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.

Devon County Council (25 013 312)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the review of an Education, Health and Care plan. We cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking. The Tribunal can decide whether the plan meets a child's needs and amend the plan. It would be reasonable to expect the complainant to raise an appeal to obtain the outcome they are seeking.

London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (25 013 831)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to provide her daughter's speech and language therapy and occupational therapy because the Council has already provided a suitable remedy for the issue. If Mrs X disagreed with the Council's decision to remove these therapies from her daughter's Education, Health and Care Plan it would have been reasonable for her to appeal. The remaining issues Mrs X raises are peripheral to these main points and it is unlikely investigation would achieve anything more for her.

Liverpool City Council (24 012 753)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about how the Council made enquiries about her child's home education. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Coventry City Council (25 000 005)

Summary: Mrs B complained about the Council's actions in respect of providing transport assistance for her child, C to attend college. We have found the Council failed to explain why further independent travel training was appropriate, failed to properly consider C's specific needs and difficulties using public transport and failed to communicate the reasons for its decision. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B and C and make a symbolic payment to them.

Gloucestershire County Council (25 001 568)

Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to provide alternative educational provision for her son Y when he could not attend school. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters. So, we have completed our investigation.

Oxfordshire County Council (25 003 169)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to organise alternative provision for her daughter, Y, when Y could not attend school. She said the Council failed to ensure Y received the provision in the Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and failed to review the plan within the legal timescale. Mrs X said this distressed the family and Y missed education and plan provision. The Council was at fault. The Council did not ensure Y received education or EHC Plan provision for a term and a half. The Council did not review the plan within legal timescales. This frustrated Mrs X and Y missed education and EHC Plan provision. The Council agreed to apologise and make a financial payment.

Essex County Council (25 006 273)

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council delayed in completing the Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment for her daughter, Y. Mrs X also says Y has been out of education since 2023. Mrs X says this has caused her family a great deal of distress and has had financial implications. We have found fault in the actions of the Council for failing to complete the Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment process within statutory timescales. The Council has agreed to write to Mrs X to apologise and pay a financial payment.

Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (25 000 627)

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about a school's policies and procedures. We will not investigate the Council's decision not to investigate his safeguarding referral further as we are unlikely to find fault.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council (25 012 567)

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with concerns about his son. We will not investigate this complaint. Mr X's complaint is still being considered at stage two of the statutory complaints procedure, which is better placed to investigate these matters.

Northumberland County Council (25 012 715)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about children's services' case recording. We could not add to the previous investigation by the Council, the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider and decide information rights complaints, and we cannot achieve the outcome Ms X wants.

London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (25 013 289)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to Ms X's safeguarding concern. This is because the person complaining is not an authorised representative of the person affected by the Council's actions.

Hertfordshire County Council (25 020 960)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to investigate Mrs X's concerns about its actions relating to an adopted person. The complaint relates to matters which occurred over 12 months ago, and it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council's decision, not to consider it.

Suffolk County Council (25 021 841)

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into the Council's handling of Mr X's complaint. The Council has agreed to issue its complaint response to Mr X without further delay. It will also offer him a symbolic financial remedy for his injustice. This means there is no good reason for us to be prematurely involved with the complaint.

Staffordshire County Council (24 021 692)

Summary: The Council failed to properly review Y's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan when they began struggling to attend school. It also failed to consider whether it should provide Y with a suitable alternative education and how it would secure the Special Educational Needs provision in Y's EHC Plan. This caused Y to miss five terms of alternative provision and caused Miss X uncertainty, distress and time and trouble. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Miss X to recognise the impact if its failings.

Kent County Council (24 022 560)

Summary: Mr X says the Council wrongly said his nursery had charged a compulsory top up fee, reached that decision without giving him an opportunity to comment and treated him differently to other nurseries that operate in the same way. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision about the charges Mr X's nursery was making or evidence it treated him differently to other nurseries. However, the Council did not give Mr X an opportunity to comment before telling him to refund the parents' fee. That caused him frustration. An apology and guidance for officers handling complaints is satisfactory remedy.

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (24 022 688)

Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her son, Mr X, that the Council failed to deliver provision outlined in his Education, Health and Care Plan. Mrs X said the Council did not communicate properly or make an adequate assessment of Mr X's needs. Mrs X also complained about how the Council handled her complaint. She said the Council's actions incurred a large financial loss to the family and caused Mr X to miss out on provision he was entitled to. She said the Council's actions also caused a significant impact on Mr X's mental health as well as time, trouble and distress to the family. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to provide an apology and a financial remedy and to carry out service improvements.

Suffolk County Council (25 002 884)

Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of his son Y that the Council failed to provide the salt and language therapy provision in Y's Education Health and Care Plan for several years impacting on Y's progress with communication and education and causing stress to Mr X. We found fault by the Council as it did not make the salt and language therapy provision between September 2024 to March 2025, but this did not cause a significant injustice to Mr X and Y. So, we have completed our investigation.

Leeds City Council (25 003 301)

Summary: Miss D complained the Council delayed issuing an education, health and care plan for her daughter and failed to provide a suitable education when she stopped attending school. The Council has accepted it did not meet the statutory deadline for the plan. I also found it failed to consider how to secure the provision after Miss D's daughter stopped attending school. This fault caused uncertainty and for Miss D's appeal rights to be delayed. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Miss D symbolic payments to remedy this injustice.

Hertfordshire County Council (25 005 631)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed issuing her child's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan following an annual review. We find the Council was at fault for failing to issue the final amended EHC Plan within statutory timescales. This caused Miss X avoidable uncertainty and meant her child missed special educational provision. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Miss X.

Oxfordshire County Council (25 005 669)

Summary: Mrs D complained that the Council failed to make alternative educational provision for her child while they were unable to attend school for illness or other reasons. The Council has accepted fault. This has caused Mrs D's child to miss out on education for two terms. The Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment to Mrs D to remedy that injustice.

Suffolk County Council (25 013 120)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms M's complaint about free home to school transport for her son because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Hertfordshire County Council (25 013 502)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions in respect of Mx X's child's special educational needs, and alternative educational provision. Doing so would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome. And some of the matters complained of lie outside our legal powers.

West Sussex County Council (25 013 569)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's handling of a direct payment to fund provision in his son's Education, Health and Care Plan. An investigation by the Ombudsman would be unlikely to add anything to the Council's response or lead to a different outcome.

Hertfordshire County Council (25 013 714)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about safeguarding in Ms X's child's school. This is because the law prevents us from considering complaints about what happens in schools.

Buckinghamshire Council (25 013 888)

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.

Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 013 900)

Summary: We cannot investigate part of Miss X's complaint about the decision not to authorise holidays for her children during term-time because the decision was made by a school, and the law says we cannot investigate. We will not investigate the remainder of Miss X's complaint about the Council's involvement in issuing Education Penalty Notices or the Council's communication because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

Buckinghamshire Council (25 014 151)

Buckinghamshire Council (25 014 154)

Essex County Council (25 017 836)

London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (25 018 519)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about an unsuccessful school admission appeal. Mr X's child has now been offered a place at his preferred school. Investigation by the Ombudsman could not achieve anything more.

Hampshire County Council (25 019 039)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs 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.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (25 020 183)

Westminster City Council (25 000 478)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's response to Mr X's request for direct payments. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council's actions.

Leeds City Council (25 013 222)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to share information with Ms X. The Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to consider the complaint. In any case we cannot achieve what Ms X is looking for.

Plymouth City Council (25 013 499)

Summary: We will not investigate these complaints about matters relating to child protection and domestic violence. The complaints are late and I can see no good reason why the complainant could not have come to us sooner.

Leeds City Council (25 016 558)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's alleged lack of support to Mr X and the failure to safeguard his children. The law says we cannot investigate complaints about court action or what happened in court. It is reasonable for Mr X to raise all concerns as part of the proceedings.

