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.

Buckinghamshire Council (24 012 399)

Summary: The complainant (Mrs E) has two sons, who both have SEN. For one son the Council failed to provide them with speech and language therapy and occupational therapy included within their EHC Plan. For the other son, the Council also failed to provide him with speech and language therapy and failed to complete reviews of his EHC Plan in time. The investigation has highlighted systemic failings in the delivery of speech and language and occupational therapy services by the provider used by the Council to deliver these services to children with EHC Plans. This despite the Council having recommissioned that service and introduced a new strategy to meet the therapeutic needs of children with SEN in its area during 2024.

Buckinghamshire Council (25 022 150)

London Borough of Wandsworth (25 003 066)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint that the Council failed to act to safeguard her child. This is because her complaint is made late and I see no good reason to exercise discretion to consider it now.

North Yorkshire Council (25 003 495)

Summary: The Council was duty bound to make a safeguarding referral when it had concerns for Mrs X's child, Y, and investigate the referral in line with its safeguarding processes. The Council was not at fault.

Plymouth City Council (25 011 532)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about child protection. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate it now.

Somerset Council (25 011 549)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about children services' actions. The Information Commissioner's Office and Social Work England are better placed.

Birmingham City Council (25 012 099)

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X's complaint about children services' actions as a Court is considering or has decided the children's care arrangements.

Hampshire County Council (25 012 529)

Summary: We cannot investigate most of Mrs X's complaint about the Council's refusal to intervene in a disagreement about childcare arrangements. Mrs X applied to a court to consider the issue, and the law says we cannot investigate matters which have been considered by a court. We will not investigate Mrs X's concerns about how the Council responded to her safeguarding concerns because this is likely to form part of the court proceedings.

London Borough of Croydon (25 013 373)

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's handling of child protection matters. The issues raised relate to court proceedings. The law says we cannot investigate complaints about court action or what happened in court.

London Borough of Croydon (25 017 424)

Summary: We have upheld Ms X's complaint because the Council delayed considering her 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 Ms X.

Coventry City Council (24 021 485)

Summary: Miss X said the Council had not delivered the speech and language therapy set out in her child's Education, Health and Care Plan. We found there was fault by the Council and Miss X's child had missed about eight months of therapy sessions. To address the impact on the child's education and the distress caused to Miss X, the Council had apologised and taken corrective action. The Council also agreed to increase its offered symbolic payment to suitably address the injustice caused by its fault.

North Yorkshire Council (25 001 887)

Summary: The Council secured the provision in Mrs X's child, Y's, EHC Plan and repeatedly attempted to engage with Mrs X, to put the provision in place. The Council was not at fault.

London Borough of Harrow (25 006 711)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of home to school transport for Miss X's brother. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or significant personal injustice to warrant us investigating. Even if we did investigate, it would not lead to a worthwhile or significantly different outcome, and we will not look at complaint handling in isolation. Any new issues with the transport need to be put to the Council.

Surrey County Council (25 006 738)

Summary: We cannot investigate most of Mr X's complaint about his child's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan because he appealed to a tribunal, and the law says we cannot investigate. We will not investigate his complaint about delays in the annual review process for the EHC Plan between 2018 and 2023 because it is late.

London Borough of Bexley (25 011 861)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care process regarding her child, Y, because the claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation. We will not investigate Miss X's view that the Council failed to arrange alternative provision for Y because there is insufficient evidence of fault. We will not investigate the Council's complaint handling because the tests in our assessment code are not met.

Essex County Council (25 015 736)

Summary: We have upheld this complaint about the Council's failure to complete an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment for Miss 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.

London Borough of Ealing (25 023 222)

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint about an unsuccessful school admission appeal. This is because the law prevents us from investigating complaints about admission to free schools or academies.

West Northamptonshire Council (25 009 818)

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about children's services' actions. The law prevents us from investigating complaints that have been part of court proceedings. Nor will we investigate the other parts of Mr X's complaint relating to how the Council considered his complaint. Part of the issues he raises here are now late and it would have been reasonable for Mr X to ask the Council for a review of the complaint investigation. Additionally, we cannot achieve the outcome he seeks.

Kent County Council (24 016 961)

Summary: Ms X complains the Council was at fault in the way it dealt with her son's Education Health and Care Plans, annual reviews and did not provide alternative educational provision when he could not attend school. Based on current evidence we found fault as the Council delayed an annual review. The Council has accepted it was at fault and already apologised which is suitable action for it to take. We have not investigated Ms X's other complaints as she had the right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal, and it was reasonable to expect her to exercise this right. So, we are have completed our investigation.

Oxfordshire County Council (24 021 070)

Summary: The Council failed to ensure Y received suitable alternative provision or the specialist provision in their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan between September 2024 and July 2025 when they were unable to attend school. It also delayed issuing Y's amended EHC Plan by 23 weeks after an annual review in November 2024. The Council has already apologised to Mrs X however it should make a payment to recognise the injustice caused to Y and Mrs X.

