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. Durham County Council (25 007 486) Summary: We will not investigate Mx X’s complaint about how the Council handled a review of her child’s Education Health and Care plan. This is because it is reasonable for her to have used her right of appeal to a tribunal about the contents of the plan and because investigating other matters would not achieve a different outcome. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (25 007 647) Summary: We have found fault with the Council for failing to make a timely Section 19 decision. This caused Miss X’s son, Y to be without suitable alternative provision for a school half term. We have also found fault with the Council for failing to monitor and review Y’s alternative provision. This caused Miss X avoidable distress as she experienced uncertainty and potentially the missed opportunity of Y accessing a different alternative provision supplier. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy Miss X’s injustice. Surrey County Council (25 007 830) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed in issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan following an emergency annual review for her son, Y, and failed to secure special educational provision when he was unable to attend school. We find the Council at fault for a delay in issuing the final amended Education, Health and Care Plan following the annual review. This caused frustration and uncertainty for Y and Mrs X. The Council has agreed to re-offer Mrs X a symbolic payment and secure occupational therapy provision to remedy the injustice caused. Hampshire County Council (25 019 403) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a warning letter sent by the Council about unreasonable contact. Mr X was not caused a significant injustice by this. We will not investigate the Council’s communication with him about his child’s education because the Council upheld his complaint about poor communication and said it would apologise. An investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve any additional outcome. Essex County Council (25 020 373) Summary: We cannot investigate the Council’s cooperation with producing an Education Health and Care Plan as Mrs X has appealed it to the Tribunal. And we are unlikely to find this Council has caused Z to miss out on the support they need. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (25 020 595) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of an Education Health Care Needs Assessment. This is because there is not enough evidence the Council is at fault and that any fault has caused significant enough injustice to justify an investigation. Liverpool City Council (25 020 679) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about delays holding an Education, Health and Care plan annual review and poor communication. The Council has upheld her complaint and offered a suitable remedy. It is unlikely an investigation would add to the Council’s response or reach a different outcome. London Borough of Havering (26 005 087) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X complaint about education provision as it cannot be separated from a Tribunal appeal. Plymouth City Council (25 017 023) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s involved with his child. The arrangements for the child’s care and contact are being considered by the court which prevents us from investigating. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to raise any concerns he has with the court. Hampshire County Council (25 019 018) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of Mrs X’s child’s school, or how the Council responded to a complaint about that matter. We cannot investigate what happens in schools and of the matters we could investigate, there are no wider public interest issues to justify investigating, for the reasons I have set out. Cambridgeshire County Council (25 020 387) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s consideration of her safeguarding report. Those concerns were considered within Court proceedings and we cannot investigate issues which form part of Court proceedings. London Borough of Brent (25 020 747) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the remedy offered to her following a children’s statutory complaints investigation in 2020 and the Council’s recent decision that it will not re-open her complaint to re-consider the matter. A complaint about the Council’s actions in 2020 is late and there is not enough evidence of fault in its recent decision. Somerset Council (25 008 498) Summary: The Council failed to ensure Ms X’s adult son, Mr Y received the specialist provision in his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan since June 2025 when his college removed him from his course. It also failed to carry out an annual review for Mr Y since February 2025. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr Y and Ms X and make a payment to recognise the injustice caused. It also agreed to carry out Mr Y’s annual review without further delay. Derbyshire County Council (25 009 247) Summary: Mrs F complained the Council failed to find her son a school place, secure the provision in his education, health and care plan, or provide alternative provision when they moved into the Council’s area. We found fault which caused distress and for Mrs F’s son to miss out on education for a term and a half at a key phase of his education. The Council has agreed to apologise and make symbolic payments to remedy that injustice. Buckinghamshire Council (25 009 732) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide her daughter with an education and the provision set out in her Education, Health and Care Plan when she was unable to attend school between June 2023 and September 2024. Ms X said the Council’s actions caused significant distress to her daughter and left her without the support she needed for a year. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to provide an improved financial remedy in recognition of the injustice caused. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (25 011 581) Summary: Miss X complained about the way the Council dealt with her elective home education request. We found no fault in the actions of the Council. London Borough of Hillingdon (25 018 884) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to withdraw her child’s school placement. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Peterborough City Council (25 020 297) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s home-to-school transport arrangements for her child. This is because, at our invitation, the Council agreed to conduct a new Independent Review appeal to consider the transport arrangements. We consider this a suitable remedy. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (25 020 386) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in issuing a decision following an Education Health and Care Plan annual review or following a Tribunal’s decision. We are unlikely to find significant injustice. We are unlikely to find significant fault in Mrs X’s complaint about failing to provide support. Leeds City Council (25 020 690) 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. Essex County Council (25 021 087) 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 proportionate remedy, and this removes the need for us to investigate. Cornwall Council (25 027 244) Summary: We will not investigate Mr F’s complaint about school transport because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. St Mary's Catholic Primary School, Chesterfield (25 030 585) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about an unsuccessful school admission appeal. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault for us to be able to question the panel’s decision. Cambridgeshire County Council (26 001 851) Summary: We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her application for a secondary school place for her daughter, G, because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Ms M has a right of appeal against the decision to refuse G a place at any of the schools she chose. This is the only way she might secure a place at her preferred school. Isle of Wight Council (25 014 449) Summary: Mrs B complained about the Council’s lack of special guardianship support, and that it has delayed investigating her complaint. She says she feels let down by the Council and she would like it to provide financial support to her until the child is an adult. I have ended my investigation of Mrs B’s complaint. It was reasonable for Mrs B to accept the Council’s offer of a fresh stage two investigation, and it is not likely we could achieve the outcome Mrs B would like. London Borough of Croydon (25 020 309) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s role in a Trust. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s complaint handling, another body is better placed to consider this complaint, and we cannot achieve the outcomes Miss Y wants. Central Bedfordshire Council (25 002 584) Summary: We have found fault by the Council in failing to arrange suitable education for Y, failing to secure the provision in her EHC Plan, and in delays in securing a new placement and issuing an amended EHC Plan. These faults caused Y a significant loss of education. The Council has accepted our recommendations. Staffordshire County Council (25 005 089) Summary: The Council accepts it delayed issuing the final amended Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for Miss X’s child, Y, and failed to issue an outcome to Y’s annual review in 2025. This caused Miss X uncertainty over the suitability of the provision in Y’s EHC Plan and the outcome of the review. The Council has agree to apologise and make a payment to Miss X. The Council did not fail to secure the provision in Y’s EHC Plan during this time. Dorset Council (25 014 148) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to issue an amended Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for her son (Y), within statutory timescales following an annual review. We found, the Council delayed issuing Y’s final amended EHC Plan and its communication with Mrs X was also poor. The Council has already acknowledged fault but failed to remedy the injustice caused to Mrs X and Y. Mrs X suffered distress and uncertainty and Y also missed some provision. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy this injustice. West Northamptonshire Council (25 015 101) Summary: We have upheld this complaint about the Council’s failure to issue an Education Health and Care plan for the complainant’s child within the statutory timescale. The Council provided a proportionate remedy. We cannot investigate an additional complaint about the final plan because the complainant has already appealed to the tribunal. An investigation into legal fees incurred by Mrs X would be unlikely to achieve the outcome she wants. Leeds City Council (25 018 700) Summary: There was fault in the way the Council considered Mr X’s application for post-16 transport and in how it applied its own policy to consider whether the expectation placed on parents to facilitate transport was ‘reasonably practical’. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment to recognise Mr X’s time and trouble, to take the decision again, and make service improvements. The complaint is upheld. Essex County Council (25 019 973) 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. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (25 021 779) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to identify his child’s Special Educational Needs. This is because Mr X has used his right of appeal against the Council’s recent decision not to carry out an Education Health and Care needs assessment and because historic matters are raised late. London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (25 011 588) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to communicate properly about his child. We find the Council at fault for poor communication, inaccurate and late meeting minutes, inadequate record-keeping, and a failure to learn from an earlier upheld complaint and implement an agreed communication plan. This caused Mr X avoidable distress and uncertainty and led to significant time and trouble in repeatedly chasing the Council and making a further complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr X, and review and properly implement a revised communication plan to ensure consistent and timely information sharing. Shropshire Council (25 025 578) Summary: The Council was at fault for a four month delay in considering Miss X’s complaint at stage two of the statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to remedy the distress, frustration and uncertainty this caused. London Borough of Merton (25 030 380) Summary: We have upheld Miss 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. London Borough of Havering (25 031 481) 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. West Sussex County Council (24 022 331) Summary: We have found the Council at fault for delays during Mrs X’s son’s (Y’s) Education Health and Care needs assessment and Plan process. We have also found fault with the Council for failing to make a Section 19 decision, its poor communication with Mrs X and its delayed complaint response. The fault has caused Y to miss out on provision, caused the whole family avoidable distress and delayed Mrs X’s appeal rights. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and make a symbolic payment to remedy Y’s missed education and the distress caused. Somerset Council (25 005 993) Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s management of Mr Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused Mr Y anxiety and prevented him from making progress or achieving his outcomes. The Council was at fault for delays completing annual reviews and delays funding Mr Y’s provision. The Council agreed to provide a financial remedy for Mr Y’s missed provision. Bristol City Council (25 007 821) Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed issuing notices after two annual review meetings and delayed issuing the final Education, Health and Care Plan for her son. Based on current evidence, the Council accepts that it did not meet the statutory timescales for the EHC Plan reviews and that this caused distress and anxiety. A symbolic payment to recognise this is proposed. Staffordshire County Council (25 009 268) Summary: The Council delayed issuing a final education, health and care plan following an annual review and failed to pay for X’s speech and language therapy. That delayed Mr Y’s right of appeal, caused Mr Y distress and led to X missing out on special educational needs provision. An apology and payment to Mr Y is satisfactory remedy. Cambridgeshire County Council (25 010 319) Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, about an alleged failure by the Council to secure specialist educational provision set out in two children's education, health and care plans. This is because we have already investigated this in response to a previous complaint. Kent County Council (25 011 718) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to provide suitable school transport for her child’s disabilities and special needs. This caused significant distress, frustration and inconvenience for the family. We have ended our investigation as Mrs X has reached a settlement with the Council and achieved most of the outcomes she wanted. We could not achieve significantly more, and it would not be a proportionate use of our resources to further investigate. Hertfordshire County Council (25 017 291) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to arrange alternative provision and any related matters because the complainant has issued judicial review proceedings against the Council. Essex County Council (25 020 214) Summary: We have upheld this complaint about the Council’s failure to complete an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment and issue an Education Health and Care plan for the complainant’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 (25 021 128) Summary: We have found fault in the way the Council considered Ms X’s application for post-16 transport and in how it applied its own policy. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment to recognise time and trouble, to retake the decision, and to make service improvements. The complaint is upheld. Cambridgeshire County Council (25 021 161) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of an Education, Health and Care Plan following an annual review. This is because the Council has agreed to reassess Mrs X’s child and there is nothing further we could achieve for Mrs X. North Yorkshire Council (25 021 521) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council failing to provide educational provision and the Council’s conduct during appeal proceedings. Miss X has already used her right of appeal to the Tribunal. The law does not allow us to investigate under these circumstances. Central Bedfordshire Council (25 019 609) 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. Kent County Council (25 019 827) Summary: We have upheld this complaint about services provided by the Council’s children and adolescent services. The Council has examined Mr X’s complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure and agreed to offer Mr X a remedy in line with the panel’s recommendations. We will not investigate whether the Council defamed Mr X, as such matters can only be decided in court. Northumberland County Council (25 021 034) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement with her 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 that we will not investigate. In any case, the complaint is late and there would be no good reasons for us to exercise discretion to consider it now. North Yorkshire Council (26 002 798) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s response to her information request and its failure to respond to her request for a review. An investigation would not lead to a different outcome and the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider a complaint about access to information. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (26 002 803) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to her information request. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider a complaint about access to information. Thurrock Council (26 003 042) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s response to her information request. This Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider a complaint about access to information. West Sussex County Council (26 003 046) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to an information request. This Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider a complaint about access to information. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (25 021 777) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to carry out an Education, Health and Care needs assessment for his child. This is because Mr X used his right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). North Somerset Council (25 023 311) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to arrange home to school transport, or failure to ensure its transport operator met his reasonable adjustments. There is no evidence of a significant injustice which would warrant our involvement and further investigation by us would not achieve any other worthwhile outcome. Cambridgeshire County Council (25 008 793) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide education when her daughter, Y, was out of school. She said the Council upheld her complaint but did not offer a remedy for missed provision. Ms X said this distressed her, impacted her financially and Y missed education. There was fault in the way the Council did not provide Y with education for half an academic term. This frustrated Ms X and Y missed education. The Council agreed to apologise and make a financial payment. Somerset Council (25 010 696) Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s failure to put in place the Education Otherwise Than At School package for her daughter. We find the Council was at fault for its delay in securing provision for Miss X’s daughter. This caused Miss X distress and upset. Miss X’s daughter missed out on provision she is legally entitled to. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and make a payment to her. North Yorkshire Council (25 012 926) Summary: There was some fault in the way the Council publicised its new home to school transport policy. However, this did not cause Mr X a significant injustice as on balance this would not have affected Mr X’s decision regarding the school applied for their child to attend. There was no evidence of fault in the way the appeals committee considered Mr X’s appeal against the Council’s decision not to provide free transport. Leeds City Council (25 013 253) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to meet the legal timescales when she requested an Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment and Plan for her son Y. We find the Council at fault for delays in issuing Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan that caused injustice. The Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice. Surrey County Council (25 019 621) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to provide the content of an Education, Health and Care Plan or alternative provision because Mrs X has appealed to a Tribunal and the law does not allow us to investigate under these circumstances. Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (25 019 694) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Ms X’s child’s education and special educational needs. This is because Ms X appealed to the Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) Tribunal. Ms X has also not suffered significant injustice and we are unlikely to find fault with the remaining issues complained about. West Sussex County Council (25 020 026) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about delays relating to an Education, Health, and Care Plan, because there is no significant injustice. Nor will we investigate the Council’s decision on the content of that Plan. This is because Miss X could have used her right to appeal the Council’s decision on the Plan to the Tribunal. And given only they can direct any changes, and we cannot, it would have been reasonable to expect Miss X to have used her appeal right. Royal Borough of Greenwich (25 010 406) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a data breach because she has reported it to the Information Commissioner’s Office. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed than us to investigate her complaint. It is reasonable to expect Ms X to ask the courts to consider a claim for compensation. Suffolk County Council (25 017 165) Summary: We find that the Council failed to take the action it agreed to take following a previous complaint we investigated, which was to backdate the financial support it decided Mrs X needed to support her in her caring role. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs X to recognise that she did not receive financial support before January 2025, and to acknowledge the distress and avoidable time and trouble she experienced pursuing her complaint. Thurrock Council (25 020 174) Summary: We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint about Children’s Services because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable. We cannot consider Ms M’s complaint about a Court order authorising the Council to refuse her contact with her children; she could have raised her concerns about the Council’s evidence with the Court; and the Council’s decision not to share any information about the children with Ms M was accepted by the Information Commissioner’s Office. Isle of Wight Council (25 022 646) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her children’s case. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider her complaint whilst the case was subject to ongoing proceedings in court. Southampton City Council (26 000 172) Summary: We will not investigate most of Mrs X’s complaints about how the Council stores and processes the information of Looked After Children or how personal data she said it shared about her with third parties because the Information Commissioner is better suited to consider these matters. We will not investigate the Council’s complaint handling because the tests in our Assessment Code are not met. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (26 000 878) Summary: We have upheld Ms 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. London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (26 002 669) Summary: We will not investigate most of Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s response to her Freedom of Information request because the Information Commissioner is better suited to consider the matter. We will not investigate the Council’s complaint handling because the tests in our Assessment Code are not met. Lincolnshire County Council (26 002 683) Summary: We will not investigate most of Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s response to her Freedom of Information request or about how the Council stores and processes the information of Looked After Children because the Information Commissioner is better suited to consider these matters. We will not investigate the Council’s complaint handling because the tests in our Assessment Code are not met. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (26 002 691) Summary: We will not investigate most of Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s response to her Freedom of Information request because the Information Commissioner is better suited to consider the matter. We will not investigate the Council’s complaint handling because the tests in our Assessment Code are not met. Gloucestershire County Council (26 002 783) Summary: We will not investigate most of Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s response to her Freedom of Information request because the Information Commissioner is better suited to consider the matter. We will not investigate the Council’s complaint handling because the tests in our Assessment Code are not met. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (26 003 050) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s response to her information request. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider a complaint about access to information. Southampton City Council (26 003 082) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to accept her complaint about a software system and that it shared her personal data with the Police without her consent. The tests in our assessment code are not met and the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider a complaint about data protection. Devon County Council (26 003 108) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a Freedom of Information request and the Council’s refusal to accept her complaint about its use of a software system. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider a complaint about access to information and there is insufficient evidence of fault. Hampshire County Council (25 009 942) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the complainant’s child’s Education Health and Care plan or the alternative provision provided while he has been unable to attend school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or not significant enough injustice caused by its actions to warrant our intervention. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (25 010 509) Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to complete an annual review of Mr Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan and failed to secure the educational provision set out in his plan. The Council was at fault for delay and for not securing provision for Mr Y, causing uncertainty and frustration, and meaning Mr Y missed out on the education he was entitled to. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to recognise the injustice, and complete the review of Mr Y’s plan. 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 Granicus Communications Cloud on behalf of: The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman ·5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT