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. Lancashire County Council (25 001 776) Summary: Mrs X complained about significant delays by the Council in carrying out her son, Y’s, Education, Health and Care needs assessment. Mrs X also complained the Council failed to put alternative provision in place, and about delays responding to her formal complaint. The Council was at fault for delays and for failing to properly consider its duty to provide alternative provision. The Council agreed to provide a symbolic financial remedy for the uncertainty and distress this caused. Kent County Council (25 005 116) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s actions linked to her son’s education, the late issue of his Education, Health and Care Plan and its complaint handling and communication. We found fault because the Council issued the plan outside of statutory timescales and did not communicate about Mrs X’s complaint in a timely manner. This caused Mrs X avoidable distress and frustration. It meant Y’s plan was in force later than it should have been which delayed relevant appeal rights. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mrs X. Isle of Wight Council (25 010 212) Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his child, Z’s special educational needs and educational provision. We have found fault by the Council causing injustice, in failing to: complete the annual review of Z’s Education Health and Care Plan within statutory timescales; properly consider its duty to make alternative provision for Z; and its communication failures. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by: apologising; making payments to recognise the impact of the missed education and upset caused by its other failures; and a service improvement. Buckinghamshire Council (25 010 627) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed issuing her child’s final amended EHC Plan and in handling her complaints. We find the Council at fault for a four-month delay in issuing the final Plan and for significant delays and poor quality in its complaint handling. These faults caused Mrs X distress, uncertainty, time and trouble, and frustrated her right of appeal. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X. Cheshire East Council (25 011 030) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her child Y with alternative educational provision and the specialist provision in their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan when they stopped attending school full-time between May-July 2025. The Council was not at fault as it did not have the opportunity to provide this prior to the summer holidays commencing. Norfolk County Council (25 011 203) Summary: The Council delayed when arranging interim provision for a young person once their college placement broke down. This meant they did not receive the special educational provision they were entitled to for almost two school terms. The Council also delayed significantly when finalising the amended EHC plan. The Council has agreed to complete the remedial actions set out at the end of this statement. Buckinghamshire Council (25 015 298) 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. Derbyshire County Council (25 017 852) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs Y’s complaint the Council failed to arrange alternative educational provision or social care provision for her child. This is because these matters overlap with a SEND Tribunal appeal about her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. Essex County Council (25 019 742) 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. Portsmouth City Council (25 022 241) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to arrange suitable education for her child. This is because she has appealed the matter to the Tribunal. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to take enforcement action around non-attendance to justify our involvement. Staffordshire County Council (25 023 479) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about school transport because there is not enough evidence of fault, and we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants. Kent County Council (25 018 749) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her child’s application for a blue badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (25 019 447) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about a children services’ assessment as it has been used in Court proceedings. We will not investigate her complaint about the Council’s failure to complete a financial assessment as it is unlikely it has caused her to lose out. And Social Work England is better placed to consider a social worker’s conduct. North Yorkshire Council (25 019 895) Summary: We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint about a child protection conference because there is nothing we could add to the Council’s response. The welfare of Ms M’s children was to be considered by the Court. It would have been reasonable for Ms M to raise any concerns or disagreements about the Council’s assessment directly with the Court during the proceedings. Hampshire County Council (25 020 081) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s contact with the Council during child protection enquiries. The Council has upheld most of Mr X’s complaint and has provided an appropriate remedy for his injustice. There are no wider public interest issues remaining to justify investigating. Gloucestershire County Council (25 031 787) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the professional conduct of the Council’s social workers. There is another agency which can investigate his concerns about the social worker’s conduct. Oxfordshire County Council (24 018 403) Summary: The Council delayed in issuing its decision to amend Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan. It also delayed in issuing the final (amended) Plan. These delays caused Mrs X uncertainty, frustration, delayed appeal rights, and financial loss. The Council should make a symbolic payment to Mrs X to remedy the outstanding injustice. Suffolk County Council (25 000 534) Summary: Mrs X complains on behalf of Miss Y that the Council did not deal properly with education causing avoidable distress. The Council failed to communicate properly, did not provide alternative education, did not communicate outcomes about services and did not respond to the complaint fully. Mrs X suffered avoidable distress. The Council should apologise, make a symbolic payment to Miss Y and provide guidance to staff. London Borough of Lambeth (25 006 812) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the complainant’s child’s Education Health and Care Needs Assessment and its failure to ensure her child received his entitlement to funded hours at nursery. