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. Hampshire County Council (24 017 268) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her child, Y, with suitable education for over two years and delayed the Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment process. Mrs X said she waited seven months for mediation when it should have taken 30 days. She also complained the Council delayed dealing with her complaint. Mrs X said this distressed her and Y missed education. There was fault in the way the Council delayed mediation, did not ensure Y received education and potential plan provision and its complaint handling was poor. This frustrated Mrs X and Y missed education and potential EHC Plan provision. The Council agreed to apologise and make a financial payment. Essex County Council (25 013 424) Summary: We find the Council failed to ensure that Miss X’s child, Y, received the occupational therapy provision set out in their Education, Health and Care Plan following a Tribunal decision. As a result, Y was without this provision for a significant period. This also caused Miss X distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council will apologise, make a financial payment to Miss X to recognise the loss of provision, reconsider Miss X’s personal budget request and issue a clear written decision on that request. It should also remind staff of the requirement to provide written decisions on personal budget requests. North Yorkshire Council (25 014 027) 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 Mr X’s appeal for home to school transport. These faults have caused Mr X frustration and uncertainty over the transport appeal committee’s decision. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and offer him a fresh stage two appeal hearing. Birmingham City Council (25 020 082) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council refusing to hold an early review of an Education Health and Care Plan or to provide alternative provision. It is unlikely we will find fault. It is reasonable to expect her to have appealed to the Tribunal the suitability and adequacy of the education provision in the Education Health and Care Plan. Surrey County Council (25 021 097) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s assessment and consultation process before it issued an Education Health and Care Plan because Mr X appealed to the Tribunal. Surrey County Council (25 021 295) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the education and support provided for her child, Y over the last five years. Part of the complaint is late. In relation to the Council’s recent actions, it is unlikely we would find fault or that an investigation would lead to a different outcome. Essex County Council (25 021 495) 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. North Yorkshire Council (25 021 591) 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. London Borough of Haringey (25 021 973) Summary: We cannot investigate part of Miss X’s complaint about the process by which her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan was made because she appealed to a tribunal, and the law says we cannot investigate. We will not investigate the Council’s poor communication or complaint handling because the Council apologised and an investigation is unlikely to achieve anything else. Essex County Council (25 022 164) 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 (25 025 602) 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. London Borough of Havering (25 010 766) Summary: Ms B complained the Council failed to properly assess her child’s needs and provide short breaks and failed to carry out the agreed stage two recommendations. The Council was at fault. There were delays by the Council in its handling of Ms B’s complaint and in it actioning the agreed recommendations. Ms B suffered distress, frustration and spent time and trouble pursuing the matter. Ms B’s child also lost the opportunity to receive support and short breaks. The Council has agreed to make symbolic payments and send us evidence of a review it says it is carrying out. Oxfordshire County Council (25 016 430) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a Blue Badge application. We would be unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions that significantly undermined the decision-making. Sheffield City Council (25 021 129) Summary: We cannot investigate Ms M’s complaint about her dealings with the Council in connection with a welfare report undertaken for the Court during private family proceedings because it is outside our jurisdiction. Hampshire County Council (25 021 707) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about records which contributed towards a report prepared for the courts. This is because the law says we cannot investigate complaints where there has been a commencement of proceedings before any court of law. Liverpool City Council (25 021 876) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the support provided to his family and the Councils’ decision regarding which team should manage this support. The Council is currently investigating his concerns under the children’s statutory complaint’s procedure. An investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (25 022 061) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a report by social workers for court. A permanent legal bar prevents us from investigating this matter. London Borough of Redbridge (25 022 843) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about a school’s actions. This is because we cannot investigate complaints about what happens in schools. We will not investigate the Council’s Local Authority Designated Officer safeguarding process as we are unlikely to find fault with the Council. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks. Kent County Council (25 001 275) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to hold an emergency annual review in February 2024 when his daughter’s education package broke down. As a result his daughter missed out on an education and the provision in her Education Health and Care Plan. We found the Council’s delay in holding a review and failure to provide any educational provision was fault. As was the poor communication and failure to respond to Mr X’s correspondence. These faults have caused Mr X and his daughter an injustice. The Council will apologise and make payments to Mr X and his daughter. Liverpool City Council (25 021 359) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about an Education Health and Care Plan assessment. It is reasonable to expect her to have appealed to the Tribunal. London Borough of Bromley (25 021 517) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about an education, health and care (EHC) needs assessment and the content of an EHC plan because it was reasonable for the complainant