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.

Shropshire Council (25 006 308)

Summary: We upheld Mrs X’s complaint about a delay in transferring her child Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan when they moved into Shropshire. The delay meant Y did not receive the educational provision in his Education, Health and Care Plan between February and July 2025 which was an important year for him. Mrs X and Y are an armed forces family and the gap in Y’s education made the move and settling into the area more difficult and stressful. Communication was also not in line with our expected standards which caused Mrs X avoidable frustration.

Manchester City Council (24 018 348)

Summary: The Council failed to issue D’s Education, Health and Care Plan within statutory timescales and delayed putting alternative provision in place after D stopped attending school. To remedy the injustice caused by this fault, the Council has agreed to carry out the actions set out at the end of this statement.

Bath and North East Somerset Council (25 006 049)

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the process the Council followed in deciding her son’s special educational needs support. She had a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal about these matters, and our role cannot overlap that of the Tribunal. However, the Council was at fault for a delay in deciding Miss X’s son’s support. It has agreed to apologise, and it will take steps to improve its service.

Buckinghamshire Council (25 010 765)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to complete an Education, Health and Care needs assessment within statutory timeframes. We find the Council at fault for a delay in completing the Education, Health and Care needs assessment. The delay is fault which caused Mr X and his family distress, frustration and uncertainty and frustrated their right to appeal. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused.

Buckinghamshire Council (25 013 702)

Summary: The Council was at fault for almost nine months delay assessing Mrs X’s child, W, for an Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused Mrs X significant frustration and uncertainty and meant W missed out on some special educational provision they should have had. To remedy their injustice, the Council will apologise to Mrs X and make symbolic payments. The Council is already taking suitable action to prevent similar fault in future.

Durham County Council (25 019 607)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council has dealt with matters concerning her child’s education. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Derby City Council (25 020 073)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about missed tuition. We are unlikely to achieve more than the £250 offered by the Council.

Suffolk County Council (25 020 407)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about educational provision and placements because it was reasonable for Miss X to use her right to appeal to the Tribunal. The law does not allow us to investigate this complaint.

Southend-on-Sea City Council (25 023 120)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to issue an Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because Miss X used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability).

London Borough of Southwark (25 010 907)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed in its duty of care to him while he was a Looked After Child and failed to provide appropriate support when he left care. Mr X says he became a Looked after Child in 1999 and was mistreated by the carers he was placed with. We found there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council carried out the investigation under the statutory complaints procedure. The Council has accepted and acted on the investigations findings and recommendations and we cannot add anything significant to the investigation.

Surrey County Council (25 012 189)

Summary: We will not investigate part of Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s data handling because the Council updated its records and attached Ms X’s views to its files. An investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Councild did not “rectify” all records because the Information Commissioner is better suited to consider the matter.

London Borough of Islington (25 019 983)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to pay her out of a scheme for previously looked after children as it is unlikely we would find fault. It is reasonable to expect her to apply to Court.

Durham County Council (25 020 133)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to Mrs X’s concerns about a child. Nor will we investigate the Council’s decision to decline to take a complaint about this matter from Mrs X. It is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s actions in either respect.

East Sussex County Council (25 020 220)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a family assessment. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation and the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider a complaint about the accuracy of Council records.

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (25 009 544)

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s response to her request for support for her son (Y) who could not attend school because of his health needs. Mrs X also complained about the Council’s failure to keep the statutory timescales for Y’s Education Health and Care needs assessment. We found fault with the Council’s failure to check the suitability of educational arrangements made by Y’s school despite regular communication from Mrs X. We also found fault with the Council’s delays with Y’s Education Health and Care needs assessment, with its communication with Mrs X and its record-keeping. The Council’s fault caused injustice to Y and Mrs X. The Council has agreed to apologise, arrange a meeting to discuss Y’s education and issue Y’s final Education Health and Care Plan. The Council has also agreed to make payments to recognise injustice caused to Y and Mrs X and carry out service improvement.

Bristol City Council (25 011 279)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in deciding provision for Ms X’s child’s special educational needs. Ms X used her right of appeal to a tribunal about the provision specified by the Council, and the matters complained of are closely related to that.

Cheshire West & Chester Council (25 017 893)

Summary: We upheld Mrs X’s complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care (EHC) process for her child and the Council’s poor communication because the Council upheld the complaints, apologised, and offered a £200 symbolic payment. We cannot investigate how the Council conducted school consultations, its decision to name a specific school in an EHC Plan, or delivery of the EHC Plan because Mrs X appealed to a tribunal and the law says we cannot investigate. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about alternative education because the claimed injustice is not significant enough.

