New children and education complaint decisions

View online A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions Please note: our decisions are published six weeks after they are issued to councils, care providers and the person who has made the complaint. The cases below reflect the caselaw and guidance available at the time of issue and the individual circumstances of each case. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (24 023 246) Summary: The Council failed to decide if it was "necessary" to provide appropriate free transport to enable Ms X's adult daughter, Miss Y, to attend the college named in her Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. It confused matters for adult learners, like Miss Y, who began their course after the age of 19, with the education transport rules for sixth form students. The Council's amended Transport Policy 2024/2025 was not in line with the Education Act 1996 or case law for 19–25 year old learners with an EHC Plan. The faults caused Ms X avoidable frustration, avoidable time and trouble and uncertainty to her and Miss Y. Staffordshire County Council (24 021 918) Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not issue an updated Education, Health and Care Plan for his child, Y after an annual review in August 2024. He also complained about poor communication from the Council. We found fault by the Council on both parts of Mr X's complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the impact of Y's missed provision and the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused. Suffolk County Council (25 001 384) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to complete her child's Education, Health and Care Plan within the statutory timescales. We find the Council at fault for delay, which caused uncertainty and distress. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X. It should also review its action plan to ensure Education, Health and Care Plan writing is conducted in line with the timescales set out in statutory guidance. West Northamptonshire Council (25 002 633) Summary: The Council was at fault for the time taken to issue an Education, Health and Care Plan for Ms X's child and for not putting in place suitable education when the child was out of school. This meant the child had to wait much longer than they should for support with their special educational needs and missed out on education they should have received. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise, make payments to recognise the loss of education, special educational provision and delays issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council also agreed to carry out a service improvement. Lancashire County Council (25 004 261) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed issuing her child, Y's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan following an annual review (AR) in July 2024, ahead of Y's transfer year in 2025. The Council was at fault. It delayed issuing Y's EHC Plan by four months following the July AR. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X and Y to recognise the distress and uncertainty the delay caused. London Borough of Croydon (25 008 659) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about an Education Health and Care Plan review delay, communication issues and delays in replying to her complaint. We are unlikely to be able to significantly add to the Council's reply to her complaint. Suffolk County Council (25 010 958) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to restrict the complainants contact under its unreasonable behaviour policy. This is because the injustice caused is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (25 011 363) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint that the Council failed to provide education to her child, Y, or the content of Y's Education, Health and Care Plan to them between April 2023 and July 2024 because Miss X appealed to a tribunal, and the law says we cannot investigate. Surrey County Council (25 011 628) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to carry out an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment. Mr X appealed this decision to a Tribunal and therefore the law says we cannot investigate. We will not investigate Mr X's further complaint about subsequent delays in the assessment process after the tribunal ruling. This is because the Council has already provided a suitable remedy for Mr X's injustice here. Essex County Council (25 013 964) 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. Hertfordshire County Council (25 002 168) Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his son, Y's care. The Council was at fault for incorrectly making an early referral and giving Mr X confusing information about panel attendees. This caused Mr X frustration. The Council has agreed to arrange a stage three panel to remedy this. Thurrock Council (25 003 806) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement in the care of Mrs X's child. Most of the complaint relates to matters considered in court, which the law prevents us from investigating. Events before May 2024 are late. There is insufficient evidence of fault in more recent events we could consider, and in any event we could not achieve the outcome Mrs X seeks. London Borough of Haringey (25 010 768) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement with Mr X's family. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to add anything worthwhile to the Council's response or lead to a different outcome. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (25 011 199) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about decisions by a child protection conference and its complaints' outcome. We are unlikely to reach a significantly different outcome. Portsmouth City Council (25 011 202) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about information the Council has recorded about her and her children. The Council has already amended its records for Miss X's family. There is not enough evidence of remaining fault to justify our involvement. Thurrock Council (25 019 211) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint about how the Council handled her case when her children were taken away from her. The issues raised relate to what happened in court. Leeds City Council (24 022 215) Summary: We have ended our investigation and uphold Miss X's complaint about her son, Y missing education. During the investigation, the Council offered a suitable remedy for the injustice caused to Miss X and Y. Nottinghamshire County Council (25 004 300) Summary: We upheld a complaint that the Council delayed in issuing Mrs C's daughter with an updated Education, Health and Care Plan. We also found delay in the Council identifying suitable education provision for her daughter. Mrs C suffered an injustice because of the resulting distress and her daughter suffered an injustice because of the loss of education provision. The Council accepted these findings and at the end of this statement we set out what action it agreed to take to remedy that injustice. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (25 005 399) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide suitable education for her son for the academic year which commenced in September 2024. She says he lost out on education because of this issue. We found the Council at fault, which caused Mrs X and her son injustice. The Council agreed to apologise and make payment to remedy the injustice caused. Dorset Council (25 005 831) Summary: Mr X complained that after moving into the Council's area, it failed to provide his child, Y, with suitable education or alternative provision. We have ended our investigation because the Council has already provided an appropriate remedy. Devon County Council (25 010 430) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the review of his child's Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Kent County Council (25 011 479) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to change the arrangements for the complainant's son's school transport. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council's part to warrant investigation. Somerset Council (25 011 771) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to accept Ms X's medical evidence in support of her application for school transport. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council's actions. Essex County Council (25 013 651) 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. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (24 019 748) Summary: We found fault by the Council on Mr Y's complaint about its Restorative Solutions Team. It failed to fully explain the process, explain it would review his Victim Impact Statement, or explain what it would take account of when it did so. It failed to explain why it would remove a section of it or show him the finalised impact before it was used. Nor was there guidance to officers about what to consider when carrying out reviews. The Council agreed to send Mr Y a written apology, and review procedures to ensure information is given to victims at the start of a case which explains the whole process, particularly Victim Impact Statements. Officers will send a final copy of the statement to victims before it is used and will give officers guidance about what to take into account when reviewing them. Leeds City Council (25 010 777) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about child safeguarding. Parts of the complaint fall outside our jurisdiction and there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating. Norfolk County Council (25 015 109) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint about false information that she says led to her children being removed from her care. The issues raised relate to what happened in court. Southend-on-Sea City Council (25 019 845) Summary: We uphold this complaint about delay on the Council's part in completing the statutory procedure for complaints about children's services matters. It has now offered Mrs X two alternative dates in the near future for a Stage 3 panel to complete the procedure. Worcestershire County Council (25 011 198) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to make appropriate educational provision for the complainant's son while he has been unable to attend school. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council's part to warrant investigation. London Borough of Brent (24 022 990) Summary: Miss X complained that the Council failed to provide education for her son when he had no school place. We find some fault resulting in the complainant's son missing alternative education and causing Miss X avoidable frustration and time and trouble. We have recommended a way to remedy this injustice, which the Council has accepted. Therefore, we have completed our investigation and are closing the complaint. Suffolk County Council (25 000 032) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council was involved in a decision by the school attended by her child Y to stop offering specific educational provision, did not provide Y with suitable alternative education when she could not attend school, failed to meet timescales in an education, health and care needs assessment process and had poor standards of communication. We find the Council at fault for the way it decided if it should offer alternative education, and for missing statutory timescales in the assessment process. This caused injustice to Mrs X and Y of distress, uncertainty and frustration. The Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice. Birmingham City Council (25 001 135) Summary: There was fault in the way the Council decided to offer a bus pass as its free home to school transport offer for a journey over 3 miles to an 'eligible' pupil. It failed to assess whether the pupil, who has special educational needs, could manage the journey independently and wrongly put responsibility on the parent to accompany the child. This caused distress, inconvenience and financial loss to the family. The Council has agreed to apologise, reimburse taxi costs and make service improvements. West Northamptonshire Council (25 002 150) Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide her child, Y, with special educational provision when she was unable to attend school and it delayed in completing a review of Y's Education, Health and Care Plan. We find the Council at fault for a delay in completing the annual review and for failing to consider its duty to provide the special educational provision detailed in Y's Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused Y and Miss X distress, uncertainty and frustration, delayed Miss Y's right to appeal and impacted Y's access to education. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused. Surrey County Council (25 002 392) Summary: The Council failed to provide Speech and Language and Occupational Therapies along with specialist equipment for Mrs X's child, Y. This should have been provided as it was set out in Y's Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council has accepted fault, apologised and paid Mrs X a suitable financial remedy. Coventry City Council (25 002 576) Summary: We found fault with the Council delaying outside the statutory timescales in completing the Education, Health and Needs Care Plan assessment by two months causing frustration and uncertainty to Ms X. We also found fault with the Council failing to suitability consider its Section 19 duty to Ms X's child from October 2024 to the end of April 2025. This caused Ms X's child to miss a suitable education. The Council agreed to pay Ms X £200 for the delays and £1,800 for the missed education in recognition of the injustice the Council's fault caused. Essex County Council (25 015 533) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the school transport provided to her son. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome. Kent County Council (24 020 560) Summary: Miss X complained about the Council's handling of her education and special educational needs. We do not find the Council at fault regarding reimbursement of equipment. We do find the Council at fault for delay completing Miss X's annual review, failing to act when it became aware she was out of education, failing to consider special educational provision, and failing to arrange advocacy support. These faults caused avoidable uncertainty and distress. The Council should apologise and make a payment to Miss X. Hertfordshire County Council (24 022 426) Summary: Mrs F complained the Council delayed issuing an education, health and care plan and failed to provide education or alternative provision and special educational needs provision for her son. We found fault. The Council has agreed to make a payment to remedy the injustice caused. London Borough of Wandsworth (25 010 775) Summary: We cannot investigate X's complaint about a school's actions or the Council's investigation into the school's complaint response. It is reasonable to expect X to have complained to us earlier about a Council safeguarding investigation in December 2023. Northumberland County Council (25 011 283) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X complaints the Council has ignored his safeguarding concerns about his child. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council handling to justify our involvement. It would also be reasonable for Mr X to return to court if he wants changes to the care and contact arrangements for his child. London Borough of Lambeth (25 012 890) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's historic complaint about the Council's actions in its child protection involvement with her family when she was a child. This is because we could not carry out a full, fair and effective investigation of the matter now due to the very significant passage of time since the events complained about. Norfolk County Council (25 018 820) Summary: We have upheld Mr X's complaint because the Council delayed considering his complaint at stage three of the children's statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X. North Yorkshire Council (25 000 223) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's failure to make timely direct payments to her, for her child B's educational provision. She also complained about the Council's failure to conduct an Education, Health and Care Plan annual review. Mrs X said the Council failed to deal with her complaint properly. We found the Council was at fault. Mrs X suffered undue frustration and uncertainty because of this. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X, make a symbolic payment to her and improve its services. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (25 011 042) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's oversight of a special educational needs advisory service, who restricted Ms X's access to it. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons we should exercise discretion to consider it now. Nor will we investigate how the Council considered these matters more recently. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by us investigating. Derbyshire County Council (25 011 212) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the annual Education Health and Care Plan review process. The Council has upheld the complaint and agreed to remedy Mrs X's injustice by providing a financial remedy. There are no wider public interest issues to justify our investigation. Essex County Council (25 011 545) 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. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (25 012 655) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to withdraw post 16 travel assistance. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council's actions. Leeds City Council (25 013 292) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to investigate the complainant's further complaints and concerns. The Ombudsman has already investigated the substantial matter and is investigating another, and we will not reinvestigate issues which relate to, or could have been included in, those complaints. The remaining matters, in part, relate to the management of the school and the law prevents us from investigating this or there is insufficient injustice to warrant further investigation. Essex County Council (25 015 131) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (25 010 165) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about a children services' safeguarding referral consideration. It is unlikely we would find Council fault which has directly caused a significant injustice to Miss X. The Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to consider Miss X's data protection complaints. Dorset Council (25 010 451) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about payments made to a foster carer. It is unlikely we could say he has been caused any significant direct injustice by the Council's actions. London Borough of Croydon (25 010 462) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to act to safeguard the complainant's children and has failed to have regard to his parental rights. Investigation would not achieve anything significant or lead to a different outcome and is not therefore warranted. East Sussex County Council (25 010 968) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint of bias by the Council. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. It is also reasonable for Mr X to apply to the court if he wants contact with his children. Neither we nor the Council can achieve this outcome for Mr X. West Northamptonshire Council (25 011 257) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about the actions of a social worker during the Councils involvement with his family. The law does not allow us to investigate matters which have been subject to court proceedings. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (25 012 898) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's children's services, because the Council has already provided a suitable resolution, and further investigation is unlikely to achieve anything more. Other matters fall outside our jurisdiction and should be raised in Court or with another body. London Borough of Southwark (25 013 051) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant's deregistration as a foster carer. This is because another body is better placed than the Ombudsman to do so. Cumberland Council (25 016 341) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's decision to remove her children 30 years ago and the new evidence she says is now available. This is because the decision to remove Mrs X's children was made by a court and the law says we cannot investigate. Hertfordshire County Council (25 017 452) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint about the preparation and contents of a Section 7 report that the Council presented to a court. The law prevents us from investigating what happens during court proceedings. Dorset Council (25 019 866) Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X's complaint about the preparation and contents of a report that the Council presented to a court. The law prevents us from investigating what happens during court proceedings. Milton Keynes Council (25 021 010) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about how the Council has dealt with her complaint under the statutory children's complaints procedure. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault with its decision to suspend its investigation. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (25 021 330) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the content of a court report and subsequent data request because we cannot investigate what happened in court and the issues are intrinsically linked to legal proceedings. Also, the Information Commissioners Office are better placed to consider the complaint about a subject access request so we will not investigate. Portsmouth City Council (25 000 196) Summary: There was fault by the Council, because it did not take responsibility for ensuring the complainant's son had suitable alternative educational provision when he was unable to attend school. The Council has agreed to apologise and offer a financial remedy to remedy the injustice this caused. Lancashire County Council (25 002 113) Summary: Mrs B complained the Council has failed to update her son's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan since the first annual review and its communication with her has been poor. There was fault by the Council. It did not meet statutory timescales during the annual review process and issuing of the amended final EHC Plan. It also did not take sufficient action to ensure provision was consistently secured for Mrs B's son, as outlined in his existing EHC Plan. The Council's communication with Mrs B was also poor. Because of the fault, Mrs B suffered distress, frustration, uncertainty, and her appeal right to the Tribunal was delayed. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B, make symbolic payments, and issue staff briefings. London Borough of Enfield (25 002 515) Summary: There was fault by the Council, because it cannot show it properly followed the legal process when refusing an application for school transport. The Council has agreed to write a formal letter of apology for this, and take steps to ensure its staff understand and can apply the law when making similar decisions in future. Buckinghamshire Council (25 005 140) Summary: The Council failed to make sure that Mrs X's child received the speech and language therapy set out in their Education Health and Care Plan. It also failed to make sure that the therapist circulated a report in time for the annual review of the Plan. This caused Mrs X distress and frustration, and meant that her child missed speech and language therapy for over a year. I have recommended the Council make a symbolic payment in recognition of the therapy Mrs X's child missed out on. Isle of Wight Council (25 005 809) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's failure to provide alternative education for her child when they were out of school. Mrs X also complained her child was not receiving the special educational provision in their Education, Health and Care Plan. We have not investigated this complaint as the matters complained about were either part of Mrs X's appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Tribunal or were too closely linked to the appeal. Leeds City Council (25 010 724) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's removal of the complainant's child's personal travel allowance and the refusal of her appeal against this decision. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council's part to warrant our intervention. Bracknell Forest Council (25 012 223) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of the annual review process of an education, health and care plan because the injustice caused is not significant enough to warrant an investigation and the complainant can use her right to appeal to the Tribunal if she is unhappy with any amendments the Council may make to her child's plan. Essex County Council (25 013 543) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about delay in the annual review for her child's Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because the Council apologised and offered to pay her £500. We consider this is a suitable remedy and it is unlikely further investigation would achieve anything more for Mrs X. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 010 349) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about how the Council failed to provide him with a copy of an apology letter. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Cornwall Council (25 010 445) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an assessment undertaken by the Council following information shared by the Police because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation, an investigation would not change the outcome and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants. Redcar & Cleveland Council (25 010 840) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about Council's handling of matters involving her grandchild and their half-sibling in 2018 and 2019. The complaint is late and there are other bodies better placed to consider the issues raised. Medway Council (25 011 679) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's involvement with her children. This is because the law prevents us from investigating anything that has or is the subject of court proceedings. London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (25 011 742) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint that she missed school for several years as a child because of safeguarding failings by the Council. This is because the historical failings she complains of happened many years ago and therefore her complaint is late. I have seen no reason why Mrs X could not have come to us sooner. Durham County Council (25 013 004) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's actions in his children's case. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council's decision not to consider his complaint via its complaints procedure whilst there are ongoing court proceedings on the case. Gloucestershire County Council (25 018 097) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a report that the Council presented to a court. The law prevents us from investigating what happens during court proceedings. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (25 018 102) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a report that the Council presented to a court. The law prevents us from investigating what happens during court proceedings. Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (25 021 690) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about information the Council presented to a court. The law prevents us from investigating what happens during court proceedings. Central Bedfordshire Council (25 002 837) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide her son with sufficient education or the provision in his education, health and care plan, delayed carrying out an annual review and ignored her emails. The Council delayed completing an annual review but there is no fault in the remainder of the complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Ms X and put in place a process to manage annual reviews. London Borough of Islington (25 005 840) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about a Looked After Child review and mistreatment of personal data. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. And, the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider complaints about personal data. We look at individual complaints about local public services and all registerable social care providers in England. We remedy injustice and share learning from investigations to improve services. When we find a council or care provider has done something wrong, we recommend how it should put it right. We are free to use and make our decisions independently. Find out more about us at www.lgo.org.uk Manage preferences or unsubscribe Contact us

 

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