Derbyshire County Council (24 021 905)

Summary: The Council failed to secure all the special educational provision in an Education, Health and Care Plan over five terms. There was also delay updating the Plan after annual review. This caused loss of education, distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic financial payment to remedy the injustice caused.

Worcestershire County Council (25 003 180)

Summary: We found fault by the Council on Mrs Y's complaint about the way it dealt with her son's Education, Health and Care plan. It failed to state he needed a specialist setting in his plan, despite agreeing he needed it. It delayed providing him with the setting, failed to properly monitor provision under his plan, or show it properly considered its duty to provide alternative education. There were communication problems and delays with consultations. In addition to action already taken, and a payment of £6,750, the Council agreed to send a written apology for the identified failings and pay a further £850 for the injustice caused.

Medway Council (25 003 895)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed completing an education, health and care needs assessment and in issuing a final education, health and care plan. There is evidence of delay. That caused Miss X distress, led to her going to time and trouble to chase the Council, caused her some uncertainty and delayed her appeal rights. An apology and payment to Miss X is satisfactory remedy.

Essex County Council (25 009 978)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss 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.

Central Bedfordshire Council (25 011 569)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the annual review of her child's Education, Health and Care Plan. The delay in issuing the revised plan was not significant enough to warrant our involvement. Mrs X has now appealed to a tribunal which places the rest of the complaint outside our jurisdiction.

Kent County Council (25 012 213)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to refuse Miss X's application for free home-to-school transport for her child. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Essex County Council (25 014 952)

Essex County Council (25 015 089)

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.

Essex County Council (25 015 165)

Essex County Council (25 015 287)

Essex County Council (25 015 744)

Essex County Council (25 015 941)

Surrey County Council (25 011 605)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to withdraw the complainant's child's education transport and to refuse her subsequent appeal against the decision. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council's part to warrant our intervention.

Luton Borough Council (24 017 797)

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain that although the Council agreed to provide adoption support for life for Miss Y and Miss Z it wrongly stopped allowance payments for Miss Y and reduced payments for Miss Z without any notice or communication with the family. The statutory complaints investigation upheld all of Mr and Mrs X's complaints and found fault with the Council's actions. These faults caused significant distress and uncertainty for Mr and Mrs X and detrimentally affected their wellbeing. The Council should apologise, make payments and take action to remedy this.

Devon County Council (25 008 895)

Summary: We will not investigate the Council's decision not to accept Mrs X's complaint because it did not consider her a suitable representative. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council.

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (25 011 385)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to make educational provision for the complainant's daughter and failed to properly identify and address her special educational needs. The complainant has used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and the Courts have decided that the Ombudsman cannot intervene where the right to appeal has been used.

Milton Keynes Council (25 011 451)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about children services' actions. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council's decision to not look into Mr X's complaint. We are unlikely to find the faults alleged, directly caused Mr X any significant injustice.

Essex County Council (25 014 348)

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 (25 015 128)

Essex County Council (25 016 385)

Suffolk County Council (25 004 368)

Summary: Mr X complained about delay in processing his complaint under the statutory children's complaints procedure. We found the Council to be at fault that caused Mr X distress, time and trouble. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mr X.

Surrey County Council (25 010 688)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's handling of a Blue Badge application for his child. The Council has now issued a Blue Badge. An investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Lincolnshire County Council (25 011 391)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about a children services' safeguarding investigation. We are unlikely to find fault.

Kent County Council (25 012 017)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement with Mr X's family. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement. In any case, it would have been reasonable for Mr X to raise his concerns during closely linked court proceedings.

Cheshire East Council (25 014 873)

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint about the information the Council provided to the court and the actions of the social workers involved with her case. The issues raised relate to what happened in court. It is unlikely we could add to the Council's response in relation to the remaining issue complained about.

Liverpool City Council (25 016 631)

Summary: We will not investigate part of Miss X's complaint about the Council's child protection action relating to her when she was a child in the 1990s because the tests in our Assessment Code are not met. We will not investigate her complaint about data handling because the Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to consider the matter.

Cheshire East Council (25 000 636)

Summary: There was no fault in the Council's decision to not put alternative provision in place after Mrs X's child (Y) stopped attending school between November 2024 and February 2025. This was because there was a part-time timetable in place for Y which the Council kept under review.

London Borough of Hounslow (25 001 427)

Summary: The Council significantly delayed issuing a final amended Education, Health and Care Plan for Ms X's child, Y. Their communication with Ms X was also poor. This caused injustice to Y's mother, Ms X, in the form of delayed appeal rights and frustration. It caused Y the injustice of lost therapeutic provision and uncertainty about whether other support should have been offered. The Council agreed to make a payment to Ms X to remedy the injustice caused.

