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. Staffordshire County Council (24 008 676) Summary: We upheld Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council handled her child’s Education and Health Care Plan. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by paying Mrs X a symbolic payment to acknowledge the injustice caused. Somerset Council (24 021 050) Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to find a suitable school place for her child, Y, and did not secure enough alternative provision for Y. The Council was at fault for failing to find Y a suitable school place and failing to secure suitable alternative provision. The Council was also at fault for delaying issuing Y’s EHC Plan. This caused Miss X distress and uncertainty and meant Y did not receive a suitable education for around nine months. The Council should apologise and make a payment to Miss X. Cornwall Council (25 002 570) Summary: The Council was not at fault for the alternative education Miss X’s child received when they were not able to attend school. Suffolk County Council (25 006 326) Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s actions linked to her son’s education. We found fault because the Council did not act decisively in arranging interim education provision when it had committed to do so. The Council also failed to provide updates to Miss X as it said it would. This caused Miss X avoidable distress and meant her son’s interim provision did not start as early as planned. Miss X has already accepted a payment from the Council linked to its decision on missed interim provision. The Council has agreed to apologise to her for not acting decisively in arranging this and for poor communication. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (25 008 999) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to deliver specialist education to his daughter, Y. We have found fault because the Council did not have oversight of the provision in place and failed to organise psychoeducation specified in her Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused Mr X and Y avoidable distress and frustration. The Council has suggested a remedy for the lost provision and linked frustration. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and Y, make a payment to Mr X, organise appropriate provision and review some of its practices and procedures linked to oversight. Essex County Council (25 009 977) Summary: The Council failed to carry out a timely review of D’s Education, Health and Care Plan when they moved into its area and did not secure the provision set out in the plan. These failings meant D did not receive the educational provision they were entitled to for a prolonged period. The Council has acknowledged fault and offered a financial remedy which is proportionate and in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance. London Borough of Islington (25 010 476) Summary: We found fault with the Council’s delays of 26 weeks outside timescales producing an amended final Education, Health and Care plan for Ms X’s child in 2025. We also found fault with the Council failing to provide Ms X’s child’s Education, Health and Care Plan provision for two full terms. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and make a symbolic financial payment to address the distress, frustration, delayed appeal rights and missed provision experienced by Ms X and her child. Leicester City Council (25 011 024) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council awarded money to her child’s nursery, but it is not adequate to fund the full hours of support for her child’s disability and special educational needs. We did not find the Council at fault. Milton Keynes Council (25 007 351) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about care planning for a child, and the Council’s treatment of Mrs X as a foster carer. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about the start of court proceedings or what happened in court. We will also not investigate the part of Mrs X’s complaint about special guardianship financial support. It is reasonable to expect Mrs X to ask the Council for a review. Lincolnshire County Council (24 018 874) Summary: We found fault with the Council failing to provide suitable education for Miss X’s child from April 2024 to November 2024. We also found fault with the Council failing to provide the full Education, Health and Care Plan provision from April 2024 until the end of the academic year 2024/2025. We also found fault with the Council delaying outside the statutory timescales when reviewing Miss X’s child’s Education, Health and Care Plan, delays in complaint handling and failing to complete suitable safe and well checks. This caused inconvenience, distress and frustration for Miss X. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss X and provide symbolic payments to recognise the injustice caused by its fault. Leicestershire County Council (25 001 913) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to comply with the statutory timeframe for completing an annual review and considering a personal budget request. We find the Council at fault for failing to complete two annual reviews. This caused Mrs X distress and frustration and had a financial impact on the family. We have recommended the Council apologise, reimburse therapy costs and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused. Leeds City Council (25 010 036) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide the provision set out in her child’s Education Health and Care plan. She says that staff did not have the correct training. We will not investigate this complaint because it is late and there is no good reason to consider it now. The events relate to matters which occurred in 2023 and earlier. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (25 010 459) Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his daughter, Miss Y, that the Council failed to issue her with its decision not to provide an Education, Health and Care Plan. Mr X also complained the Council failed to take appropriate steps to ensure Miss Y had access to education while she was unable to attend an educational setting. Mr X says the Council’s actions negatively impacted Miss Y’s mental health and academic progress and placed a financial strain on the family. We found some fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to provide an apology and a financial remedy. Lancashire County Council (25 011 040) Summary: There was fault by the Council. The Council delayed an annual review meeting and did not produce a final Education, Health and Care Plan until after the next annual review. The Council did not keep under review the amount of hours tuition given to a child who was unable to attend the school named in the Education, Health and Care Plan, as the school could not meet his needs. A symbolic payment and apology remedies the injustice of loss of educational provision to the child and the distress to the family. West Sussex County Council (25 012 122) Summary: The Council was at fault. It failed to provide Miss X’s child Y with a suitable alternative education or the provision in their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan between September 2024 and December 2025 when Y did not have a named school to attend. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to Miss X to recognise the impact this had on Y’s education and development and the distress and uncertainty caused to Miss X. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (24 023 040) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with his child. The law prevents us from investigating anything that is or has been the subject of court proceedings. Warwickshire County Council (25 008 565) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaints about the Council’s Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) function because there is insufficient evidence of fault. We will not investigate the Council’s complaints handling because the tests in our Assessment Code are not met. Lancashire County Council (25 011 135) Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed completing his child’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment and failed to provide full-time education while his child was out of school. We find the Council at fault for a significant delay in issuing the EHC Plan, failing to properly consider and communicate its section 19 duty, and poor complaint handling. These faults resulted in missed educational provision and created uncertainty, as well as avoidable time and trouble for Mr X. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr X and take steps to improve its processes for alternative provision and complaint handling. Oxfordshire County Council (25 008 055) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council did not deal properly with her son Y’s education, causing him to miss educational provision. The Council is at fault because it did not properly consider s19 alternative education provision. Y suffered missed education provision. The Council should apologise to Mrs X, repay costs of tuition and make a symbolic payment in respect of missed educational provision. Hertfordshire County Council (24 021 654) Summary: We upheld a complaint from Mrs X, finding the Council at fault for how it reviewed a decision to refuse her a personal budget for her son’s education. We also found the Council at fault for its poor complaint handling which caused Mrs X unnecessary time, trouble and frustration. The Council has accepted these findings and agreed action to remedy this injustice, set out at the end of this statement. Surrey County Council (24 023 172) Summary: Mrs B complains she has been waiting for over three years for a new school placement for her son (X). During that time the Council has not provided him with suitable alternative education and has missed deadlines to review his Education, Health and Care Plan. We uphold the complaint and find X missed education and had an out-of-date Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council has agreed to provide an extra symbolic payment to what it has already paid. And to monitor its progress in finding suitable provision. Surrey County Council (25 000 762) Summary: There was no fault in the enforcement action the Council took against an early years provider after Mr X reported that the provider was unlawfully charging ‘top-up’ fees to parents of children with free nursery places. The Council followed its compliance procedure properly and required changes of the provider which brought its practice in line with government guidance. The Council’s decision that the provider’s additional fees did not amount to ‘top-ups’ was made without fault and therefore we cannot question it. Derbyshire County Council (25 006 778) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s delay in assessing his child’s special educational needs and issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan. We found avoidable delay by the Council. The Council, which had already apologised, agreed to make a symbolic payment to Mr X in recognition of the avoidable distress caused by its delay. Northumberland County Council (25 010 611) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide suitable educational provision for her son Y when he was unable to attend school. She also complained about delays in the Education, Health and Care Plan process, and the Council’s poor complaints handling. We find the Council was at fault for failing to provide suitable educational provision, poor record keeping, and poor complaint handling. It is also at fault for delays in the Education, Health, and Care Plan process. This caused Ms X and Y distress and caused Y a loss of educational provision. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay a symbolic remedy and implement a service improvement. Cornwall Council (25 011 350) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to meet the statutory timescales to issue her son’s Education Health and Care Plan following annual reviews in January and December 2025. Neither plan has been issued causing distress and frustrating Mrs X’s appeal rights. A symbolic payment and immediate action to issue the EHC Plan is agreed. Shropshire Council (25 011 409) Summary: Mrs X complained about delay in the Education, Health and Care plan process for her son. We have ended our investigation as Mrs X has used her right of appeal to the Tribunal. Dorset Council (25 011 606) Summary: The Council was at fault because it did not make arrangements for a child to receive education during a period he was not at school. Although the Council has recognised this and offered a remedy, it has now agreed to increase its offer in line with the Ombudsman’s published guidance. Devon County Council (25 004 708) Summary: Mrs Y complained about the way the Council dealt with her child, Z’s educational and special educational needs provision. We have found fault by the Council causing injustice, in failing - in the period from October 2023 to June 2024 - to: keep proper records of its actions and decision making in response to concerns about Z’s school attendance and access to education; communication failures and delay offering alternative provision. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising and making a payment to reflect the upset and uncertainty caused. Hampshire County Council (25 010 579) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to consult with his child, Z’s school and properly specify the special educational needs provision in their Education, Health and Care Plan. We have found fault by the Council, causing injustice, in failing to properly: consult with the school named in Z’s Plan; and consider whether the provision in section F of the Plan was clear and understandable. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising, making a payment to recognise the upset caused and service improvements. London Borough of Ealing (24 015 544) Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained that the London Boroughs of Ealing, Hounslow and Southwark failed to manage properly the proposed adoptive placement with them. This led to them not having a child placed with them, as they had expected. We find some fault causing avoidable distress, grief and time and trouble for the complainants. The Councils have agreed the recommended ways to remedy their injustice, and to implement service improvements to prevent a recurrence of faults in this case. We have therefore completed our investigation and are closing the complaint. London Borough of Waltham Forest (25 005 168) Summary: The Council delayed responding to Ms X’s complaint and failed to complete the remedies recommended in its stage three statutory complaints response. The Council accepted it is at fault and agreed to remedy the injustice. 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