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons for us to investigate it now. Staffordshire County Council (25 009 979) Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to issue Y’s final amended Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan within statutory timescales following the annual review and it missed the phase transfer deadline. The Council was also at fault for failing to ensure Y received the therapy provision in their EHC Plan for over two terms. The Council has agreed to make a payment to remedy the injustice caused. Nottinghamshire County Council (25 010 713) Summary: The Council was at fault. It failed to meet its Section 19 duty to provide suitable alternative provision to Y between September 2024 and March 2025 which caused Ms X uncertainty and Y to miss education. The Council accepted fault and offered a suitable payment to remedy the injustice caused which is open for Ms X to accept. Somerset Council (25 011 390) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not review her child’s Education Health and Care Plan within statutory timescales and did not provide suitable education when they were out of school. Mrs X says this impacted her child’s education and emotional wellbeing. We find fault which caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X to remedy the injustice. Derbyshire County Council (25 015 535) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education, Health and Care Plan process. Mrs X’s appeal to the Tribunal places much of the complaint outside our jurisdiction. Investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome as far as the rest of the complaint is concerned. Somerset Council (25 016 829) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about poor communication from the Council. Investigation would not add anything to the Council’s response or achieve a different outcome. Buckinghamshire Council (25 019 258) Summary: We have upheld this complaint about the Council’s failure to complete an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment for Mr X’s child within the statutory timescale. The Council has agreed to provide a suitable remedy, and this removes the need for us to investigate. We will not investigate the complaint about alternative provision because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Buckinghamshire Council (25 019 851) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint. This is because part of the complaint is late with no good reasons to exercise our discretion to investigate and the remaining issues are too closely linked to the Council’s decisions on Mr X’s daughter’s Education, Health and Care Plan, which it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal. Buckinghamshire Council (25 020 039) Summary: We have upheld this complaint about the Council’s failure to complete an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment for Miss X’s child within the statutory timescale. The Council has agreed to provide a proportionate remedy, and this removes the need for us to investigate. Cambridgeshire County Council (25 020 316) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Ms X’s child’s education and special educational needs provision. This is because her complaint is made late and I see no good reason to exercise discretion and consider it now. East Sussex County Council (25 021 939) Summary: We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint about school transport for her children because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Lancashire County Council (25 005 789) Summary: The Council accepts it delayed completing an assessment of Mrs X’s child, Y, and a carers assessment of Mrs X and her family. It also accepts it delayed implementing direct payments for Y following the assessment. This meant Mrs X had to provide additional care for Y and faced uncertainty, distress and frustration pursuing the Council for the outcomes of the assessments and the payments. The Council has already apologised to Mrs X and agreed to make a payment to recognise the impact on her and her family. West Sussex County Council (25 016 417) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to Miss X’s concerns about a school. We cannot investigate what happens in schools and it is unlikely we would find any fault in how the Council responded to Miss X’s concerns, or how it dealt with her request for a different school. Staffordshire County Council (25 018 433) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to arrange contact between her and a relative who is in care. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement, and we cannot achieve the outcome sought by Mrs X. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (25 021 790) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council failed to safeguard her and her siblings. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Hampshire County Council (25 024 960) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the professional conduct of a social worker. There is another agency which can investigate his concerns about the social worker’s conduct. London Borough of Haringey (25 029 088) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about bereavement support from the Council. His complaint is late and we have seen no good reason why he could not have complained to us sooner. Reading Borough Council (25 031 401) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the professional conduct of a social worker and the Council’s delay in responding to his complaints about the social worker. There is another agency which can investigate his concerns about the social worker, and the Council has already responded to his complaints. London Borough of Waltham Forest (26 001 414) Summary: We will not investigate X’s complaint about the governance of a school. X raised the complaint anonymously and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable because it is unlikely we could carry out an effective investigation. Dorset Council (24 018 745) Summary: On the evidence available to us, we cannot draw a conclusion whether the Council met its duties, to offer support to a young person in maintaining his educational placements. However, we are satisfied this would not have changed the outcome either way, and further investigation would therefore not be proportionate. The Council was at fault, because it did not arrange a meeting when it said it would, but this did not cause an injustice. We have therefore completed our investigation. East Sussex County Council (25 005 684) Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to provide proper oversight of the special educational needs support being delivered to Mrs X’s daughter. This meant she missed out on support. The Council has already taken action to address her injustice, but it has also agreed to address the injustice suffered by Mrs X, who suffered distress. It will also take steps to improve its service. Worcestershire County Council (25 006 449) Summary: Miss X complained the Council has failed to provide her daughter with alternative full time education since she stopped attending school due to ill health in April 2024. We found the Council’s failure to provide a suitable education since October 2024 is fault. The Council has taken appropriate action to remedy this fault. Torbay Council (25 010 393) Summary: There was fault in the management of the annual review process for an Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused uncertainty, unnecessary time and trouble to Ms X and denied her a right of appeal about her child’s educational provision over an extended period. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic financial payment and make service improvements. Surrey County Council (25 018 925) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the content of an Education Health and Care Plan. The matters Mrs X complained about are closely linked to her appeal to a tribunal and therefore the law says we cannot investigate. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to arrange alternative educational provision. This part of the complaint is premature, and the Council agreed to consider it through its complaint process. Hertfordshire County Council (25 019 562) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a child’s Education Health and Care plan. This is because we could not add anything significant to the investigation carried out by the Council. Hertfordshire County Council (25 019 645) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about school transport. This is because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (25 019 677) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Miss X’s application for an Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because the Council has apologised to Miss X and offered her £900 in recognition of the impact of its actions and this provides a suitable remedy for the complaint. Oxfordshire County Council (25 020 709) Summary: We upheld Mrs X’s complaint about SEN transport provision for her child. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by paying Mrs X a symbolic payment of £200 to acknowledge the injustice caused. Staffordshire County Council (25 022 401) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X complaint about safeguarding of children in a school. Her complaint is late and we have seen no good reason why she could not have come to us sooner. London Borough of Southwark (25 025 945) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to investigate Mr X’s concerns about his care placement. 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. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (26 001 586) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council breached her statutory rights. We have not seen enough evidence of fault to justify a further investigation. Slough Borough Council (24 006 010) Summary: The Council is at fault for giving confusing information about education otherwise than at school (EOTAS) and raising Ms X’s expectations that it would provide this to her son. The Council accepted and apologised for poor communication and delay in the Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan process. The Council should make a payment for the distress it caused. Gloucestershire County Council (25 007 808) Summary: Mr F complained the Council failed to provide his son (X) with an education for over a year, act of serious school transport concerns, and respond to his complaints appropriately. The Council accepted fault in how it handled transport concerns and it had caused X a loss of education. It apologised, proposed a remedy, and took action to improve services. We agreed with the Council’s overall findings, but it was also at fault for some delayed communication and complaints handling. It agreed to provide an increased remedy to Mr F to acknowledge the injustice its faults had on X and Mr F, and to carry out a service improvement recommendation. Central Bedfordshire Council (25 008 471) Summary: The Council was not at fault for the way it handled Ms X’s child’s special educational provision when they were out of school. The Council provided as much provision as the child could cope with. We cannot investigate what the Education, Health and Care plan said. London Borough of Waltham Forest (25 013 028) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint because we already considered the matters Ms X complained about in another investigation. London Borough of Southwark (25 018 059) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to provide Speech and Language Therapy to Mrs X’s child. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault and it was reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) Nottinghamshire County Council (25 018 512) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s educational provision to her two children because she has rights of appeal and because there is not enough evidence of fault causing significant injustice. Leeds City Council (25 018 809) Summary: We have upheld this complaint about the Council’s failure to complete an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment for Miss X’s child within the statutory timescale. The Council has offered to provide a proportionate remedy and this removes the need for us to investigate. Dorset Council (25 021 306) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to complete an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment. Miss X had a right of appeal to a tribunal about this decision, and it would have been reasonable to expect her to have used it. Suffolk County Council (25 025 745) Summary: Ms G complains health and children’s services in her area failed to appropriately monitor and support her child during his early years. We will not investigate the complaint because it is late and we have not found a good reason to use discretion to investigate it now. And, because Ms G is seeking sizeable financial compensation for avoidable harm, it would be appropriate for her to pursue a remedy through the courts. London Borough of Bromley (25 019 554) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the financial support provided by the Council to care for her brother because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Surrey County Council (25 021 409) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a safeguarding matter and a data deletion request. We have not seen enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Cheshire West & Chester Council (25 025 632) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with a child protection matter because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Also, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants. 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