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. Telford & Wrekin Council (25 002 942) Summary: Ms X complains there were failings in the way the Council dealt with her son’s special educational needs and educational provision causing distress, lost educational opportunity and financial costs. The Council has accepted it was at fault. It has already apologised and offered a suitable payment in recognition of the distress caused. So we have completed our investigation. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (25 010 610) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not carry out a new Educational Psychologist assessment for her child and did not make a timely decision after an annual review of their Education, Health and Care Plan. We found the Council at fault for delays, not acting within statutory timeframes, with poor communication and complaint handling. This caused significant frustration, distress and denied Mrs X her appeal rights. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (25 012 214) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. Miss X has appealed to a tribunal which places the complaint outside our jurisdiction. Nottinghamshire County Council (25 017 095) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to deliver special educational provision. Part of the complaint is late and there are no good reasons for us to exercise discretion to consider it now. We cannot investigate the rest of the complaint because Ms X used her right of appeal to the Tribunal and therefore it is outside our jurisdiction. Torbay Council (25 017 420) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to provide the provision outlined in an Education Health and Care plan. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking. London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (25 025 199) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council handles requests for summer born children to be educated out of their normal age group. This is because Mrs X has not suffered any significant personal injustice from the matter complained about. London Borough of Croydon (25 016 611) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Mr X’s children and its communication with him. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by completing the statutory children’s complaint procedure. London Borough of Redbridge (25 017 981) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to carry out actions ordered in the family court. It was reasonable for Mr X to raise the matter with the courts. London Borough of Wandsworth (25 020 263) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an incident in a school in 2023. The complaint is late and there is not a good reason for the delay in Ms X bringing the matter to us. We cannot investigate the actions of the school. Derby City Council (25 004 429) Summary: The Council was not at fault. It did not delay issuing her child, Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. It issued the Plan in line with statutory timescales that applied from the moment it conceded Mrs X’s appeal to the Tribunal. The Council was at fault for taking four months to respond to Mrs X’s complaint at stage one causing Mrs X and Y uncertainty and avoidable distress. The Council has already apologised for the delay which is a suitable remedy. The Council was also at fault for a two-week delay in deciding whether it would assess Y but we find a two-week delay did not cause Mrs X a significant enough injustice. Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (25 004 979) Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her son’s college placement, the processes around his Education, Health and Care Plan, and the provision of support. We found the Council at fault, causing significant uncertainty, frustration and distress. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay a symbolic payment to recognise the injustice. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (25 008 003) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her children’s Education, Health and Care Plans. An investigation would not add anything to the Council's response or achieve a different outcome. North Northamptonshire Council (25 008 710) Summary: Mrs X says the Council has failed to make a reasonable adjustment for her son and provide him with transport to his place of education. She says that this is despite the Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) Tribunal recommending this. She reports her son has become frustrated with the lack of support he is receiving. We found the Council at fault which caused Mrs X’s son injustice. The Council should make payment and apologise to Mrs X’s son. Wiltshire Council (25 010 746) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to provide suitable education for her child since May 2023, including a failure to name a suitable school placement in their Education, Health and Care Plan. I ended this investigation because the matters Mrs X complained about were either part of her appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Tribunal, were too closely linked to the appeal or have not been raised with the Council as a complaint. London Borough of Sutton (25 014 538) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about special educational provision. Some of the complaint is late, and for the remainder Mr Y appealed to the First-Tier Tribunal. Milton Keynes Council (25 016 740) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s assessment and decision-making processes following a SEND Tribunal hearing. If she is unhappy with the school named in the Education, Health and Care Plan, it is reasonable for her to submit a further appeal to the Tribunal. If she considers the Council has not complied with the Tribunal’s direction, she can refer this back to the Tribunal for consideration. Buckinghamshire Council (25 017 385) Summary: We upheld this complaint about delays in the Council issuing an Education Health and Care Plan. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by apologising to Miss X and paying her a £1200 symbolic payment. Devon County Council (25 017 469) 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. Kent County Council (25 017 740) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council made enquiries about his child’s education. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. Telford & Wrekin Council (25 019 332) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to carry out an Education, Health and Care needs assessment for her child. This is because Mrs X had the right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and it would be reasonable for her to do so. We also cannot investigate complaints about what happens in schools. Norfolk County Council (25 014 540) Summary: We have upheld Mrs X’s complaint about delay at stage 1 and 3 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. Cheshire West & Chester Council (25 016 798) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement with Ms X’s family. This is because Social Work England is better placed to consider Ms X’s complaint and we cannot achieve the outcome she seeks. London Borough of Brent (25 017 453) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council preventing court-ordered contact with her child. This is because it would have been reasonable for Ms X to have taken the matter back to court. London Borough of Islington (25 018 513) Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about where her children lived as the Court decided that. We will not investigate her complaint about Council communication with her and her involvement in her children’s lives. These Council actions have been known to Ms X for more than 12 months and there are no good reasons we should disapply the 12 month rule. Cheshire West & Chester Council (24 012 794) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council handled its special educational needs process for Ms X’s child. This is because the matters were or could have been considered by the First-tier Tribunal. Derbyshire County Council (24 017 129) Summary: The Council was at fault for delay finalising Ms X’s son’s (Y) Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This caused Ms X distress and delayed her right of appeal to the Tribunal. It also failed to provide Occupational Therapy (OT) and Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) to Y. The Council delayed responding to Ms X’s communication and complaint, which caused additional distress. The Council accepted it was at fault and apologised. It should also make a financial remedy. London Borough of Camden (24 018 855) Summary: The Council was at fault for not issuing Y’s Education Health and Care Plan within statutory timescales. The Council was also at fault for its poor communication and delayed complaint responses. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise Y’s missed provision. Devon County Council (25 004 221) Summary: Mrs X complained about delays in the Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan process and a delay in issuing a final EHC Plan for her son E. Mrs X also complained the Council has failed to provide alternative education for E when he became too unwell to attend school regularly. We found the delays in the EHC needs assessment process and in issuing a final EHC Plan are fault. As was the failure to ensure E received a suitable education between April 2025 and July 2025. These faults have caused Mrs X and E an injustice. The Council will apologise and make payments to remedy this injustice Slough Borough Council (25 005 487) Summary: The Council failed to ensure Mr X’s child Y received therapy and tutor provision in line with their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan between January 2024 and April 2026. The Council agreed to apologise and make payments to recognise the impact on Y’s education and the distress and uncertainty caused. The Council will also produce an action plan to explain how it intends to deliver Y’s tuition and continue making payments to Mr X until it is in place. London Borough of Hillingdon (25 007 324) Summary: We found fault for the Council removing funding for provision from Ms X’s child’s Education, Health and Care Plan before it made a suitable decision that this provision was no longer needed or removed it from the Education, Health and Care Plan. We also found fault with the Council’s complaint handling delays and inaccurate information within the complaint responses. The Council agreed to reimburse Ms X for the costs incurred sourcing the Education, Health and Care Plan provision, until the Council removed this provision from the plan, and provide an apology for the injustice caused by its fault. Cheshire East Council (25 009 093) Summary: The Council was at fault for not issuing the final amended EHC Plan for Mrs X’s child, Y within statutory timescales following an annual review. The Council was also at fault for issuing delayed responses to Mrs X’s complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused to Mrs X. Devon County Council (25 014 319) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed in completing the Education Health and Care (EHC) assessment process and in issuing a final EHC Plan for her daughter. She also complained the Council failed to provide the provision in her daughter’s EHC Plan and has failed to arrange appropriate alternative educational provision. We found the delays in the EHC needs assessment process are fault. As was the failure to ensure D received a suitable education between June 2023 and February 2025. These faults have caused Mrs X and D an injustice. Surrey County Council (25 017 667) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to ensure a suitable education was secured because the complainant has used her right to appeal to the First-Tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). Pittville School (25 020 462) Summary: The Council complained about an unsuccessful appeal for a looked after child, Y, to attend Pittville School. We have ended our investigation because Y has since started at another school and is no longer seeking a place at Pittville School. As a result, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by continuing the investigation. Liverpool City Council (25 020 554) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about school transport because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. East Sussex County Council (25 021 882) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place for her child. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation. London Borough of Bromley (25 001 793) Summary: The Council was at fault for delays to its temporary and full approvals of Mrs X as a kinship foster carer. These delays meant she missed out on fostering allowance and fees. The Council was also at fault for its policy on fostering fees, which did not meet its statutory duties to kinship carers. This caused injustice to Mrs X and others. The Council will now make payments to remedy the injustice of all those affected, including Mrs X, and will amend its policy. Darlington Borough Council (25 016 313) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the social worker allocated to her grandson’s case. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider her complaint whilst there are ongoing court proceedings on the case. Hertfordshire County Council (25 017 248) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s child protection proceedings and court action. The complaint is not separable from matters Miss X raised or could have raised in court. Coventry City Council (25 017 960) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about matters relating to a child and family assessment. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider the complaint whilst the case is subject to ongoing family court proceedings. Lancashire County Council (25 019 020) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the conduct of social workers involved with his family. We cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks and Social Work England is better placed to consider his complaint. Staffordshire County Council (25 001 950) Summary: The Council failed to ensure Mrs X’s child Y received swimming provision in line with their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan EOTAS (Education other than at school) package during the 2024/25 academic year due to a lack of transport arrangements. Its transport panel also failed to properly consider Mrs X’s request for transport costs for some of Y’s other provision. It also delayed issuing Y’s amended EHC Plan following an annual review. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and make a payment for the injustice caused. It will also carry out service improvements and reconsider Mrs X’s request for transport reimbursement. Northumberland County Council (25 016 563) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainant’s application and appeal for the reinstatement of free school transport for his child. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation. Derby City Council (24 013 953) Summary: The Council was not at fault for failing to arrange transport to Mr Y’s therapy provision for the 24/25 or 25/26 academic year. The Council however was at fault for not adequately communicating its decision. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X and Mr Y for the uncertainty, avoidable distress and missed specialist provision this caused. Staffordshire County Council (24 017 052) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s actions in relation to her daughter Y’s education because it is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Parts of the complaint are late, and the remaining matters are not separable from issues that were, or could have been, considered by the SEND Tribunal. 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