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. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (24 017 327) Summary: The Council was at fault. It failed to put alternative provision in place for Ms X’s child, Y between January and March 2024 and failed to ensure Y received an education and their specialist provision in line with their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan between March 2024 and February 2025. The Council has already provided a partial remedy for its failings which caused Y to miss education between March 2024 and February 2025. The Council agreed to apologise and make a further payment to also remedy Y’s loss of education between January and March 2024. The Council also agreed to take action to improve its service. Westminster City Council (25 000 514) Summary: Mrs X complained how the Council handled her daughter’s personal budget. She also says the Council delayed finalising her daughter’s Education, Health and Care Plan, it failed to respond to her request for a sensory assessment and its complaints handling was flawed. We find the Council was at fault for how it handled Mrs X’s daughter’s personal budget and for its delay in finalising the Education, Health and Care Plan. It was also at fault for its complaints handling and its communication. These faults caused Mrs X’s upset and frustration. Mrs X’s daughter missed out on special educational provision. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and her daughter, make payments and implement a service improvement. Essex County Council (25 003 835) Summary: The Council was at fault for delaying completing an Education, Health and Care needs assessment. The Council was not at fault for deciding not to put in place alternative education for a child. This meant the child had to wait longer to receive an Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council agreed to apologise and make payments for the frustration and anxiety caused. West Sussex County Council (25 009 336) Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council delayed providing funding to the School named in her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan to enable it to put the special educational support in place. We found the Council at fault which caused C to miss out on essential educational support and Mrs B significant distress. The Council ahs agreed to apologise to Mrs B and C and make a symbolic payment to them. North Northamptonshire Council (25 010 975) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council wrongly refused free home-to-school transport for her son, Y. We found fault in the Council’s decision-making process and failure to retain records. This caused Mrs X uncertainty about the outcome and avoidable time and trouble. The Council agreed actions to remedy the injustice caused. London Borough of Wandsworth (25 011 142) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide the Speech and Language Therapy (SaLT) provision in his child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan following a Tribunal order. The Council was a fault for a delay in issuing Y’s amended plan and securing the required SaLT. The Council will apologise and make a payment to recognise the injustice caused to Mr X and Y. It will also make changes to its service to prevent the same fault from happening to others. London Borough of Islington (25 016 695) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to reimburse the cost of a speech and language assessment commissioned by the complainant. There is not enough evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation. Kent County Council (25 016 930) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about closure of a specialist Council service. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault for us to investigate. London Borough of Islington (25 016 996) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in securing Special Education Provision in a young person’s Education, Health, and Care Plan. It is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s actions. Wakefield Metropolitan District Council (25 017 552) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of an Education, Health and Care plan. This is because 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. Cheshire West & Chester Council (25 019 166) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about her child’s EHC plan and their school placement. Mrs X had the right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and it would have been reasonable for her to appeal. Essex County Council (25 020 661) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse free school transport for Miss X’s child. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in how it reached its decision. Essex County Council (25 021 002) Summary: The Council was at fault for delaying completing an Education, Health and Care needs assessment. It was not at fault for deciding not to put in place education for a child when they were out of school. This meant the child had to wait longer to receive an Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council agreed to apologise and make payments for the uncertainty and frustration caused. London Borough of Lewisham (25 021 266) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse to carry out an Education Health and Care needs assessment for her child. This is because she has used her right of appeal to a tribunal. London Borough of Bexley (24 018 763) Summary: Miss X complained the Council falsely accused her of poor care of her foster children and did not properly investigate her complaint. She says this distressed her and stopped her fostering more children. The Council was at fault. It failed to keep Miss X informed during the care investigation process and tell her the outcome. It also delayed its complaint response. This caused uncertainty and frustration for Miss X. The Council has agreed to apologise. Cheshire East Council (25 000 499) Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of allegations made against her and the conduct of its safeguarding procedures. We have not found the Council at fault for its conduct or communication during its initial visit to Ms X’s home, or in how it accounted for the information received in its decision-making. We have found the Council at fault for not appropriately providing Ms X with a copy of its assessment and for delay in issuing its closure letter. We believe this caused Ms X avoidable distress and uncertainty. We found the Council at fault for not making clear Ms X could have been accompanied during an interview. For the reasons set out in the decision, we do not believe this caused a significant injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay a symbolic financial remedy to recognise the avoidable distress caused. The Council also