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. East Sussex County Council (25 007 896) Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide her child, Y, with the provision set out in his Education, Health and Care Plan, and with alternative provision when he stopped attending school. Miss X also complained the Council delayed finding a suitable placement for Y. There was fault by the Council which cause injustice to Y and Miss X. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused. Derby City Council (25 011 332) Summary: We found fault by the Council on Miss Y’s complaint about it failing to take actions in a mediation agreement and provide updates by set deadlines. It failed to meet timescales, resulting in delays. It gave incorrect advice about personal budgets and failed to send her an application when it said it would. It also failed to keep proper records. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused. Wiltshire Council (25 015 626) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s delay in issuing his daughter’s final Education Health and Care Plan following its Annual Review. We found the Council at fault. The Council’s fault caused injustice to Mr X as for many months he could not challenge the Council’s position on his daughter’s school placement. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise Mr X’s distress. The Council has already introduced an Action Plan to address its delays with the Annual Review process. London Borough of Newham (25 017 682) Summary: We will not investigate Miss Y’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to carry out an Education, Health and Care needs assessment for her child. Miss Y has a right to appeal to the SEND Tribunal, and it is reasonable to expect her to use this right. Coventry City Council (25 021 691) Summary: We cannot investigate part of this complaint because it is about what happened in a school and the law prevents us from investigating such matters. We will not investigate part of this complaint about alternative education provision because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Leeds City Council (25 021 735) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about what happened in Mr X’s child’s school because the law does not allow us to investigate what happens in schools. We cannot investigate his complaint about changes to his child’s Education, Health and Care Plan as he has used his right to appeal at the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). North Yorkshire Council (25 024 380) Summary: There was fault in the way the Council publicised its new home to school transport policy, but this did not cause Mr X a significant injustice. There was no evidence of fault in the way the appeals committee considered Mr X’s appeal against the decision not to provide free home to school transport. Essex County Council (25 027 601) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more. Hertfordshire County Council (26 003 186) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about not being offered a place at her preferred school. It is reasonable to expect her to appeal that decision. The Office of the Schools Adjudicator is better placed to consider if the Council’s schools admissions scheme complies with the guidance. Surrey County Council (26 003 694) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council refusing to award her child medical priority in a school admissions application as she has appealed to the appeals panel. We will not investigate a 14 day delay as its not sufficient to warrant an investigation. Derbyshire County Council (25 008 066) Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council in respect of her child, B, delayed completing a social care assessment, which was inaccurate and contained harmful language. Mrs X said this caused her uncertainty and frustration, and meant the family missed out on support. We found the Council at fault. The Council has since carried out a new assessment, apologised to Mrs X, and offered a symbolic payment. It has also made improvements to its staff guidance around assessments and record-keeping. We consider these to be suitable remedies. London Borough of Croydon (25 022 077) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a blue badge application because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify our involvement. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (25 022 193) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the involvement of a Local Authority Designated Officer from the Council because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant investigation by us. We also cannot investigate the actions of the school as a legal bar prevents us doing so. Lancashire County Council (25 023 671) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the social worker allocated to his family’s case. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider his complaint whilst there are ongoing court proceedings. Oxfordshire County Council (25 024 177) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to concerns he raised about his son in 2023. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider it now. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (25 024 213) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his children’s case between 2023 and 2024. The complaint is late and the law prevents us from investigating anything that is or has been the subject of court proceedings. London Borough of Newham (24 020 061) Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed issuing an Education Health and Care Plan for her child and it failed to provide alternative education provision when they could not attend school. We found the Council at fault for failing to provide education and support for Ms X’s child. This fault caused Ms X’s child to miss out on educational provision and caused distress for Ms X. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to repay Ms X’s reasonable costs and to recognise the injustice caused to her and her child. Cornwall Council (25 008 849) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decisions to refuse alternative provision and to refuse an Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment. We are unlikely to find fault with the former, and Miss X has used her right of appeal about the latter. We cannot investigate the school’s threat of attendance enforcement action. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (25 009 763) Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide alternative education to two of her children when they were not attending school. We found the Council’s initial actions were taken without fault. However, we found the Council failed to review its decision when the children were taken off their school’s roll. We recommended an apology and a payment to reflect lost education. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (25 010 578) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to provide her daughter (Y) with suitable education and to ensure she received provision included in her Education Health and Care Plan. We found fault with the Council’s failure to decide whether it owed the alternative provision duty to Y and its failure to monitor any educational arrangements made by Y’s school. The Council’s fault caused injustice to Y and Mrs X. The Council has agreed to apologise and make payments offered in its stage two complaint response. Buckinghamshire Council (25 013 240) Summary: The Council was at fault for delay in allocating an Educational Psychologist to assess Mr and Mrs X’s child, W, for an Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused Mr and Mrs X frustration for which the Council will make a symbolic payment. The Council is already taking suitable action to prevent similar fault in future. West Northamptonshire Council (25 014 247) Summary: Mrs X complained about the delivery of special educational provision by the Council. She says it delayed completing her son’s phase transfer review. Mrs X says that as this was late, she could not appeal until September after the school term had begun. Mrs X says that her child has had no education since September 2025. We will not investigate this complaint. Mrs X has appealed to a tribunal which places the complaint outside our jurisdiction. Staffordshire County Council (25 020 921) Summary: We cannot investigate most Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to secure the content of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan or its failure to organise alternative provision for her child because Miss X used her right to appeal to a tribunal, and the law says we cannot investigate. Essex County Council (25 021 334) 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 suitable remedy, and this removes the need for us to investigate. Kent County Council (25 021 723) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about matters which are not separable from a Tribunal appeal. And we are unlikely to achieve more than the Council has already offered as a remedy to his complaint. Hampshire County Council (25 021 917) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a Council’s decision not to provider alternative education as it is unlikely we would find fault in its decision. We cannot investigate if an Education Health and Care plan meets a child’s needs as she appealed to the Tribunal. Worcestershire County Council (25 021 997) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of an Education, Health and Care Plan. Part of the complaint is late and there is no good reason for us to consider it now. We cannot investigate part of the complaint 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. We cannot investigate part of the complaint because it is about matters that occurred in a school and the law prevents us from investigating. We will not investigate the rest of this complaint as we could not add to the Council’s previous investigation. Essex County Council (25 022 076) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about letters the Council sent during an Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice caused by the errors in the letters. Cambridgeshire County Council (25 024 282) Summary: We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to them and pay £100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more. London Borough of Lewisham (24 023 350) Summary: We agree with the Council that there has been fault in the way it managed the family fostering placement of a child (Y) with the complainant and his wife. The Council apologised and agreed to make a symbolic payment for the avoidable distress and to provide a breakdown of the monies paid to the complainants. The original faults were then compounded by the Council’s failure to provide this breakdown. We recommended a specific remedy for this which the Council has accepted. Therefore, we have completed our investigation and am closing the investigation. West Northamptonshire Council (25 021 913) Summary: We will not investigate Mr F’s complaint about the care of his daughter because there is not enough evidence of fault and nothing to be gained from further investigation. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (25 022 358) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of safeguarding matters about his child, and the conduct of a social worker. This matter is outside our jurisdiction as court action relating to child protection matters has started. Worcestershire County Council (25 022 946) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Ms X’s concerns about the care of her child. An investigation by us is unlikely to achieve significantly more than the Council has already done or lead to a different outcome. Devon County Council (25 023 986) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council did not provide him with a care leaver’s grant and accommodation between 2016 and 2018. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider it now. London Borough of Bromley (25 007 787) Summary: We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint about the education her daughter has missed because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Lincolnshire County Council (25 010 748) Summary: The Council was at fault. It did not secure all the special educational provision set out in Miss X’s child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment to Miss X to recognise the injustice this caused to Y and their family. The Council will put a service improvement in place to prevent similar fault in future. West Northamptonshire Council (25 011 005) Summary: Mrs X complained about the delay from the Council in issuing her child’s Education, Health and Care plan. She says that because of the delay, her child lost out on special educational provision. Also, due to this they were delayed in changing schools. These failures caused both Mrs X and her child distress. We found the Council at fault. It delayed in issuing the plan for four months. The Council will act to apologise and make payment for the missed special educational provision with a further payment to recognise the frustration caused by the delayed appeal rights to the Special Educational Tribunal. Essex County Council (25 013 841) Summary: Miss X complains the Council has failed to complete an Education, Health and Care needs assessment for her son within legal timescales and is still ongoing. We found the Council at fault for excessive delays. This has caused significant frustration, distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make symbolic payments to remedy the injustice. Staffordshire County Council (25 014 202) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has taken suitable steps to remedy the impact of its delay and it is unlikely further investigation would achieve anything more. Lancashire County Council (25 014 543) Summary: Ms X complains the Council delayed issuing Child Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan, and did not provide suitable education when Child Y was out of school. We intend to find fault with the Council for failing to issue the Education, Health and Care plan