Cheshire East Council (25 003 123)

Summary: Ms X complained that the Council failed to secure provision set out in her daughter's Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council is at fault for failing to secure the provision from February 2025 to July 2025. This caused avoidable distress and frustration to Ms X and her daughter. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic remedy, and make a service improvement.

London Borough of Hounslow (25 004 077)

Summary: The Council was at fault for delay in arranging the special educational provision in Mr Z's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. It also failed to carry out two annual reviews of Mr Z's EHC Plans and delayed issuing an amended Plan. This meant Mr Z missed out on provision he should have had and his father, Mr X, experienced avoidable frustration. To remedy their injustice, the Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment. It will also issue a clarification to staff to prevent similar fault in future.

Norfolk County Council (25 011 233)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's school transport policy or its decision to change her child's transport arrangements. This is because it would be reasonable for Ms X to challenge the decision using the Council's appeals procedure. There is not enough evidence of fault in the transport policy itself to investigate that as a standalone issue.

Wakefield City Council (25 011 685)

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X's complaint about the educational placement named in her child's Education, Health and Care Plan. Ms X has appealed to the SEND Tribunal, so we have no power to do so.

London Borough of Barnet (25 011 858)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to carry out an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment. Miss X has already appealed to the Tribunal about this matter and therefore the law says we cannot investigate. We will not investigate the Council's previous refusals to carry out assessments because these matters occurred more than 12 months ago. This means the complaint is late and there are no good reasons for us to exercise discretion to consider this part of Miss X's complaint now.

Essex County Council (25 013 913)

Essex County Council (25 014 826)

North Yorkshire Council (25 019 079)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing free home-to-school transport. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council's decision making.

London Borough of Bromley (24 015 728)

Summary: Miss X, who is disabled, complained the Council failed to put in place reasonable adjustments to enable her to fully engage in a child protection investigation. Miss X also complained the Council failed to carry out the investigation in line with the relevant law and guidance. I ended this investigation as Miss X has exercised her right to take some of the matters to court. There is not enough evidence of fault and other agencies are better placed to investigate the remaining parts of the complaint.

Sheffield City Council (25 000 249)

Summary: The Council has accepted fault in that it did not carry out a parent/carer's needs assessment as requested by the complainant. The complainant did not consider the Council recognised the avoidable distress which this had caused her and her family. We have recommended a way to remedy that injustice which the Council has accepted. Therefore, we have completed our investigation and are closing the complaint.

Salford City Council (25 008 386)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council failing to take children safeguarding action during an incident and failing to investigate how another body dealt with that incident. We are unlikely to find fault.

Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (25 011 731)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's consideration of safeguarding concerns. The law prevents us from investigating complaints that have been part of court proceedings. For the remainder, we will not investigate because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council handled Mr X's complaint to justify us investigating.

Leicestershire County Council (24 023 502)

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to ensure Y's final amended Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan was issued within statutory timescales following the annual review. The Council was also at fault for failing to consider the relevant circumstances of Y's school transport application when deciding to award them a personal travel budget instead of council organised transport. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to remedy the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused.

Staffordshire County Council (25 002 190)

Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council carried out an annual review of Y's Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council was at fault for failing to complete the annual review as it should have done. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to reflect the injustice caused.

Hampshire County Council (25 002 733)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to issue her daughter's EHC Plan within the statutory timescale, failed to make a decision on her requests for alternative provision and failed to make appropriate full time alternative provision. There is fault as the statutory timescale was not met and the Council did not consider the request for alternative provision which caused distress to Mrs X and her daughter. The Council agrees to reimburse the tuition costs paid by Mrs X.

Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (25 011 132)

Summary: We cannot investigate part of Miss X's complaint about how the Council consulted schools or the decision to name a specific school in her child's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan because Miss X appealed to a tribunal and the law says we cannot investigate. We will not investigate the remainder of Miss X's complaint about poor communication or an earlier EHC Plan because an investigation is unlikely to achieve a different outcome and the injustice claimed is not significant enough.

Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (25 011 309)

Summary: We will not investigate part of Mrs X's complaint about the Council's decision not to provide home to school transport for her child because there is insufficient evidence of fault. We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint that the stage two decision letter was late because the Council already apologised and an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

North Yorkshire Council (25 011 682)

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint about the consultation process the Council followed when it named a placement in Miss Y's Education, Health and Care Plan, or Mrs X's view the Council failed to secure the content of Miss Y's EHC Plan during a tribunal process. This is because Mrs X appealed to a tribunal, and the law says we cannot investigate.

Essex County Council (25 014 704)

Sheffield City Council (25 003 390)

Summary: Ms X complains the Council has failed to secure the provision in her son, Y's Education, Health and Care Plan. Ms X says this has led to him missing out on the education, therapy and SEN support that he needs, and has affected his development. Ms X says it has also caused her and her family distress. We have found no fault in the Council's actions.


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, March 5, 2026

New children and education complaint decisions

A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions

No comments:

Post a Comment