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.

Leicestershire County Council (25 001 812)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's delay in issuing an Education, Health and Care plan and arranging payment for its provision. Following the complaint the Council carried out the outcome the complainant was seeking. It is, therefore, unlikely further investigation will have a worthwhile outcome.

Devon County Council (25 003 927)

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's decision not to reimburse her for the money she spent transporting her children to and from school. We find no fault with the Council's decision making.

East Sussex County Council (25 009 352)

Summary: We cannot investigate most of Ms X's complaints about her child's Education, Health and Care Plan and the process by which the Council made the EHC Plan because she appealed to a tribunal. We will not investigate the remainder because the tests in our assessment code are not met.

Wakefield City Council (25 009 737)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the educational provision made for Miss X's child. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in matters up to December 2024 to warrant our further involvement. After that, Miss X had a right of appeal against the Education Health and Care Plan the Council issued it would have been reasonable to use.

Nottinghamshire County Council (25 009 859)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the travel costs of Ms X's child because there is no worthwhile outcome that we can achieve by doing so.

North Yorkshire Council (25 009 875)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to name a school in an Education, Health, and Care Plan. This is because Mrs X had a right of appeal if she was unhappy with the Council's decision, and it would have been reasonable to expect her to have used it.

West Northamptonshire Council (25 004 574)

Summary: There was fault by the Council because it failed to involve Mr X when it received child safeguarding allegations about his daughter Y. This caused avoidable distress and uncertainty about the actions and decisions the Council might have made had it involved Mr X. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment and complete training to front line staff around best practice for engaging and working with fathers.

Isle of Wight Council (25 005 549)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council included incorrect information in a Child Protection Conference report. Further investigation.

Cambridgeshire County Council (25 007 854)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the actions of a social worker towards the complainant were unprofessional and amounted to bullying. Investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Wiltshire Council (25 009 568)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about children services' actions. We have upheld Mrs X's complaint as the Council has now agreed to follow the Children Act statutory complaints' procedure which is a proportionate way to resolve the complaint.

Leicestershire County Council (24 015 160)

Summary: We cannot investigate if the Council was at fault for failing to ensure Miss X's child Y received the special educational provision outlined in their Education, Health and Care Plan, as it was too closely connected to her reason for appealing to the Tribunal. There was fault in the Council's communication and complaint handling for which it has offered a suitable financial remedy during our investigation for the frustration caused. The Council was also at fault for failing to send its decision within four weeks of Y's annual review meeting however this fault did not cause a significant injustice.

Derbyshire County Council (24 019 223)

Summary: Mrs Y complains about the Council's delay in making transport arrangements available for her child, D, to attend the school named in their Education Health and Care plan. When Mrs Y complained to the Council, it did not respond for over seven months. The Council has already paid £500 in recognition of Mrs Y's distress and has agreed to make a further payment of £200 in recognition of the anxiety caused to D. The Council will also publish information about how it processes school transport mileage allowance claims.

Oxfordshire County Council (24 019 966)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to carry out an Education Health and Care Plan needs assessment properly for her child, B. She also complained the Council failed to provide alternative education to B. The Council was at fault. It failed to provide alternative education to B. The Council will make a payment to Mrs X, provide guidance and training to its staff, and conduct a review of B's case.

London Borough of Bromley (25 001 024)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to ensure the annual review of her child, Y's Educational Health and Care (EHC) Plan was completed within statutory timescales. I have ended this investigation as there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

Essex County Council (25 002 006)

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to provide Miss X's child Y with alternative educational provision and the specialist provision in their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan when they stopped attending school. The Council was also at fault for failing to issue Y's final amended EHC Plan within statutory timescales following the annual review. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to remedy the injustice caused.

City of Doncaster Council (25 002 178)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide alternative education or a school place when her son was permanently excluded from school in June 2024. Miss X also complained about delays in reviewing and finalising her son's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and poor communication. We found the Council's failure to ensure Y received a suitable education for a term and a half is fault. As was the poor communication and failure to keep Miss X informed. This fault has caused Miss X and Y an injustice.

London Borough of Enfield (25 004 523)

Summary: There was fault in the way the Council considered an application for home to school transport made on the grounds of special educational needs and disability. The Council delayed carrying out an individual assessment of the child's ability to walk the distance required, wrongly relying on an expectation the parent drive the child. As a result, transport support was delayed, causing distress, inconvenience and expense to the parent. The Council has agreed to refund Ms X's mileage, make a symbolic payment for the distress and inconvenience caused and make service improvements.

Staffordshire County Council (25 010 029)

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.

Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 010 313)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Education, Health and Care Plan process. Mrs X has appealed to the Tribunal and that places the complaint outside our jurisdiction.

Swindon Borough Council (25 010 804)

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint about matters which are not separable from a Tribunal appeal.

Oxfordshire County Council (25 013 761)

Summary: During another investigation, we identified the Council failed to deliver specialist therapies to a child, for two years. The evidence suggested this may have caused injustice to others. We opened this new complaint to investigate. We found the Council was at fault. It delayed carrying out specialist therapy assessments with children in its area. The Council has started work to address the issue.

Kent County Council (25 013 348)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's children's services involvement with her child. This is because we have no power to consider complaints about what has happened in court and other matters could reasonably have been raised during court proceedings.

Essex County Council (25 007 688)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint the Council failed to safeguard her child. We could not add to the Council's investigation.

London Borough of Sutton (25 009 788)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions after it received a safeguarding referral. Social Work England and the Information Commissioner are better placed to consider most of Miss Z's complaint. For the rest, we cannot achieve the outcome Miss Z seeks so there is no worthwhile outcome from us investigating further.

Leeds City Council (25 010 283)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the accuracy of a children services' assessment. The Information Commissioner's Office is better placed.

Leicestershire County Council (25 010 088)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to issue a new contract to the complainant's daughter's home to school transport provider. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council's part to warrant our intervention.

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (24 017 355)

Summary: Ms C complained about the Council's handling of her son's (X) education when he stopped attending his school placement, and delays in the EHC plan process. We found fault by the Council for causing significant delays in the statutory process and its failure to ensure X received an appropriate education in 2024. The Council will apologise and make payment to acknowledge the impact its faults had on Ms C and X.

Devon County Council (24 021 855)

Summary: Based on current evidence the Council failed to ensure Mrs X's child, Y received an education or the specialist provision in their Education, Health and Care Plan between September 2024 and April 2025. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to acknowledge the injustice this caused.

Halton Borough Council (25 005 264)

Summary: On behalf of Mrs B, Mrs X complained the Council incorrectly determined Mrs B's child was not eligible for home to school transport. We have discontinued our investigation as Mrs B has moved out of the area and is no longer in contact with Mrs X or the Council, therefore there is no worthwhile outcome we can achieve for Mrs B.

Isle of Wight Council (25 009 160)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council amending Miss Y's Education, Health and Care Plan. We do not have the power to investigate the complaint as Ms X has appealed to the Tribunal.

North Northamptonshire Council (25 009 902)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the school named in an education, health and care plan and the loss of educational provision because it was reasonable for the complainant to have used his right of appeal to a tribunal.

Surrey County Council (25 003 892)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a safeguarding review by the Council concerning a case involving the murder of a child widely covered by national media . Mr X has not claimed any relationship to the child involved. The Council's actions in respect of the child are not likely to have caused him any injustice that would warrant investigation by us.

Brighton & Hove City Council (25 009 313)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about children services actions. We are unlikely to find significant fault directly made a difference. There are other bodies who are better placed to consider his complaints about a social worker's conduct and Council record keeping.

Cambridgeshire County Council (25 010 550)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about actions the Council took after receiving a referral about Miss X's family. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (25 012 897)

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint about decisions made around her adoption when she was a baby, because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been subject to court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so.

Luton Borough Council (25 019 009)

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.

Warwickshire County Council (24 005 468)

Summary: We find the Council at fault for delays in the education, health and care plan review process, delays implementing alternative educational provision, poor complaint handling, and poor communication. This caused Miss X distress and frustration, and denied her appeal right. The Council will apologise and make a payment.

Buckinghamshire Council (25 002 173)

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.

Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 007 692)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's handling of her child's Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because she has appealed the substantive issue about the Council's decision to name a school she considers unsuitable. The Council has apologised to Mrs X for delays and poor communication and it is unlikely investigation would achieve anything more for her.

Cambridgeshire County Council (25 010 954)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's actions relating to a school admissions application for his son. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in the handling of the original application and Mr X has appealed. The Council has explained why it does not think its Fair Access Protocol or alternative education duty apply to Mr X's situation. We would be unlikely to find fault if we investigated these points. We cannot consider the actions of schools and some of Mr X's complaint had not completed the Council's complaints process when he complained to the Ombudsman.

Buckinghamshire Council (25 011 110)

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.

Essex County Council (25 012 562)

Essex County Council (25 012 564)

Essex County Council (25 014 800)

Buckinghamshire Council (25 019 985)

Southampton City Council (25 010 133)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to decline to consider all aspects of the complainant's complaint about child protection action. This is because it relates to matters which have been, or could have been, considered in court, or are closely related to such matters.

Shropshire Council (25 018 048)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the conduct of a social worker. This is because another body is better placed to consider the matter and because we cannot achieve the outcome she seeks.

London Borough of Bromley (25 020 088)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a court report. The law prevents us from investigating what happens in court.

South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 017 118)

Summary: Ms X alleges the Council failed to provide or secure suitable education for Y after exclusion, did not deliver EHCP provision, and communicated poorly. We did not find fault in the Council's substantive education/EHCP duties. However, we found fault for matters concerning record-keeping and delay which caused avoidable uncertainty and a deferred right of appeal. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (24 018 732)

Summary: The Council was at fault as it failed to ensure Miss X's child Y received the special educational provision in their Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Miss X to acknowledge the distress, frustration and missed suitable educational provision this caused between June 2024 and October 2024.