Liverpool City Council (25 011 492)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's handling of her application for a school place. Any issues Miss X wants to raise about the way the Council dealt with her application are best considered under the appeals process. The Council offered an alternative place as it was required to do and there is not enough evidence of fault in its decision not to place Miss X's child using its Fair Access Protocol.

Medway Council (25 013 566)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to issue a fixed penalty notice for unauthorised absence from a school. This is because it concerns a matter which could reasonably have been considered in court.

Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (24 013 835)

Summary: Mrs X complained about delays by the Council in providing her child, Y, with a suitable education when they could not attend school. We found the Council at fault for failing to provide Y with a suitable education and for not meeting legal deadlines in the Education, Health and Care Plan review process. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X to recognise her distress. It has also agreed to make improvements to its service to prevent the same faults happening to others.

Slough Borough Council (24 022 265)

Summary: The Council accepts it delayed issuing an amended final Education, Health and Care Plan for Miss X's child Y. It also accepts it failed to provide Y with an alternative education and delayed responding to Miss X's complaint. This caused Y to miss out on an education and Miss X distress and avoidable time and trouble. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X, put tutoring in place and making a symbolic payment to Miss X.

St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (24 022 517)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide her daughter with a suitable education when she stopped attending school. We found fault in the Council's communication with Miss X which caused her avoidable anxiety and frustration. The Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Miss X.

Dorset Council (25 001 796)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council falsely claimed she removed her son, Y, from his school and the Council had not provided any alternative education because of this. Mrs X said this distressed her and Y has missed education. The Council was at fault. It did not provide Y with education for one and a half academic terms and provided wrong information in the complaint response. This frustrated Mrs X and Y missed education. The Council agreed apologise and make a financial payment.

Suffolk County Council (25 002 337)

Summary: The Council delayed deciding whether to issue Miss X's child, Y with an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan within statutory timescales. This was caused by a 17 week delay in obtaining Educational Psychologist (EP) advice and a further delay of 12 weeks to issue the final Plan with EP advice in hand. The Council was also at fault for failing to decide whether it should put alternative provision in place for Y when it was aware in January 2025 that Y was not in school. The Council has already apologised to Miss X and provided a suitable payment to remedy the injustice caused.

Staffordshire County Council (25 002 475)

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to make appropriate full-time provision for her child, Y, while she has been unable to attend school. Mrs X also says the Council failed to deliver the provision set out in Y's Education, Health and Care Plan or complete the annual review on time. Mrs X says as a result Y has received no education. We have found fault in the Council's actions for failing to provide provision between September 2024 and April 2025 and for delay in issuing Y's amended Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council has agreed to issue Mrs X an apology and pay her a symbolic payment.

Kent County Council (25 003 233)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed her son Y's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan annual review and failed to act on a personal budget request. She said the Council made errors in the amended EHC Plan and failed to correct them. Mrs X also complained the Council delayed reimbursing invoices for provision and delayed responding to her Stage 1 and Stage 2 complaints. We find fault in the Council's actions. This caused financial loss, undue distress, time and trouble to Mrs X. The Council has agreed actions to remedy the injustice caused.

West Northamptonshire Council (25 005 884)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to ensure Y received all the provision set out in his Education, Health and Care Plan and failed to effectively deal with her complaint. We find the Council at fault causing uncertainty around whether Y received the provision he was entitled to and meaning Miss X had to spend additional time in the complaint process. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to recognise the injustice and act to prevent recurrence.

Durham County Council (25 007 651)

Summary: Mrs X complained how the independent appeal panel dealt with her appeal for a school place for her son. We find some fault in the clerk's notes about the stage one process. This did not cause Mrs X a significant injustice. However, the Council has agreed to our recommendation to implement a service improvement to prevent a recurrence of the fault.

London Borough of Waltham Forest (25 010 929)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to ensure the complainant had access to appropriate education. This is because his representative used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) on his behalf, and the matters about which he complains are bound up with those which were the subject of the appeal.

Cheshire West & Chester Council (25 011 962)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to provide alternative provision for a child who was not in school. The Council has already proposed a suitable remedy.

