considered the complaint through the three stage Children Act complaint procedure and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Birmingham City Council (25 009 277)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about concerns he raised about his children's school. We have already considered these matters and will not do so again. The Information Commissioner is better placed to deal with other matters.

Hertfordshire County Council (25 009 332)

Summary: We cannot investigate part of Mrs X's complaints about the accuracy of social work reports because the matters complained about were considered by a court. We will not investigate the remainder because the issues are likely to have been considered by a court or are late.

Lancashire County Council (25 011 095)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the conduct of a social worker, because there is not enough injustice to warrant an investigation. We will not investigate Mr X's complaints about the Council sharing inaccurate information as part of the Child Protection process as these matters are best considered by the Information Commissioner's Office.

North Yorkshire Council (25 011 978)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council's children's services. This is because it concerns matters that have been considered in court.

Southampton City Council (25 009 318)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about how the Council handled safeguarding concerns. The Council has already looked into the matter and responded appropriately. It has addressed the outcomes Mr X asked for, and further investigation is unlikely to find fault


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, January 15, 2026

New children and education complaint decisions

A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions

No comments:

Post a Comment