within the timescales, and for delaying arranging the agreed provision. We also intend to find fault with the Council for the failing to properly consider its duties to Child Y when they were out of education, and its complaint handling. The Council has agreed to pay personal remedies to Ms X and Child Y to remedy the injustice. London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (25 015 832) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council naming a school Mrs X’s child that allegedly made discriminatory comments about the child’s special educational needs. Mrs X has used her right of appeal to a Tribunal, and we cannot consider what educational provision the Council should have offered. Where the school’s alleged actions may not directly concern its suitability, they are the actions of a school, and we are legally prevented from investigating them. Buckinghamshire Council (25 021 531) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the educational provision made by the Council for Miss X before 2024. This complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate it now. The Council operated its complaint process and Mrs Y could have escalated Miss X’s complaint about more recent educational provision, but she did not did not proceed further when the Council took the action she wanted. We would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions in dealing with Miss Y’s complaint if we were to investigate. Essex County Council (25 022 170) 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 suitable remedy, and this removes the need for us to investigate. Essex County Council (25 023 549) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and pay her £100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more. Leeds City Council (25 024 407) Summary: There was fault in the way the Council and an appeal panel declined Ms X’s request for post-16 transport support. The Council has not engaged fully with Ms X’s representations, has not adequately shown it has considered the impact on Ms X and her son of not providing support, has not considered affordability, and has not provided adequate reasoning for its decision. The Council will apologise and retake the decision. The complaint is upheld. Essex County Council (26 006 062) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in the Education, Health and Care Plan process. The Council has now provided Mrs Z with the draft Education, Health and Care Plan, so further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Additionally, we are satisfied with the action the Council has taken in supplying Mrs Z with the draft plan. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (25 024 017) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his family’s case. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider his complaint whilst there were ongoing court proceedings. Essex County Council (25 024 650) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about incorrect information disclosed by the Council. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office would be best placed to consider this complaint. Surrey County Council (25 026 166) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the content of a court report or the process by which the report was made because a court instructed the Council to make the report, and the law says we cannot investigate. St Bede's School, Redhill (25 005 063) Summary: Mr X complained the appeal panel failed to properly consider his appeal. We found the notes from the appeal hearing and the decision letter did not properly explain how the appeal panel decided Mr X’s appeal. The school will hold a further appeal to address the injustice caused to Mr X. Leeds City Council (25 009 197) Summary: There was fault in the Council’s handling of transport to an educational setting, but the Council has already taken actions to remedy the injustice caused. We cannot add to the outcome that has already been achieved. Leicester City Council (25 010 363) Summary: We found fault with the Council failing to ensure Mr X’s child received their full Education, Health and Care Plan provision from February 2025 until the end of 2025. We also found fault with the Council delaying confirming the outcome of its safeguarding enquiries with Mr X. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him a symbolic payment of £750 for the injustice caused. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (25 010 730) Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed amending her child’s Education Health and Care Plan and did not provide suitable education. Miss X says this caused her child to miss education and caused her avoidable distress. We find fault with the Council which caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic financial remedy to Miss X. Suffolk County Council (25 013 376) Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Miss X’s complaint about the delay finalising her son’s Education, Health and Care plan. The Council has already apologised and offered a suitable remedy for the delay, so further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the 2024 plan, as this is late. Miss X was given a right of appeal to the Tribunal regarding the latest plan, and it was reasonable to expect her to exercise that right. Cheshire East Council (25 014 821) Summary: The Council delayed issuing Y’s final Education, Health and Care Plan by 10 weeks. The Council has agreed to apologise for the frustration and uncertainty this caused Miss X. We cannot investigate whether Y missed out on any Special Educational Needs provision as Miss X had a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (25 020 686) Summary: We upheld this complaint about delays during the Education Health and Care Needs Assessment process. The Council upheld the complaint, apologised and offered a financial remedy of £2125. This is in line with our Guidance on Remedies and therefore we decided not to investigate. We will not investigate the remainder of the complaint about the Council’s failure to provide educational provision because it is premature. Essex County Council (25 021 704) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the contents of an education, health and care plan and the provision secured by the Council because it was reasonable for the complainant to appeal to the First-Tier (Special Educational Needs and Disability) Tribunal. London Borough of Lewisham (25 021 725) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the documents the Council submitted to a Tribunal. Slough Borough Council (25 021 768) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the assessment of the complainant’s child’s education, health and care needs and the content of her Education Health and Care plan. The complaint about the delay in the assessment is late and there are no good reasons to investigate it now. By law, we cannot investigate the complaint about the content of the Education Health and Care plan because the complainant has used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 024 176) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his child’s education. This is because he has used his right of appeal to the Tribunal. Kent County Council (26 004 294) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the outcome of a school admissions appeal panel. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. West Northamptonshire Council (25 007 897) Summary: We will discontinue our investigation into Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council’s children’s social care service dealt with her daughter’s case. Her daughter is now an adult and has not provided any consent for us to investigate the complaint. Although we could investigate part of the complaint – about Mrs X’s own alleged injustice – anyway, we would not be able to disclose any information to her and there is not enough evidence of fault or injustice to justify taking this approach. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (25 015 455) Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council moved her daughter to a location without her consent under section 20 of the Children Act 1989. The Council was at fault for failing to consider her complaint properly under the statutory children's complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to investigate her complaint through the correct statutory process. West Sussex County Council (25 022 565) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of its child protection duties in respect of the complainant’s child. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons why it could not have been brought to us sooner. Devon County Council (25 031 282) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a report written by the Council staff for Family Court proceedings. This is because we have no remit to investigate matters connected to evidence relied on in court. And it is not proportionate to look at the complaints handling in isolation when we are not looking at the core complaint. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (26 004 592) Summary: We have upheld Miss X’s complaint because the Council delayed considering this under the children’s statutory complaints process. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Miss X. Hertfordshire County Council (25 011 063) Summary: The Council failed to ensure Mrs X was involved in the decision to introduce a part-time timetable for her son, failed to ensure that part-time timetable was kept under review and the impact on Mrs X’s son considered, failed to ensure Mrs X’s son received all the provision in his education, health and care plan and failed to ensure her son received full-time education. That caused Mrs X distress and uncertainty and meant her son missed out on provision. The remedy the Council has offered its satisfactory. London Borough of Lewisham (25 012 310) Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to complete her child’s 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. This caused Miss X distress and frustration and significantly delayed her appeal rights. The Council has apologised, made a symbolic payment and completed service improvements to remedy the injustice caused. Birmingham City Council (25 018 553) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about educational and special educational provision for the complainant’s child. It is unlikely that investigation would lead to a significantly different outcome and our intervention is not therefore warranted. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (25 018 792) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about home-to-school transport because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Lancashire County Council (25 020 615) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a school place application and appeal. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation and any investigation could not achieve what the complainant would like. The complainant has appealed against the refusal of a preferred place and can apply for an alternative school if they consider the allocated one unsuitable. Leeds City Council (25 020 645) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council delayed agreeing an Education Other Than at School package for her child. This is because the main issue complained of carried a right of appeal to a tribunal which it was reasonable for Ms X to use. Milton Keynes Council (25 021 682) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a delay in issuing an amended Education Health and Care Plan. It is reasonable to expect Mrs X to have appealed if she felt it did not meet her child’s needs. And we are unlikely to achieve more than the apology and explanation given. Essex County Council (25 022 223) 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 suitable remedy, and this removes the need for us to investigate. London Borough of Wandsworth (25 023 384) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions which led to an appeal of an Education Health and Care Plan or the complaint about the Council’s actions during the appeal process. This is because Miss X has used her right of appeal and we cannot investigate the Council’s conduct during an appeal. North Yorkshire Council (25 025 651) 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 that her appeal was decided correctly. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and offer her a fresh stage two appeal hearing. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (25 021 430) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s complaint handling. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. City of Wolverhampton Council (25 022 650) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council oversaw an investigation into a safeguarding concern made about him. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council oversaw the investigation. London Borough of Camden (25 023 635) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s daughter’s blue badge application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault that would justify further investigation. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (25 023 708) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs X’s historical allegations of failures by the Council’s social services. This is because the complaint is late, there are no good reasons Mrs X could not have complained sooner, and an investigation is unlikely to reach a sound, meaningful or fair outcome. Worcestershire County Council (25 025 555) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to award a blue badge for his child. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault that would justify further investigation. Lincolnshire County Council (25 006 364) Summary: The Council arranged an alternative education for Y that met their needs and kept this provision under review. The Council issued Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan within the statutory timescales and secured the provision in the Plan when Y was well enough to participate. The Council was not at fault. 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