agreed to remind staff that individuals can be accompanied in interviews where appropriate. West Northamptonshire Council (25 006 286) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s actions in relation to his adoption case. The Council was at fault as it did not investigate Mr X’s complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure, causing uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and investigate his complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. West Northamptonshire Council (25 012 688) Summary: We will not investigate X’s complaint about children services’ actions as there are no good reasons why the late complaint rule should not apply. Kent County Council (25 017 112) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about children services’ actions. We have upheld Mr X’s complaint as the Council has now agreed to follow the Children Act statutory complaints’ procedure which is a proportionate way to resolve the complaint. Devon County Council (25 017 189) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s actions following his adopted daughter’s allegations against him. This is because it is late and there are no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now. London Borough of Ealing (25 018 120) Summary: We will not investigate Mr F’s complaint about the care his son receives from the Council because there is not significant enough injustice to justify our involvement, and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr F wants. London Borough of Havering (25 022 680) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about children services’ actions and its complaint handling. This is because the Council has not yet completed all three stages of the statutory children’s complaint procedure, and it would be reasonable to allow it to do so. Nor will we investigate the delays in the Council’s handling of the complaint. This is because the Council has agreed to an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the delay. London Borough of Havering (25 023 661) Summary: We have upheld Mr X’s complaint about delay at stage 2 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. Essex County Council (25 019 242) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Education, Health and Care Plan process. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement. Thurrock Council (25 021 353) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Mr X’s formal complaint. It would be disproportionate to investigate the Council’s complaint handling on its own. Royal Borough of Greenwich (25 031 341) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of an application for a school place. This is because it is reasonable for Mr X to use his right of appeal. Mr X’s claim for compensation is a matter for the courts. Kent County Council (24 019 314) Summary: The Council failed to follow the timescales in the code of practice following an annual review of an education, health and care plan, failed to put in place provision in section F and delayed responding to a complaint. That delayed Mrs X’s appeal rights, caused her distress and led to her son missing out on special educational needs provision. An apology, payment to Mrs X and introduction of a process for monitoring complaint responses is satisfactory remedy. Derbyshire County Council (24 023 504) Summary: The Council was at fault for the delay in producing an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for Mrs X’s child, Z. The Council also failed to consider its responsibilities to provide education for Z when it became aware they were not at school, this is fault. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the distress, frustration and missed provision the faults caused. Cheshire East Council (25 007 240) Summary: Mrs Y complains the Council failed to ensure her child received suitable provision once they stopped attending school. In our view, the Council did not properly consider whether it had a duty to arrange alternative provision once it became aware the child was not in school. The Council also insisted on certain medical evidence which is not in accordance with statutory government guidance. The Council will complete the agreed actions to remedy the injustice caused by fault. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (25 015 939) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delays following mediation. This is because the Council remedied the injustice during its complaint process. Rutland County Council (25 015 968) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about what happened at Mrs X’s child’s school. The law does not allow us to investigate what happens in schools. Nor can we investigate the Council’s decision on what to include in Mrs X’s child’s Education, Health, and Care Plan. Mrs X has used an appeal right on that matter, and the law does not allow us to investigate where an appeal right has already been used on a related matter. London Borough of Brent (25 017 148) Summary: We will not investigate X’s complaint about delays in paying for educational expenses. We are unlikely to achieve more than the Council has already offered as a remedy to this complaint. And the outstanding injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation. Devon County Council (25 017 832) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education, Health and Care plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the delay. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 002 153) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council shared incorrect information to the family court. This is mostly because we cannot investigate what happened in court. We also cannot achieve anything more for Mr X and his concerns about the handling of his personal data are better addressed with the Information Commissioner’s Office. Hampshire County Council (25 007 418) Summary: We have completed our investigation into how the Council arranged contact between Miss X and her looked-after child. This is because we find no fault. We will not investigate whether the Council gave Miss X documents it agreed to years before. This is because it is too late. Reading Borough Council (25 016 254) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council completed a viability assessment. Mr X started court action about the matter and so the law says we cannot investigate. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaints about delays in the Council completing a later viability assessment, or delays in it making contact arrangements because there is no evidence of a significant injustice and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by an investigation. Somerset Council (25 016 729) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an assessment carried out by the Council. Were we to investigate, we would be unlikely to find fault in the way the Council operated the statutory complaint process in considering the complaint about this matter. Leeds City Council (25 017 423) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to correct incorrect data it holds about Miss X as part of an assessment by Children’s Services. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider a complaint about data handling, and we could not achieve more for Miss X than the Council has already done, so the matter does not warrant us investigating. Rutland County Council (25 017 521) Summary: We will not investigate part of Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide funding through the Holiday Activity Fund for her child because there is insufficient evidence of fault. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaints about an officer’s conduct or the Council’s complaint handling because the Council already apologised and implemented service improvements. An investigation is unlikely to achieve anything further. North Somerset Council (25 017 676) Summary: We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint about delay responding to her request for a social care assessment for her daughter because there is nothing we could add to the Council’s response. Peterborough City Council (25 018 434) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a safeguarding strategy meeting, a subsequent unannounced home visit and the Council’s investigation of his complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. It is unlikely we would add to the Council’s investigation or reach a different outcome. Gloucestershire County Council (25 018 453) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s actions following a neighbouring council’s complaint investigation into its involvement with her child. It is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome. Worcestershire County Council (25 023 028) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about decisions made about the care of his child. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about the start of court action or what happened in court. London Borough of Waltham Forest (25 002 671) Summary: We found fault on Mrs Y’s complaint about the Council failing to ensure her son, Z, received provision set out in the Education, Health and Care plan. There was a repeated failure to ensure Z received the provision from two schools, provide the correct level of funding, along with a failure to meet statutory timescales for the annual review process. The Council agreed to send an apology for the failings, pay a symbolic payment for the injustice caused, as well as a payment towards private tuition costs. It would carry out a review to ensure no future repetition of the failures found. Cornwall Council (25 004 700) Summary: The Council was at fault. It delayed issuing Miss X’s child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care Plan in line with the statutory timescales. It also failed to properly consider the education Y received between November 2024 and mid-December 2025. The Council will pay Miss X a symbolic payment for the frustration and her delayed appeal rights, apologise and pay Miss X a symbolic payment for the uncertainty it caused her. The Council will put in place a service improvement. Essex County Council (25 005 078) Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council did not arrange alternative provision when her son was not attending school. We are satisfied the Council acted in line with its statutory duties, and we have found no fault. Hampshire County Council (25 005 526) Summary: We found the Council failed to provide a written and rationalised decision about whether it should provide Alternative Provision of education for Mr X’s child. This fault caused uncertainty to Mr X and his family. We also found fault with the Council delaying handling of Mr X’s complaint outside its complaint timescales causing frustration to Mr X. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and make a symbolic payment for the injustice caused to Mr X and his family. Leeds City Council (25 006 105) Summary: The Council delayed completing Miss X’s child, Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment in line with statutory timescales. It delayed deciding whether to issue Y with an EHC Plan within the statutory timescales, caused by a 34 week delay in obtaining Educational Psychologist advice. It then further delayed issuing Y’s final EHC Plan by 42 weeks after it received the EP advice. The Council was also at fault for failing to maintain oversight of Y’s alternative provision arrangement between 2023 and 2025. These faults caused Miss X and Y distress and delayed Y’s access to the specialist provision and placement specified in the final Plan by two terms. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the injustice the faults caused. Buckinghamshire Council (25 006 193) Summary: There was fault by the Council. It failed to properly consider its duty to make alternative educational provision when Mrs X’s child could not go to school; it took too long to secure a school place for him; and it failed to make the provision set out in his Education Health and Care Plan. The Council’s shortcomings caused Mrs X and her son distress and uncertainty, and meant that he missed education. The Council will apologise to Mrs X, make a symbolic payment, and review the complaint so that it can disseminate lessons learned to relevant staff. Essex County Council (25 008 077) Summary: Miss X complained about the lack of the Council’s support for Y after she had been taken off her school’s roll to be Electively Home Educated and the misleading advice received from the Council. She also complained about the delay with Y’s Education Health and Care needs assessment. We found fault with the significant delay to assess Y’s needs due to the lack of the Education Psychology advice. The Council has already apologised. The Council has also agreed to make a payment to recognise the injustice caused to Y and Miss X. Surrey County Council (25 008 635) Summary: The Council was at fault because of a significant delay in issuing an amended education, health and care plan. We cannot say this led to a loss of education, but it did cause frustration and uncertainty. There was also fault by the Council because it did not make arrangements to implement elements of specialist provision, which could have practically been made despite the complainant’s son being absent from an educational placement. Oxfordshire County Council (25 009 183) Summary: The Council was at fault for delays issuing Mrs X’s child’s Education, Health and Care plan, failing to provide all of her child’s provision, and poor communication. We are satisfied the Council has already apologised and offered a payment to reflect the