to appeal to the First-Tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). Surrey County Council (25 022 959) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about matters relating to his child’s Education Health and Care plan. This is because Mr X has used his right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal. Kent County Council (25 023 213) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mrs X’s application for an Education, Health and Care Plan and its failure to provide tuition or suitable educational provision for him while he was out of school. Part of the complaint is late and the Council has accepted fault and offered a suitable remedy for the impact of its failures in respect of the more recent issues. Cheshire East Council (25 006 370) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement in Mr X’s child’s case. We have no power in law to investigate matters that have been considered in court. It was reasonable for Mr X to raise all concerns as part of the related court proceedings. Birmingham City Council (25 020 152) Summary: Mrs X complained about delays in the Council’s handling of her complaint through the children’s statutory complaint procedure. The Council was at fault. It did not follow statutory timescales when considering Mrs X’s complaint. This caused distress and frustration to Mrs X. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment, and progress stage three without further delay. London Borough of Hillingdon (25 021 712) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s response to safeguarding concerns she raised in 2023. This is because Miss X’s complaint is late and there are no good reasons she could not have brought it to us sooner. Wakefield Metropolitan District Council (25 022 764) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement in Mr X’s child’s case. We have no power in law to investigate matters that have been considered in court. It was reasonable for Mr X to raise all concerns as part of the related court proceedings. London Borough of Croydon (25 022 829) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement in Miss X’s child’s case. We have no power in law to investigate matters that have been considered in court. It was reasonable for Miss X to raise all concerns as part of the court proceedings. Surrey County Council (25 023 260) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the actions of the Council’s children’s services. This is because the complaint is late, we could not add to the Council’s investigation and there is another body better placed to consider her complaint. London Borough of Lambeth (25 023 658) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s historic complaint that the Council failed to protect her from harm when she was a child. The complaint is late and due to the significant passage of time since the events complained about we could not carry out a full, fair and effective investigation of these matters now. Darlington Borough Council (25 024 780) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council has managed risk and communicated with him about the care of his children. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s investigation to justify further investigation. North Somerset Council (26 004 533) Summary: We have upheld this complaint about delay at stage two of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to resolve this complaint early by providing an apology and a financial payment. Essex County Council (25 008 856) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide the Speech and Language Therapy outlined in her child, Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan. Mrs X also says the Council has failed to meet the agreement set out in Y’s personal budget. Mrs X says this has left Y without provision and has caused her distress and financial implications. We have found fault in the Council’s actions for failing to review Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan after deciding Speech and Language Therapy provision was not in his best interest and for delays in amending and reimbursing items in his personal budget. The Council has agreed to write to Mrs X to issue an apology and pay her a symbolic payment. Slough Borough Council (25 009 789) Summary: Ms B complained about the way the Council dealt with her daughter J’s education and special educational provision. The Council has accepted there was fault which caused J to miss out on education for four terms. It has agreed to make a payment to Ms B to remedy the injustice caused and to make some service improvements. Cambridgeshire County Council (25 015 179) Summary: Miss X complained the Council has failed to complete the Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment process and issue the final EHC Plan for her son, Y, within statutory timescales. There was fault by the Council. The Council has failed to issue Y’s final EHC Plan within statutory timescales and its communication was poor. As a result, Miss X has suffered distress, frustration, and a delayed right of appeal. The Council has agreed to make symbolic payments, and issue Y’s final EHC Plan. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (25 016 664) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about delays in implementing an Education Health and Care Plan Tribunal decision. We are unlikely to add significantly to the Council’s reply to his complaint. Cheshire West & Chester Council (25 020 405) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to provide alternative provision for Miss X’s child because she has the right of appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal, and it would have been reasonable for her to use this right. Redcar & Cleveland Council (25 021 281) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in completing Miss X’s son’s education, health and care needs assessment. This is because the Council has offered a suitable remedy for the impact of its delay and it is unlikely investigation would achieve significantly more for Miss X or her son. Derbyshire County Council (25 021 459) Summary: We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint because the Council has provided a suitable remedy for the delay producing her daughter’s education, health and care (EHC) plan. We cannot investigate Ms M’s complaints about matters that were the subject of her appeal to the SEND Tribunal, and the Council does not appear to have had an opportunity to respond to Ms M’s complaint about the assessments she says she paid for. Gloucestershire County Council (25 021 481) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the alleged failure of Council to make the special educational needs provision for Mrs X’s child, or to offer alternative educational provision. This is because Mrs X sought leave for judicial review of the Council’s actions. A permanent legal bar prevents us from considering these matters once a person has made first contact with the court. Essex County Council (25 022 446) 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 agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more. King David High School (26 003 870) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a school admissions appeal. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our investigation. Dorset Council (25 011 739) Summary: Miss B complained the Council failed to assess risk and provide support to her when she fostered a child. The Council was at fault. The Council failed to share relevant information with Miss B, did not take sufficient action to mitigate risks, and failed to update the risk assessment. As a result, Miss B was denied the opportunity to make an informed decision about the placement, and there is uncertainty about whether an incident of physical harm might have been prevented. The Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment, update its records, and identify training needs of relevant staff. Hampshire County Council (25 020 479) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the actions of children’s services. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about the start of court action and what happened in court. Additionally, some of Mr X’s complaint is late. For the remainder, it is reasonable for Mr X to ask the Council for a review. Brighton & Hove City Council (25 021 843) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled a safeguarding referral about his child. There is not sufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation, and a further investigation would not achieve a different outcome. Salford City Council (25 022 443) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to investigate concerns she raised about her ex-foster child. The complaint is late with no good reason to investigate it now. London Borough of Redbridge (25 022 683) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the actions of the Council after it received a safeguarding referral made by his child’s school. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Nottinghamshire County Council (25 024 805) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s response to a safeguarding referral raised in relation to her son. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider her complaint whilst there are ongoing court proceedings. Dorset Council (25 002 852) Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not provide the provision outlined in her child’s Education Health and Care Plan. She says this impacted her child’s education and emotional wellbeing. We find fault with the Council which caused injustice. The Council will secure the provision and apologise to Miss X to remedy the injustice. Derbyshire County Council (25 006 683) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council failing to provide education and support during an Education Health and Care Plan Tribunal appeal. We are unlikely to achieve more than the Council has already offered as a remedy. London Borough of Bromley (25 006 737) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide support for her son, Mr Y, and failed to reimburse her costs for Mr Y’s support. She also complained it delayed completing an annual review of Mr Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan. We found the Council at fault for failing to complete an annual review of Mr Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan and failing to provide him with support it said it would. This fault caused injustice to Mrs X and Mr Y. The Council agreed to apologise, review Mr Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan, and reimburse Mrs X's support costs to remedy injustice. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (25 008 002) Summary: There was delay in holding an annual review of an EHC Plan and fault in the way the Council arranged the review meeting. Recommendations for an apology and symbolic payment to acknowledge the injustice are made. Buckinghamshire Council (25 010 877) Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council dealt with her son’s education. The Council was at fault for delaying in completing an education, health and care needs assessment. This caused distress, frustration and uncertainty to Ms X and Y. The Council has already apologised, made a payment and made service improvements, but it should make a further payment to Ms X to recognise the injustice caused. North Yorkshire Council (25 015 865) Summary: There was some fault in the way the Council publicised its new home to school transport policy but this did not cause Mrs X a significant injustice. There was no evidence of fault in the way the appeals committee considered Mrs X’s appeal against the Council’s decision not to provide free transport. Wiltshire Council (25 020 563) Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed arranging an assessment from an Educational Psychologist. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by offering to make a suitable payment to the complainant to remedy the injustice this caused. Nottinghamshire County Council (25 020 719) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. The law prevents us from investigating complaints where a person has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. For the rest, any injustice caused is not significant enough to justify our involvement and we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (25 031 560) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to arrange alternative education provision for his two children and delayed assessing their special educational needs. This is because there is either insufficient evidence of fault, Mr X’s complaint is made late or because Mr X has used his right of appeal to a tribunal. London Borough of Enfield (24 022 734) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not provide the provision set out in her child’s Education Health and Care Plan. She also complained the Council did not provide alternative education when her child’s school attendance reduced. Mrs X says this impacted her child’s education and wellbeing. We find no fault with the Council’s decision-making regarding alternative education. We find fault with the Council’s delay providing provision in the Plan which caused injustice. The Council will apologise to Mrs X and Y to remedy the injustice. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (25 023 395) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s preparation and content of a court ordered children’s services report. This is because the law prevents us from investigating anything that has been considered by court. West Sussex County Council (25 024 146) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s response to safeguarding concerns about her children. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider her complaint whilst there are ongoing court proceedings. Durham County Council (25 009 510) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s children’s services and its refusal of her request to change social worker. An investigation would not lead to a different outcome. We cannot investigate a complaint about a decision to start court action or what happened in court. Wiltshire Council (25 013 460) Summary: The Council failed to investigate Mr X’s complaint about a lack of and inadequate social care support for his two disabled children under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. The Council should apologise to Mr X and begin a stage 2 investigation under the complaints procedures within one month of the final decision. Essex County Council (25 014 321) Summary: Mr B complained the Council contacted him about safeguarding concerns while he was in hospital in a vulnerable mental state. The Council was not at fault. Nottinghamshire County Council (25 020 768) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her safeguarding concerns about her child and their stepsibling. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating. Lancashire County Council (25 021 437) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council has refused to provide information regarding the complainant’s child’s adoption, and has declined to consider his subsequent complaint. The complaint is not separable from matters which have been subject to court action, and the law prevents us from investigating what happens as part of court proceedings. West Northamptonshire Council (25 022 385) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker and the Council’s involvement with Mrs X and her family. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault or add to any previous investigation. We cannot investigate any decision made by a court or related to court action. Kent County Council (24 012 054) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not meet the legal timescale to issue her son Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan, did not secure the special educational provision in the plan, and did not secure suitable alternative educational provision. We find the Council at fault for not meeting the legal timescale, and not securing all his special educational provision. This caused distress and missed special educational provision. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice. Gloucestershire County Council (25 006 728) Summary: Mr F complained about the Council’s handling of his son’s (Y) education since late 2023 when he was unable to attend his school placement, and delays in its Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan process. The Council accepted fault and proposed a remedy for its failure to arrange education as agreed for Y in September 2024 and causing delays in the EHC plan process. We found some additional fault by the Council for which it agreed to apologise and pay an increased remedy to acknowledge the injustice its faults caused Mr F and Y. Devon County Council (25 013 564) Summary: The Council was at fault because of a significant delay in reviewing the reissuing the complainant’s education, health and care plan. It has agreed to formally apologise and offer a financial remedy to address the impact of this delay. Kent County Council (25 014 455) Summary: We cannot investigate the parts of Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of an Education Health and Care Plan which overlaps with a Tribunal appeal. We will not investigate the rest of her complaint as we are unlikely to achieve more than the Council has already offered. Buckinghamshire Council (25 014 790) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide the provision in her child, Y's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan between February 2025 to July 2025. The Council was at fault for failing to provide the provision as detailed in Y’s EHC Plan for one and a half terms and delaying Y’s annual review, frustrating Mrs X’s appeal rights. The Council has already apologised and offered a suitable payment to remedy the injustice caused. Surrey County Council (25 015 025) Summary: Miss Y complains the Council failed to arrange the delivery of the Occupational Therapy set out in her child’s Education Health and Care Plan. The Council has already accepted fault and offered a remedy which we consider proportionate to the injustice caused. We do not recommend any additional remedial action. Surrey County Council (25 021 059) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consultations with secondary schools for Mrs X’s child. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Suffolk County Council (25 021 374) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in issuing an Education Health and Care plan and failure to communicate appropriately. This is because the complaint has already been substantially upheld and our intervention would not lead to a different outcome. Leicestershire County Council (25 021 554) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the content and delivery of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan because she appealed to a tribunal, and the law says we cannot investigate. Staffordshire County Council (25 014 144) Summary: We are discontinuing our investigation because the matters complained of are closely related to the current court proceedings concerning the complainant’s children. London Borough of Haringey (25 015 770) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about children services’ actions. We are unlikely to say she, or the young people involved, have been caused any significant injustice directly because of Council fault. Birmingham City Council (25 019 990) Summary: We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint about contact with her grandson because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Shropshire Council (25 020 161) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council's children services teams handling of her complaint. We are unlikely to find fault and it is reasonable to expect her to have sought an escalation to stage three. Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 021 745) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s action during, and in the lead up to, child protection proceedings. The law prevents us from investigating matters that are subject to court proceedings. It is reasonable for Mr X to raise all parts of his complaint as part of the care proceedings that remain ongoing. London Borough of Islington (25 022 451) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the care arrangements for her grandchildren. This is because the matter is subject to court proceedings. Cheshire West & Chester Council (25 022 659) Summary: We have upheld Mr X’s complaint because the Council failed to escalate his complaint about its involvement with his children under the statutory procedure. The Council has now agreed to investigate his complaint under that procedure, providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (25 023 083) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with his children. This is because we are unlikely to find enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify us investigating. Cheshire East Council (25 023 369) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council's refusal to investigate her complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Telford & Wrekin Council (25 023 788) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his child’s care arrangements since 2017. We cannot investigate matters which have been subject to court proceedings. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s handling of his complaint and we cannot achieve the outcome he is seeking. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (25 024 339) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council’s social workers prepared inaccurate and biased court reports and committed data breaches. We cannot investigate matters that were considered in court. His concerns about data breaches are better placed with the Information Commissioner’s Office. Thurrock Council (25 024 466) Summary: We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint about her dealings with the Council between 2012 and 2020 because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable. North East Lincolnshire Council (25 007 971) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide the provision in section F of her child, Miss Y’s Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan. She also complained the Council had failed to properly consider Miss Y’s voice in its decision making around recruitment of a new educational practitioner. We found the Council at fault for failing to provide the provision in Miss Y’s EHC Plan between April and October 2025 causing a loss of educational provision. The Council also delayed and poorly communicated its decisions causing further frustration and uncertainty to Mrs X and Miss Y. The Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mrs X and Miss Y to remedy the injustice caused. It will also carry out service improvements to prevent reoccurrence of the fault. West Berkshire Council (25 014 469) Summary: We cannot investigate part of Mrs X’s complaints about the content or delivery of her child’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan because she appealed to a tribunal, and the law says we cannot investigate. We will not investigate her complaints about the delivery of the EHC Plan or a failure to organise alternative provision for an earlier period because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Kent County Council (25 019 743) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council naming a mainstream setting in Miss X’s child’s 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) and the Courts have decided that the Ombudsman cannot intervene where the right to appeal has been used, and other parts of her complaint are late. Somerset Council (25 020 416) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan and lack of education provision. This is because the complaint is late. Portsmouth City Council (25 021 165) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about educational provision and the suitability of a school because it was reasonable for the complainant to use her right to appeal to the First-Tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). Leeds City Council (25 022 093) Summary: We have upheld this complaint about the Council’s failure to complete an Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment for Ms 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. Darlington Borough Council (25 022 293) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about matters relating to her child’s Education Health and Care plan and that the Council failed to arrange suitable full-time education for her child. This is because Mrs X has used her right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal. Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (25 022 389) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because she has appealed the matter to the Tribunal. Council of the Isles of Scilly (25 028 919) Summary: The Council was not at fault for its decision not to reimburse Mrs X for personal expenditure she incurred sending her child Y to post-16 education at a boarding college. This is because there is no statutory duty for a council to provide free or subsided travel and accommodation for post-16 education. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (25 014 122) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the contents of a child and family assessment report issued by the Council. The Council has removed the incorrect information and reissued the report. The Council has apologised to Mr X. An investigation would not achieve anything more. Birmingham City Council (25 015 105) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the actions of the Council’s children’s services. This is because the law prevents us from investigating the start of court action or what happened in court. Other matters are better dealt with by another body or have not caused Miss X a significant enough injustice. Gloucestershire County Council (25 021 053) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement with the family. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault. London Borough of Bromley (25 023 491) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to investigate her complaint about its handling of her niece’s case which is subject to ongoing court proceedings. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. Slough Borough Council (25 023 777) Summary: We have upheld Mr X’s complaint about delay at stage two 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. Staffordshire County Council (25 024 042) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has not paid him compensation awarded in court proceedings. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been subject to court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so. Somerset Council (25 012 632) Summary: Mrs F complained the Council failed to put alternative provision in place when her children stopped attending school. We have ended our investigation. This is because one part is late and the rest is out of our jurisdiction because Mrs F appealed to the SEND Tribunal about her children’s EHC plans. Essex County Council (25 013 699) Summary: Ms X complains the Council delayed consulting with residential placements for her son. Ms X also says the Council failed to communicate with her effectively. We find fault with the annual review process and this caused Ms X uncertainty. The Council’s communication was inconsistent, and this caused Ms X distress. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy this injustice. Surrey County Council (25 019 096) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the accuracy of the Council records database. The Council has already offered a reasonable remedy, and the Information Commissioner is better placed than us to consider issues of data breaches and data storage. London Borough of Redbridge (25 021 369) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council has wrongly advised a school. By law, we cannot investigate matters which take place in a school, and the Council’s advice is not separable from the school’s actions. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (25 021 936) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to provide alternative education provision for his son in 2019 and 2020. This is because his complaint is made late and I see no good reason to exercise discretion and consider it now. Leeds City Council (25 021 972) Summary: We have upheld this complaint about the Council’s failure to complete an Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment for Mr and 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 (25 022 137) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council assessed her child’s special educational needs. This is because she has used her right of appeal to a tribunal. Wiltshire Council (25 023 044) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an Education, Health and Care plan because the complainant can appeal to the Tribunal. Hertfordshire County Council (26 003 668) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the information provided by the Council about the school admissions process. This is because Ms X has not suffered significant injustice and it is unlikely an investigation could add to the Council’s response. Cambridgeshire County Council (25 021 046) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council provided Special Guardianship Order support. The complaint is late, and there are no good reasons for us to investigate now. Warrington Council (25 021 225) Summary: We cannot investigate part of Mrs X’s complaint about the content of a social work report because the issue complained about was before a court and the law says we cannot investigate. We will not investigate part of the complaint about procedural matters because the matter either has been or could have been raised during court proceedings. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a referral to a domestic abuse service because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Blackpool Borough Council (25 012 823) Summary: Miss B complained that the Council had failed to understand or properly consider its duty under section 19 of the Education Act 1996 to provide alternative education to her daughter, C, since she was unable to attend school from June 2023. We found the Council at fault which caused C to miss out on a significant amount of education and Miss B uncertainty and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise to them, make a symbolic payment and improve its procedures for the future. Leeds City Council (25 013 278) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide the special educational provision set out in his child’s Education, Health and Care Plan, or provide them with suitable alternative provision between October 2024 and June 2025. We have ended our investigation because the Council has already provided an appropriate remedy. Leicestershire County Council (25 013 632) Summary: The Council was at fault. It did not provide Mrs X’s child, Y, with a suitable education to which they were entitled or provide all the provision in their Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council has already apologised and paid Mrs X a symbolic payment to acknowledge Y’s missed education, which for the period investigated, was in line with our guidance on remedies and remedied the injustice caused. The Council has already put service improvements in place. Norfolk County Council (25 020 763) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to issue an Education Health and Care plan, or the content of an Education Health and Care Plan. Mr X had a right of appeal to a Tribunal, and it would have been reasonable to expect him to have used it. Hampshire County Council (25 021 057) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about what special educational provision should be agreed for her child by the Council. This is because she has used her right of appeal to a Tribunal. We will not investigate her complaint about alleged discrimination by gender in provision as we cannot make such a finding, and it would be reasonable to go to court if the Tribunal does not address it. Cheshire East Council (25 022 442) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs M’s complaint about school transport because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (25 021 491) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with safeguarding concerns about her children. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault with the Council’s decision not to investigate the complaint whilst the case is subject to ongoing court proceedings. Essex County Council (25 022 887) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to consider her complaint whilst there are ongoing care proceedings. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (25 023 058) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about her children being removed from her care and the Council’s involvement in the proceedings. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been subject to court proceedings. We have no discretion to consider such matters. Birmingham City Council (25 012 839) Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council delayed the annual review process of her child’s (Y) Education, Health and Care Plan. Mrs X also complained about the Council’s failure to provide Y with full-time education and its poor complaint handling. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Y and Mrs X. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused to Y and Mrs X. North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (25 013 934) Summary: The Council has acknowledged that it took too long to issue the Education Health and Care Plan for Mrs X’s child, and to start funding his alternative educational provision. It also found that it had not always responded to Mrs X’s complaints fully or accurately. The Council apologised to Mrs X, has made improvements to its service, and has offered to make symbolic payments to Mrs X in recognition of the distress and uncertainty it caused her, and the impact of her child missing education. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (25 019 905) Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about an Education Health and Care Plan assessment carried out for, and the information provided to, a Tribunal. Essex County Council (25 020 848) 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. Buckinghamshire Council (25 021 954) Summary: We have upheld this complaint about the Council’s failure to complete an Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment for Dr 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. Buckinghamshire Council (25 012 975) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s children’s services. Some parts of the complaint we cannot investigate because it concerns the content and preparation of a court report. The Council has agreed to remedy the other parts of the complaint by completing its stage two investigation, apologising to Mr X and making a symbolic payment. This provides a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused by the delay. Peterborough City Council (25 020 964) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about children service’s actions because we cannot achieve the outcome he seeks of his child’s removal from their mother’s care. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (25 021 294) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s consideration of his son’s blue badge application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. Salford City Council (25 022 033) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about information the Council’s children’s services omitted from a court report. The law prevents us from investigating matters that are or have been the subject of court proceedings. Hampshire County Council (25 022 259) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her family’s case. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider her complaint whilst there are ongoing legal proceedings on related matters. Peterborough City Council (25 023 216) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council removed his children from his care and denied his contact with them for over seven years. Decisions about care arrangements are made by the Courts and therefore we cannot consider them. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s refusal to consider the complaint. Kent County Council (25 025 673) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about a report that the Council presented to a court. The law prevents us from investigating what happened in court. Kent County Council (26 004 372) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. We are satisfied with the Council’s actions so have completed our assessment. Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (25 010 297) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council wrongly classified her child, Y, as Electively Home Educated rather than a child missing school. Mrs X says this led to the Council failing to provide any alternative provision. Mrs X says the Council refused an Education, Health and Care Plan without proper consideration. Mrs X says when the Council did issue and Education, Health and Care Plan it did not provide the provision noted within it. Mrs X says Y’s secondary education has not started well and he has missed out on education and social experiences. She says Y has regressed academically and emotionally. Mrs X says the Council was aware both parents suffered with their health and its actions have worsened their conditions. We have found fault in the Councils actions for failing to consider its Section 19 duty. The Council has agreed to write to Mrs X to issue an apology and pay her a symbolic payment. Dorset Council (25 013 029) Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, about a failure by the Council to secure educational provision for a child. This is because the Council has already offered a suitable remedy, and further investigation by us will not add anything. London Borough of Hounslow (25 013 556) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to provide the provision outlined in an Education, Health and Care plan. This complaint is late and there is no good reason to investigate now. Nor can we investigate a complaint about the plan as the complainant had a right of appeal and it was reasonable to expect them to use it. We will also not investigate a complaint about the disclosure of the plan as it would be reasonable to expect the complainant to refer this to the Information Commissioners office. Cheshire East Council (25 019 912) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the suitability of a school named in her child’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan or her view that the Council failed to secure the content of the EHC Plan because she used her right to appeal to a tribunal, and the law says we cannot investigate. Buckinghamshire Council (25 021 305) 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. North Northamptonshire Council (25 022 923) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about delay by the Council in deciding whether to assess her child for an Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because the delay did not cause a personal injustice significant enough to warrant our involvement. Devon County Council (25 021 065) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s historic complaint about the Council’s actions in its Children’s Services involvement with her family in 2007. The complaint has been made to us too late and we could not investigate the matter fully and fairly now. Further to this, the law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been considered in court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (25 023 505) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s children’s services. Parts of the complaint are late and there is no good reason to investigate them now. Other matters were considered, or could have been considered, during Court proceedings. Concerns about the conduct of the Council’s social workers are better considered by Social Work England. Blackpool Borough Council (25 024 137) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his child’s case. There is not enough evidence of fault in relation to the Council’s safeguarding actions. Other matters were considered, or could have been considered, in Court. London Borough of Lewisham (26 003 826) Summary: We upheld Miss X’s complaint about delays in the children’s statutory complaints process. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by paying Miss X a symbolic remedy to recognise her injustice and complete its investigation. Hertfordshire County Council (25 018 625) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council providing incorrect information. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. 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