Birmingham City Council (25 013 069)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's delay in providing her son's school bus details for the new school year. This is because a further investigation by this office could not add to the response and explanation already provided via the Council's own investigation of the matter.

London Borough of Bexley (25 013 075)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's children services teams handling of safeguarding allegations between 2017 and 2019. There are not enough reasons to disapply the late complaint rule. We cannot investigate recent safeguarding referrals as the Court could have made orders about this.

London Borough of Haringey (25 016 879)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions relating to a court process. The law prevents us from investigating what happens as part of court proceedings.

Manchester City Council (25 001 360)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's provision of education for Mr X's son. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating as the Council took reasonable steps to address the situation.

East Riding of Yorkshire Council (25 001 548)

Summary: We upheld a complaint that the Council delayed in issuing a final Education, Health and Care Plan to Mrs C's daughter following an annual review. We also found the Council wrongly stopped providing speech and language therapy to the complainant's daughter when her Plan said she should receive that. The Council's faults caused injustice as avoidable distress to Mrs C and because her daughter missed some of her education provision. The Council has accepted these findings and at the end of this statement we set out what action it agreed to take to remedy that injustice.

Manchester City Council (25 002 737)

Summary: We found there was a failure to provide a suitable full-time education for Mr X's son, Y, between February 2024 and April 2025. We also found there was fault in the Council's handling of Mr X's complaints. The Council had already apologised for issues in its complaint response. We recommended a payment to reflect the education that Y missed.

Cambridgeshire County Council (25 003 314)

Summary: We found there was no fault in the Council's decision to decline to provide alternative education to Miss X's daughter under Section 19 of the Education Act. There was delay in the Council's investigation, which represented fault by the Council. However, we found the delay did not cause injustice in itself.

Surrey County Council (25 004 359)

Summary: We found fault with the Council delaying putting in place Mrs X's child's Education, Health and Care Plan provision by varying time periods with up to one-year delays. This fault by the Council caused Mrs X's child to miss formal education and support provision from their Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £3,200 for the missed education and provision.

Wokingham Borough Council (25 005 781)

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's failure to complete an Annual Review of her son Y's Education Health and Care Plan within the statutory timescales and to deliver all special educational provision included in his plan. We found fault with the Council. This fault caused injustice to Y and Mrs X. The Council has already apologised and made a payment to recognise Mrs X's distress. The Council has also agreed to make a payment to recognise Y's loss of provision and an extra distress payment for Mrs X.

Oxfordshire County Council (25 013 221)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a school transport appeal because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

North Northamptonshire Council (25 013 962)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms M's complaint about school transport because the Council has offered to arrange an appeal hearing. It would be reasonable for Ms M to use this right of appeal. There is nothing worthwhile we could achieve by investigating her complaint now.

Wiltshire Council (24 020 827)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's social services involvement with children in Miss X's family. The children's case has been considered in court, so we are prevented from investigating the substantive matters. We also cannot achieve the outcomes Miss X seeks. Only the courts can make decisions relating to the children's residence and contact.

Devon County Council (25 003 920)

Summary: The Council was at fault in delaying the children's statutory complaints procedure in Ms Y's case. It was not at fault in the way in which it investigated her complaint at stage two and three of the procedure. We recommend the Council should remedy the uncertainty caused to Ms Y by making her an additional symbolic payment.

Leeds City Council (25 005 258)

Summary: We have ended our investigation into Mr X's complaint. The Council has amended an assessment he complained about, as it said it would. Matters related to access arrangements for his children are subject to a contact order and the courts are better placed to consider these.

Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (25 009 907)

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss Z's complaint about the actions of the Council's children's services. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about the start of court action or what happened in court, and the more recent matters are too closely related to the court proceedings. For the Council's handling of Miss Z's complaint, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (25 010 833)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr F's complaint about a child and family assessment because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation, investigation would not lead to a different outcome, and other bodies are better placed to consider Mr F's allegations of discrimination and his concerns about the accuracy of records.