Central Bedfordshire Council (25 019 063)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about school transport. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Wiltshire Council (25 019 952)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about special educational needs transport. We are unlikely to find fault with the Council.

Kent County Council (25 020 422)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in the handling of her son’s transfer to secondary education and in the course of her appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability).

Leeds City Council (25 020 975)

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

Leeds City Council (25 021 044)

Essex County Council (25 021 832)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about her child’s Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment. This is because it was reasonable for Mrs X to use her right of appeal.

Essex County Council (25 022 265)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council failed to arrange suitable full-time education for her child. This is because her complaint is made late and I see no good reason to exercise discretion and consider it now.

London Borough of Harrow (24 016 321)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint about her son’s care package because the Council has increased his support and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable.

Oxfordshire County Council (25 013 145)

Summary: The Council was not at fault for its handling of Mr X’s complaint about its children’s social care service. Statutory guidance supports its decision not to consider a new complaint brought by Mr X part-way through the complaint procedure.

Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (25 014 743)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions relating to a Looked After Child. The Council has already investigated the complaint under the three-stage Children Act 1989 complaint procedure, and it is unlikely we would find fault in the way it conducted that investigation or considered the findings.

Essex County Council (25 016 323)

Summary: We will not investigate most of Miss X’s complaints about how the Council considered a safeguarding referral relating to her child’s teacher because there is insufficient evidence of fault. We will not investigate some of the complaints because the tests in our Assessment Code are not met. We cannot investigate part of the complaint because it relates to the internal management of a school.

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (25 017 039)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a complaint about the internal governance of a school. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about what happens in schools, so there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

Worcestershire County Council (25 020 121)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s child protection safeguarding enquiries and actions relating to her family because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Surrey County Council (25 020 123)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a safeguarding concern. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Kent County Council (25 024 767)

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about information that the Council presented in court. This is because the law prevents us from investigating complaints about what happened in court.

London Borough of Lewisham (25 012 531)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed the EHC needs assessment for her son, Y. Mrs X said this distressed her and Y missed education. There was fault in the way the Council did not issue the EHC plan within statutory timescales. This frustrated and distressed Mrs X. The Council agreed to make a financial payment.

West Northamptonshire Council (25 012 989)

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. We have ended our investigation because Ms X has appealed the Education, Health and Care Plan to the Tribunal, and further investigation would not achieve a different outcome.

London Borough of Bromley (25 019 151)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council has reviewed her child’s Education Health and Care plan. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs X to use her right of appeal to a tribunal.

Leeds City Council (25 019 873)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has offered an appropriate remedy. An investigation by the Ombudsman would not achieve anything more.

Buckinghamshire Council (25 019 907)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education, Health and Care Plan process. Mr X’s appeal to the Tribunal places most of the complaint outside our jurisdiction. The Council’s delay in reaching a decision did not cause an injustice significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Blackpool Borough Council (25 019 939)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education, Health and Care Plan process. Mrs X’s appeal to the Tribunal places most of the complaint outside our jurisdiction. The Council’s delay in reaching a decision did not cause an injustice significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Slough Borough Council (25 020 096)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his child’s post-16 transport. The Council has agreed the transport will continue unchanged and that is the outcome Mr X wanted. The injustice from the remaining issues does not warrant our involvement.

Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (25 005 321)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed completing Y’s EHC Plan and did not communicate effectively. The Council was at fault for significant delay, poor communication, and failing to take sufficient action when Y was not accessing education. This caused Miss X distress and uncertainty, and Y missed around two months of education. The Council agreed recommended actions to remedy the injustice caused.

Essex County Council (25 006 388)

Summary: We have found the Council at fault for its poor communication in response to Ms X’s request for Education Other Than At School for her son, Y. The Council also failed to consider it Section 19 duty when Y stopped attending school. This fault caused Ms X and Y avoidable distress and caused Y to miss out on alternative provision. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy this injustice.

Surrey County Council (25 006 942)

Summary: Ms X the Council failed to provide her son with alternative provision and a full-time education when he was unable to attend school. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters. So, we have completed our investigation.

West Sussex County Council (25 009 720)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed issuing her child Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan and failed to arrange suitable alternative education while he was out of school. There was fault in the Council’s actions. The Council agreed recommended actions to remedy the injustice caused and a service improvement recommendation.