distress, delayed appeal rights, and impact of lost provision. London Borough of Bromley (25 013 236) Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to transfer her son’s Education, Health and Care plan when they moved out of the area. We have found that the Council was at fault. Mrs X’s son was without education for approximately one month. The Council has agreed to take steps to remedy his injustice. Cambridgeshire County Council (25 017 652) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Mrs X’s complaint about its record-keeping and disclosure of financial information relating to her child’s special educational needs provision. The Information Commissioner is better placed than us to consider the substantive matters, which are the keeping and disclosure of data. It is not a good use of resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures where we are not investigating the substantive matters. Leeds City Council (25 018 110) 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 paying Mr X a £1200 symbolic payment. Halton Borough Council (25 019 598) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse free home-to-school transport. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Somerset Council (25 005 522) Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council had failed to respond to her complaint about children’s services. We found the Council delayed excessively in responding to and remedying her complaint and considered the complaint through the wrong process. This caused Mrs X significant distress and time and trouble. We welcomed the Council’s efforts to remedy the complaint but it has agreed to offer Mrs X the opportunity to complain through the statutory procedure now and improve its procedures for the future. Hampshire County Council (25 010 519) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to prevent his child (Y) from being taken out of the country illegally by Y’s mother. I ended this investigation as there is not enough evidence of fault to justifying investigating. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (25 014 627) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Occupational Therapy support provided by the Council. This is because matters complained about are late, and there is not enough evidence of fault. Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (25 016 862) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about children services’ action as we are unlikely to achieve the remedy they seek. We cannot investigate the Council’s actions during court proceedings. Oxfordshire County Council (25 017 132) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with his family. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making to justify us investigating. We also could not add to the Council’s apology to Mr X for its poor communication by investigating further. Worcestershire County Council (25 019 098) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with his child. The complaint is late and the law prevents us from investigating anything that is or has been the subject of court proceedings. Blackburn with Darwen Council (25 019 283) Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about the actions of the Council during court proceedings. The law prevents us from investigating what happens in court. Hampshire County Council (25 019 840) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council refused to consider his complaint under the Children’s Statutory Procedure and delayed his subject access request . This is because it is late and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is best placed to consider delays relating to subject access requests. Liverpool City Council (25 001 561) Summary: The complaint is about the Council not meeting Mr G’s son’s needs, as set out in his Education, Health and Care Plan, including tending to his medical needs. And not providing alternative education when Mr G’s son could not attend school. We uphold the complaint. The Council was at fault for a delay in reviewing the Education, Health and Care Plan, not providing some of its contents and not considering if the School was meeting as much as it could of the provisions in the Plan. The Council is now providing some Education Other Than at School, which was one of Mr G’s requests. But the Council has agreed to our recommendation it make symbolic payments, as remedies for the family’s injustice. Devon County Council (25 001 742) Summary: Mrs X complained about delays in the Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment for her daughter, Y. She also complained Y missed education since December 2024. Mrs X said this impacted the family’s mental health and Y missed education. There was fault in the way the Council delayed completing the EHC needs assessment and issuing the plan and did not provide Y with suitable education. This frustrated Mrs X and Y missed education. The Council agreed to apologise and make a financial payment. Cambridgeshire County Council (25 005 160) 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. Nottingham City Council (25 007 082) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to make alternative provision for her son Y when he could not attend school and provided inadequate responses to her complaints. We find the Council at fault for its complaint response which caused Mrs X uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise. Leicestershire County Council (25 007 721) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s delays during the Education, Health and Care needs assessment process for her son. She also complained about the Council’s failure to provide her son with an education for over two years. We find the Council was at fault for its delays during the Education, Health and Care needs assessment process. This caused Mrs X uncertainty and frustration. The Council has taken suitable action to remedy this injustice and so we do not recommend anything further. There was further fault by the Council as it failed to ensure Mrs X’s son had a suitable education. This has caused Mrs X distress and frustration. Mrs X’s son missed out on an education. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and make a payment to her to reflect the injustice caused. Trafford Council (25 008 889) Summary: Mrs F complained about how the Council and a school admission appeal panel handled her application for a place for her son at his preferred primary school. We found no fault. Suffolk County Council (25 009 274) Summary: The Council was at fault. It did not issue Mrs X’s child, Y’s, decision letter or Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan within the statutory timescales after Y’s annual review. This caused Mrs X distress, uncertainty and delayed her appeal rights to the Tribunal. The Council had already offered to pay Mrs X a suitable symbolic payment before Mrs X came to us. It has repeated that offer. The Council has already put in place an action plan to improve its service. Lincolnshire County Council (25 011 575) Summary: The Council was at fault for delay reviewing Mrs X’s child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused Mrs X frustration, for which the Council will make a symbolic payment. The Council has already apologised to Mrs X and taken suitable action to prevent similar fault in future. Hertfordshire County Council (25 017 578) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to act on multiple safeguarding concerns Ms X had about unsafe special educational needs transport practices. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. West Sussex County Council (25 017 739) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to provide alternative educational provision for Ms X’s son while he was unable to attend school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation. Gloucestershire County Council (25 018 163) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her child’s education, health and care plan because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome. It was reasonable for Mrs X to use her right of appeal if she was unhappy with the content of the final plan the Council issued. Nottinghamshire County Council (25 016 820) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with her children. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s action to justify us investigating. It would also be reasonable for Miss X to raise any concerns she has about the care and contact arrangements for her children in court. Cheshire West & Chester Council (25 017 276) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council’s actions have alienated the complainant’s children from him. This is because our intervention would not achieve what he is seeking or lead to a different outcome. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (24 009 251) Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mrs X’s complaint about the delay in finalising her son’s Education, Health and Care plan. The Council has already offered a suitable remedy for the delay, so further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about her son’s lack of education, because this was a direct consequence of the Council’s decision to name his school in his plan. Mrs X was given a right of appeal to the Tribunal about this matter, and it was reasonable to expect her to use that right. West Northamptonshire Council (24 021 920) Summary: There was delay in issuing a final Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan following a Tribunal decision. The Council has agreed to issue an apology and symbolic payment to acknowledge the impact of the delay. We cannot investigate matters which date back more than twelve months and / or where an alternative remedy of a Tribunal appeal has been issued. Hertfordshire County Council (25 004 254) Summary: This complaint about the failure to provide free school meals has been ended. During the course of the investigation the Council has offered a payment to remedy the financial injustice as a goodwill gesture and so there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by further investigation. Central Bedfordshire Council (25 005 686) Summary: There was fault and delay by the Council in completing an annual review, amending an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan, and identifying a new setting. As a result a child has been out of school, with part-time alternative provision, since October 2024. This caused loss of education, distress and placed additional caring responsibilities on Ms X. The Council has agreed actions to remedy the injustice caused. Suffolk County Council (25 009 014) Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her child’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and education over a number of years. We find the Council at fault for delays in completing the annual review and reassessment process, failing to review the personal budget as required, missing direct payments, and failing to address the free school meal issue when Miss X raised it. These faults caused uncertainty about whether her child should have received additional provision, financial pressure for the family, and time and trouble for Miss X pursuing the matter. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Miss X, and complete the EHC Plan process. West Northamptonshire Council (25 009 303) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to implement adaptations that were required for Y to access school. As a result, Mrs X says Y could not engage in activities with his peers. The Council was not at fault for delay in implementing the adaptations. The Council was at fault for communication failures, but it has already taken action to remedy the resulting injustice. Cheshire West & Chester Council (25 016 150) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delays in an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment. This is because the Council has agreed to an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the delay. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (25 017 834) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. Ms X has already appealed to the Tribunal, and other parts of the complaint are late without good reason. London Borough of Brent (25 018 747) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about an incident when the wrong school transport vehicle collected her child. This is because it is unlikely our involvement would add to the Council’s investigation or achieve a different outcome. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (25 017 508) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s children services complaint as we are unlikely to find fault. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 018 921) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement with his family. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons for us to exercise discretion to consider it now. We will not investigate Mr X’s further complaint about delays in the Council responding to a subject access request and correcting inaccurate records. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider these matters. West Northamptonshire Council (25 031 325) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in the children’s statutory complaints procedure. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Surrey County Council (25 009 988) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s action in response to a safeguarding referral about a private school. We are unlikely to find any significant Council fault in its actions which has caused Mrs X an injustice. 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