Bristol City Council (25 012 958)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled Miss X's reports of racial discrimination. This is because the Council has already investigated and responded and an investigation by us would not lead to a significantly different outcome.

Blackpool Borough Council (25 013 187)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement with Miss X's family. Social Work England and the Information Commissioner's Office are better placed to consider some of Miss X's concerns about a social worker and data handling. We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the content of a court report because the issues have likely been considered by a court. For the remainder of Miss X's complaint, the claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement and investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

Manchester City Council (25 013 239)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaints about the Council's children's services involvement with his family because the tests in our Assessment Code are not met.

London Borough of Ealing (25 013 671)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about a failure to provide services and support for her child and its refusal to consider her complaint about the matter. Part of the complaint is late, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council's more recent complaints handling and an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (25 015 262)

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Council's involvement in Mr X's child's case between 2010 and 2022. There is not a good reason for the delay in the matter being brought to us and we could not now come to sound conclusions. The Information Commissioner's Office is best placed to consider how the Council responded to Mr X's request for information.

Birmingham City Council (25 022 589)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about children's court reports because we cannot investigate a complaint about what happened in court.

Hampshire County Council (25 003 689)

Summary: We found fault by the Council on Ms Y's complaint about its failure to make alternative provision for her son Z, when he moved to its area and was not attending school. It failed to work with the school which initially said it could not take Z but went on to do so. It failed to fully consider and explore making tuition available before he got a school place. It also failed to consider whether its section 19 duty to provide alternative provision applied. The Council failed to ensure provision under his EHC plan for one term was made. The Council agreed to send Ms Y an apology, make a symbolic payment, and act to ensure the failures found cannot be repeated on future cases.

London Borough of Wandsworth (25 003 817)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council unlawfully removed her son Y from his school following a Tribunal decision about his Education, Health and Care Plan, failed to advocate for him to remain at the school, proposed an inadequate tuition package, had poor communication, made discriminatory assumptions about her religious views and breached data protection law. We cannot investigate the removal of Y from his school because she has started a judicial review about the Council's decision, have found no fault regarding the tuition package, communication and discriminatory assumptions, and have decided to stop investigating the data protection complaint because the Information Commissioners Office is better placed to consider it.

East Sussex County Council (25 013 603)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to carry out an Education, Health Care Needs Assessment for the complainant's child and its response to her complaint about the same matter. This is because the complainant has used her right to appeal to the First-Tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability).

Milton Keynes Council (25 013 614)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to name a particular setting in a child's education, health and care plan because it is reasonable for the complainant to use her right to appeal to the Tribunal.

Central Bedfordshire Council (25 018 978)

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint that the Council failed to name a suitable school placement in her child's Education, Health and Care Plan. Also, we cannot investigate her complaint the Council failed to arrange alternative educational provision for her child. This is because these matters overlap with a tribunal appeal about her child's Plan. Other matters complained about are late.

Somerset Council (25 024 203)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's use of Artificial Intelligence to help draft an Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation, and the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider complaints about data protection.

London Borough of Lambeth (25 012 138)

Summary: We have upheld Ms X's complaint that the Council failed to consider offering financial compensation or acknowledge the distress it caused. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X, offer her compensation and make service improvements.

Kent County Council (25 013 019)

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint about whether the Council should take action to safeguard her children as the Court is considering their care. There are other bodies better suited to considering officers' professionalism and whether the Council has provided her with all the information she is entitled to.

Hampshire County Council (25 013 104)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about children services' actions. The Council investigated it through its Children Act statutory complaints' procedure and we are unlikely to reach a different outcome.

Isle of Wight Council (25 013 452)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to provide early support to Mrs X's child. This is because most of the events complained about are late. The remaining complaint points relate to matters that took place inside a school or Mrs X had right of appeal for.

Oxfordshire County Council (25 022 677)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's children services' complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Kent County Council (25 007 432)

Summary: We will not and cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council handled a child's education. This is because it is outside our jurisdiction, and there are no good reasons to exercise our discretion.


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, April 2, 2026

New children and education complaint decisions

A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions

No comments:

Post a Comment