Plymouth City Council (25 012 244)

Summary: The Council was at fault for the delay in issuing Miss X’s child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and make a payment to acknowledge the distress, frustration and uncertainty this caused.

Surrey County Council (25 021 695)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X complaint about how the Council carried out annual reviews for her child’s Education Health and Care plan. This is because there is either insufficient evidence of fault causing a significant injustice, or we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council.

Kent County Council (25 007 520)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council wrongly refused her child Y’s application for a Blue Badge. There was fault in the Council’s record keeping. This caused undue distress to Miss X. The Council has agreed recommended actions to remedy the injustice caused.

Reading Borough Council (25 018 922)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement with Mr X’s family. The matters complained about were either considered by a court which the law says we cannot consider or are closely linked to matters that have been or could have been raised during court proceedings.

Luton Borough Council (25 019 696)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the content of a social work letter filed with a court. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about what happened in court. For the rest, the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider complaints about data protection, and there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to consider Mr X’s complaint under its corporate complaints procedure to justify us investigating.

Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 025 395)

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with the care and contact arrangements for her child. This is because the law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters which have been considered in court.

North Somerset Council (25 003 758)

Summary: Ms X complained that the Council failed to deliver the education and support set out in her son Y’s Education, Health and Care plan. She said this impacted on his education and his mental wellbeing. We have found the Council was at fault. It failed to ensure that Y was receiving the provision outlined in the plan. The Council has agreed to address the injustice caused to Ms X and Y.

Surrey County Council (25 007 409)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her child, Y, with suitable education when they were unable to attend school from April 2024. We find the Council at fault for failing to consider its section 19 duty between September 2024 and February 2026. This caused Y and Mrs X distress, uncertainty and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and complete service improvements to remedy the injustice caused.

Kent County Council (25 007 607)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to deliver the support in his child’s Education, Health and Care Plan, delayed his child’s educational placement, and failed to engage in mediation. We cannot investigate this complaint because Mr X has asked the courts to consider the same issues and the law says we cannot investigate anything which has been raised, or could reasonably be raised, in court.

Birmingham City Council (25 008 459)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide alternative education for her child, Y after they were permanently excluded from school. We found the Council at fault for a delay in making alternative provision for Y resulting in a loss of educational provision and distress. The Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Miss X to remedy the injustice caused. It also agreed to carry out service improvements to prevent reoccurrence of the fault.

Suffolk County Council (25 008 840)

Summary: The Council failed to ensure Ms X’s son received full-time education between September 2024 and March 2025 and delayed responding to her complaint. That meant Ms X’s son missed out on education and Ms X experienced distress. An apology, payment to Ms X and guidance for officers is satisfactory remedy.

Isle of Wight Council (25 010 337)

Summary: The Council delayed ensuring all of the provision in Miss X’s child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan was in place following a tribunal order. This meant Y did not receive all their provision between June and July 2025. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss X and Y and make a payment to remedy the injustice that caused.

Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 012 349)

Summary: The complaint is about the Council’s failure to provide Mrs C’s son with suitable alternative education when he was out of school. And an ongoing failure to find suitable provision for him and problems with the Council’s responses to a Tribunal. We uphold the complaint for the part of the complaint that is within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. But the Council has already made an offer of a symbolic payment that is consistent with Ombudsman’s guidance on suitable remedies. Much of the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, because Mrs C has appealed.

Cheshire West & Chester Council (25 019 819)

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the school named in her child’s Education, Health and Care plan and the lack of alternative education provision. Mrs X has used her right of appeal to the Tribunal about the contents of the plan. The matters are too closely linked to the appeal for us to investigate.

London Borough of Islington (25 003 148)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about harm caused from the Council placing him in a children’s home in the 1960s. The Courts are better placed to decide if the Council should compensate Mr X.

West Northamptonshire Council (25 016 094)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a symbolic financial remedy resulting from the Council’s consideration of a statutory children’s complaint. We could not add to the investigation the Council has already carried out and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, so we cannot achieve the outcome that Mr X wants.

London Borough of Tower Hamlets (25 017 191)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her children’s case since 2020 and the content of its assessments since 2022. The Council has already investigated and responded to Ms X’s concerns under all three stages of the statutory complaint procedure. It has apologised and taken action to improve as a result of the faults identified. We could not add to the Council’s responses or achieve anything more. We cannot investigate other elements of Ms X’s complaints because either the law prevents us or another body is better placed to consider them.

East Sussex County Council (25 017 855)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to produce a safety plan for her grandchild. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. We cannot add to the Council’s response about a lack of home visits to her grandchild.