Milton Keynes Council (24 022 038)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide her son with sufficient education or ensure her son received the provision in his EHC Plan. The Council's decision making was delayed and lacked clarity and its communications with Miss X were poor. That caused Miss X uncertainty and distress. An apology, payment to Miss X and training for officers is satisfactory remedy.

Somerset Council (24 022 210)

Summary: We have found the Council at fault for its delay in issuing a final amended Education, Health and Care Plan for Miss X's son, Y ahead of his transfer to post-16 education. This resulted in Miss X and Y suffering avoidable distress. We have also found the Council at fault for failing to secure the support and provision in Y's Plan. This missed provision caused Y an injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise, and make a payment to Miss X

Devon County Council (24 022 951)

Summary: We found fault with the Council's delay in issuing Ms X's child, Y's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and failure to consider whether to put alternative provision in place. This caused Ms X and Y uncertainty and avoidable distress. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and Y for the delay and failure to consider its duty and make a payment to remedy the injustice. We did not find fault with the Council for failing to provide alternative provision for Ms X's child.

Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (25 000 070)

Summary: I find fault and delay by the Council in securing special educational provision. Z has missed out on specialist therapy and other support for over two terms. This is an injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and service improvements. The complaint is upheld.

Medway Council (25 002 307)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to ensure her child received the Speech and Language Therapy provision specified in their Education, Health and Care Plan. We find the Council at fault for failing to check and monitor the provision, for delays in issuing the final amended Education, Health and Care Plan, and for poor complaint handling. These faults caused loss of provision, avoidable distress, uncertainty, and unnecessary time and trouble for Mrs X. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mrs X, and take action to improve its services.

Suffolk County Council (25 003 952)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her son with the speech and language therapy in his Education, Health and Care Plan since October 2024. We have ended our investigation into Mrs X's complaint because she used her right to appeal to the Tribunal. Her complaint therefore falls outside our jurisdiction.

Cornwall Council (25 004 553)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not provide her son, Y, a suitable education after he was permanently excluded from his school. We have found the Council at fault. Y was without the education and support he needed. The Council has agreed to take action remedy his injustice.

Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (25 004 980)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms M's complaint about the 2024 review of her son's education, health and care (EHC) plan because we could not achieve the outcome Ms M wants.

Leeds City Council (25 005 280)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed finalising her son's Education, Health and Care plan. The Council was at fault. It caused a delay of five months. This likely meant her son missed out on some support that he needed and her right to appeal was frustrated. The Council has agreed to take action to address their injustice.

Suffolk County Council (25 008 997)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's failure to arrange an assessment prior to the review of her child's Education Health and Care Plan. This is because it is reasonable for her to appeal to a tribunal.

Suffolk County Council (25 011 237)

Summary: We cannot investigate part of Ms X's complaint about the decision not to make an Education, Health and Care Plan for her child because she appealed to the SEND Tribunal. We will not investigate Ms X's complaints about arranging alternative provision or school transport for her child because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Devon County Council (25 011 623)

Pudsey Grammar School (25 013 297)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel for us to be able to question its decision.

Norfolk County Council (25 017 965)

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's handling of an Education Health and Care Plan request as Miss X appealed to the Tribunal. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council's provision of education.

London Borough of Camden (25 007 696)

Summary: We upheld Miss X's complaint about delays in the children's statutory complaints process. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by paying Miss X a symbolic remedy to recognise her injustice and complete its investigation.

North Somerset Council (25 008 905)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about a child protection investigation because the Council has responded appropriately and there is nothing we could add by further investigation.

Suffolk County Council (25 009 664)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council exercised its child protection duties. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, for some parts of the complaint other bodies are better placed to consider them, and we cannot achieve the outcomes that Mrs X wants.

Lincolnshire County Council (25 011 082)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about how the Council dealt with her during its parental investigation. The complaint was submitted late, and there is no good reason to consider it now.

Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 016 824)

Summary: We have upheld Mr and Mrs X's complaint because the Council delayed considering their 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 and Mrs X.

Reading Borough Council (24 007 973)

Summary: We have investigated the Council's ongoing application of its Unreasonable Complainant Behaviour policy. We found no fault with the Council actions. We found no evidence of fault in the ongoing application of the policy, nor in the Council's decision to cease investigating Mrs X's complaint and any future corporate complaints. The Council has followed its procedures appropriately throughout and will continue to review the application of the policy every six months.

Leicester City Council (23 019 976)

Summary: Miss X complains about the Council's failure to secure Section F provision, adhere to statutory timescales, and its decision to decline her request for a personal budget. We have concluded our investigation with a finding of fault. The Council failed to ensure timely delivery of the Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) provision outlined in Section F of the Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP), resulting in significant delay. Additionally, the Council did not meet statutory timescales for the annual review process, causing further delays in securing necessary services.


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 22, 2026

New children and education complaint decisions

A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions

No comments:

Post a Comment