Leicestershire County Council (25 018 328)

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement in child protection processes. This is because the law prevents us from investigating matters which have been considered in court. And there is another body better placed to consider complaints about individual social workers.

West Northamptonshire Council (25 019 068)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement with Miss X’s family. The law prevents us from investigating matters subject to court proceedings.

Leicestershire County Council (25 019 724)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to change the social worker allocated to Miss X’s family, or about contact restrictions it enforced. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our involvement.

Central Bedfordshire Council (25 006 101)

Summary: We have found the Council at fault for failing to ensure Y’s school delivered the provision in her Education, Health and Care Plan. This affected Y’s access to education at school and caused both Y and Mrs X avoidable distress. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay both Mrs X and Y a symbolic payment to recognise their injustice. The Council has also agreed to review and monitor its Special Educational Need Action Plan.

Cambridgeshire County Council (25 006 283)

Summary: The Council was at fault. It failed to complete Mrs X’s child, Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment within statutory timeframes which caused Mrs X uncertainty and delayed her appeal rights to the Tribunal. The Council also failed to consider whether it owed Y a Section 19 duty to put alternative provision in place and to maintain oversight of its delegated responsibilities when Y’s school put them on a reduced timetable in April and June 2025 causing further uncertainty to Mrs X and Y. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X and Y to remedy the injustice caused.

Brighton & Hove City Council (25 006 782)

Summary: There was fault by the Council. It did not put in place most of the provision in Section F of an Education, Health and Care Plan for half a term. And it did not put in place the Teaching Assistant hours for a further month. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment. This remedies the injustice of stress and lack of educational provision to Ms X and her child.

Norfolk County Council (25 008 691)

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his child’s Education, Health and Care Plan, including a delayed Annual Review. We found avoidable delay by the Council in completing the Annual Review, which caused Mr X avoidable distress. The Council had apologised to Mr X but to suitably address the injustice to Mr X, the Council also agreed to increase its offer of a symbolic payment.

Lincolnshire County Council (25 008 983)

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan and failures in reviewing it. We found the Council at fault for delays, poor communication and not maintaining appropriate oversight of her child’s home education. This caused significant frustration, distress and uncertainty. The Council agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment to recognise the injustice caused, and take action to prevent future recurrence of fault.

Somerset Council (25 010 671)

Summary: Dr Y complained that the Council delayed completing an EHC Plan under a First-tier Tribunal Order. He said this caused his daughter, B, to miss out on education and support in her GSCE year. We found the Council at fault. The Council has apologised for the delay and agreed to pay £350 in recognition of the loss of provision and uncertainty caused.

North Yorkshire Council (25 011 927)

Summary: There was fault in the way the Council communicated its home to school transport policy for September 2025 school admissions. There was also fault in how it considered Mrs X’s appeal for home to school transport. These faults have caused Mrs X frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and offer her a fresh stage two appeal hearing.

North Yorkshire Council (25 012 369)

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (25 016 477)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not providing suitable education to Mr Y and not complying with the agreed actions following a previous Ombudsman investigation. The complaints are late and there are no good reasons to investigate them now. We cannot achieve anything for Mrs X and Mr Y by investigating the complaint about the Council not providing transport for Mr Y.

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (24 020 108)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s children services involvement with Mr X because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (25 018 664)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s support to Mr X as a care leaver. We could not add to the investigation the Council has already carried out, and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

London Borough of Southwark (25 018 882)

Summary: We have upheld Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to accept his complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early be providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (25 019 316)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about children services’ actions as we are unlikely to achieve more than has already been offered.

Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 019 474)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in its handling of the complainant’s children’s personal data. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed than the Ombudsman to consider the matter.

North East Lincolnshire Council (25 020 514)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the contents of a Section 7 report and how the Council conducted safeguarding enquiries. This is because there is another body better placed to investigate Miss X’s complaint. Of the remaining element, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Brighton & Hove City Council (25 026 127)

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr 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.

Warwickshire County Council (25 019 195)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council has managed his son’s education provision for the last three years. Part of his complaint is made late, and it is unlikely that we would find fault with the Council’s recent actions.

Essex County Council (25 020 348)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing free school transport for the complainant’s child. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

Leeds City Council (25 020 614)

Hampshire County Council (25 011 895)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a child and family assessment. This is because the complaint relates to legal proceedings on a closely related matter.


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, June 25, 2026

New children and education complaint decisions

A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions

No comments:

Post a Comment