New children and education complaint decisions

View online A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions Please note: our decisions are published six weeks after they are issued to councils, care providers and the person who has made the complaint. The cases below reflect the caselaw and guidance available at the time of issue and the individual circumstances of each case. Lancashire County Council (25 004 409) Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed issuing her child Y’s final amended Education, Health and Care Plan. She also said the Council failed to secure all the provision in Section F. We find the Council at fault for significant delay and poor complaint handling. This caused loss of educational provision for Y and caused Miss X distress and uncertainty. The Council will apologise, makes symbolic payments for lost provision and distress, provide an update on its current action plan, and review its oversight of complaint response times. Leeds City Council (25 008 641) Summary: The Council was at fault for the failure to review the Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for Ms X’s child, Y and its failure to provide the educational provision detailed in the Plan causing Y to miss out on education and therapy, and frustration for Ms X. Poor communication and complaint handling by the Council added to Ms X’s frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the missed provision, delay and frustration caused. London Borough of Hackney (25 009 600) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s experience with the Council’s domestic abuse service. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault and we could not add to the Council’s investigation. North Northamptonshire Council (25 009 724) Summary: The Council delayed issuing Y’s final Education, Health and Care Plan following an annual review and there were faults in its communication with Ms X. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to acknowledge the frustration and delayed right of appeal this caused. There was no fault in the way it reached the decision not to provide alternative provision when Y was out of school between April and September 2025. Medway Council (25 012 396) Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of her application for an Education, Health and Care Plan for her daughter Y. Ms X says the Council failed to provide education while her daughter could not attend school. Ms X says this has caused Y to miss education and distress for the whole family. We have found fault in the actions for the Council for delays in completing its assessment of Y’s needs and issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council has agreed to write to Ms X to issue an apology and pay her a symbolic payment. Lancashire County Council (25 019 761) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Council’s Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (25 021 934) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the educational support provided to his child. Most of Mr X’s complaint is late with no good reason for us to now investigate. We cannot consider complaints about what happens in schools. It was also reasonable for Mr X to use his right of appeal which he has now exercised. This places more recent matters outside our jurisdiction. Lancashire County Council (25 022 016) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a school’s funding and the Council’s expansion of another primary school. This is because we have no powers to investigate complaints from public bodies. North Yorkshire Council (25 020 242) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to consider Mr X’s complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating. For the remainder, other bodies are better placed to consider Mr X’s complaint. London Borough of Haringey (25 020 512) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a children services assessment’s accuracy and the Council not disclosing with whom it has been shared. These are data protection matters, and the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed. Warwickshire County Council (25 020 589) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with a safeguarding concern raised about him. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. West Berkshire Council (25 020 617) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about a Council letter to him, sent for a school. London Borough of Havering (25 021 796) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about letters and gifts not being given to her adopted child. We are unlikely to achieve more than the £200 offered by the Council. Somerset Council (25 022 577) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council’s Social Workers lied about him in Court. The law prevents us from investigating matters that were considered, or could have been considered, in Court. Devon County Council (25 023 057) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council failed to respond to safeguarding referrals it received in 2019. The complaint is late with no good reason to investigate it now. London Borough of Havering (25 026 668) Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s actions in relation to care provision for her children. The Council was at fault for delay in investigating Ms X’s complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure, causing uncertainty and distress. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X, investigate her complaint at stage two of the children’s statutory complaints procedure, make a payment to recognise the injustice and act to prevent recurrence. Salford City Council (25 000 448) Summary: We find the Council delayed issuing an amended Education, Health and Care Plan for Mr B’s son, K, after agreeing to make changes to it during mediation. As a result, K did not receive the support he needed. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mr B and make service improvements. Middlesbrough Borough Council (25 007 735) Summary: There was fault by the Council. It failed to check whether Miss X’s son was receiving occupational therapy when he moved to a new school in November 2024. The Council also failed to make alternative provision or attempt to deliver her son’s Education Health and Care Plan when he had no school place between June and November 2024. The Council’s failings meant that Miss X’s son missed out on education and occupational therapy and it caused Miss X and her family uncertainty and distress. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and her son, and make a payment to recognise the impact on them. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 013 065) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not issue her child’s Education Health and Care Plan within statutory timescales. She also complained it did not provide her with her right to appeal. She said this caused her and her child unnecessary stress. We find no fault. London Borough of Redbridge (25 019 027) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of an application for home to school transport. This is because the Council has agreed to re-take its stage 2 decision. This is an appropriate remedy. Cumberland Council (25 020 630) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of an Education, Health and Care Plan. It is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response, and we cannot investigate complaints about what happens in schools. The Information Commissioner’s Office is best placed to look at some of Mr X’s complaint and there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s complaint handling. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (25 020 784) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of an Education Health and Care plan. This is because it would have been reasonable for the complainant to use her right of appeal to the First-Tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). Essex County Council (25 022 069) 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. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 022 838) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not provide the provision detailed in their child’s Education Health and Care Plan and communicated poorly during the Tribunal process. She said this impacted her child’s education and emotional wellbeing. She also complained the Council shared her child’s personal details without her consent. We have ended our investigation because we cannot investigate matters which can be considered by a Tribunal and it is reasonable for Mrs X to take her complaint about data protection to the Information Commissioner’s Office. Oxfordshire County Council (25 023 363) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her application and appeal for free school transport for her child. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation. Leicestershire County Council (25 027 284) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s operational documents in respect of special educational needs and disabilities provision as this is best dealt with within the context of other complaints Mr X has made to us about the Council’s provision of such services to his own child. Wokingham Borough Council (24 009 439) Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with matters related to his children. The Council was at fault for further delay in completing stage three of the statutory complaint procedure. This caused Mr X further frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment for the injustice caused and provide evidence that it has completed stage three. Somerset Council (25 002 400) Summary: Ms X complains the Council did not deal with children’s social care properly, causing avoidable distress and missed support. The Council is at fault because it did not complete a parent/carer’s assessment, did not update a Child and Family Assessment with new information and did not deal with this as part of a statutory children’s services complaint. Ms X suffered avoidable distress and missed support from November 2023. The Council should apologise and make a symbolic payment to Ms X. London Borough of Brent (25 010 488) Summary: We find fault by the Council in the way it has managed Mr X’s disabled brother’s (Mr Y’s) care plan. This has caused avoidable distress to Mr X and a loss of opportunity for Mr Y. The Council has agreed the remedy for the injustice caused. We have therefore completed our investigation and are closing the complaint. Nottinghamshire County Council (25 020 894) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of care of the complainant’s children. This is because we could not add to any previous investigation by the Council, any investigation would not lead to a different outcome, and any fault has not caused significant injustice. We will not investigate part of this complaint because it is late and there is no reason why the complainant could not have come to us sooner. We cannot investigate part of this complaint as the court made decisions about care arrangements and the law prevents us from investigating them. Plymouth City Council (25 022 765) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council failed to engage with his statutory notices or address his complaints. On one part, the complaint is better placed with the Information Commissioner’s Office. On the other part, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. London Borough of Haringey (26 004 980) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council delayed complying with agreed actions laid out in a previous decision made by the Ombudsman. This is because any delay has not caused Mr X a significant enough injustice. London Borough of Croydon (25 008 787) Summary: The Council was at fault in that it did not fulfil the terms of a mediation agreement it had signed. It was also at fault in that it delayed in carrying out an annual review of child Z’s Education, Health and Care Plan. It was at further fault in the handling of Mr and Mr Y’s complaint. The Council agreed to apologise for the injustice caused. South Gloucestershire Council (24 004 970) Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council secured alternative provision for Y while he was out of school and delays in securing provision set out in his Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council was at fault for delay, causing uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make payment to recognise the injustice caused. Slough Borough Council (24 011 098) Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council handled her young adult’s (Y) Education, Health and Care Plan and how it poorly communicated with her. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Y and Mrs X. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused. Birmingham City Council (25 001 117) Summary: We have found fault by the Council. It failed to secure the special educational provision specified in Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan promptly following issue of the final amended Plan in November 2024, resulting in Y missing specialist provision. The Council has agreed to our recommendations. Lancashire County Council (25 001 138) Summary: The Council was at fault for delay reviewing Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan and for failing to provide the special educational provision in Y’s Plan. This meant Y missed out on education he should have had and caused Y’s mother, Miss X, frustration. The Council will apologise and make symbolic payments. It will also take steps to prevent similar fault in future. Cornwall Council (25 005 943) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to provide his son (Y) with a suitable education and support for his special educational needs when he moved into the area. We found the Council to be at fault. This meant Y was out of education for two terms, affecting Y’s development and well-being, as well as causing Mr X distress and frustration. To remedy this injustice, the Council agreed to apologise and made a symbolic payment. London Borough of Bexley (25 006 650) Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to promptly organise exams for her son, Mr Y. Miss X said this delayed Mr Y taking the exams and he could not retake if needed. The Council was not at fault. Oxfordshire County Council (25 008 658) Summary: Miss B complained the Council has failed to provide a suitable education to her daughter, who I will refer to as C, for three years. The Council was at fault. It failed to secure suitable education and provision for C as outlined in her Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. As a result, C missed out on education and provision. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss B and make symbolic payments. Somerset Council (25 009 196) Summary: The Council delayed issuing an amended Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for Mrs X’s child Y. It also failed to properly respond to Mrs X’s complaint. This caused Mrs X frustration and uncertainty but did not result in Y missing out on the provision in their EHC Plan or receiving alternative educational provision. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Miss X. Leicestershire County Council (25 011 344) Summary: There is no fault in how the Council dealt with a stage two complaint. The Council delayed issuing a final education, health and care plan following a tribunal, delayed putting funds onto a direct payments card, failed to answer Miss X’s question about how she could spend the backdated money and failed to provide her with a policy she asked for. That caused Miss X frustration. An apology, provision of a copy of the policy Miss X asked for and liaison with her about how she can spend the backdated funds is satisfactory remedy. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (25 016 691) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to secure the special educational provision detailed in her son, Z’s, Education, Health and Care Plan. We find the Council at fault for failing to secure Z’s special educational provision between December 2023 and May 2024. This is fault which impacted Z’s access to education and caused distress, frustration and uncertainty for Z and Mrs X. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused. Worcestershire County Council (25 020 421) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to deliver the provision outlined in her child’s Education, Health and Care plan. This is because Mrs X has used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). Medway Council (25 020 701) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to ensure a suitable education was secured because the Complainant has used her right to appeal to the First-Tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). The law prevents us from investigating this complaint because the matters complained of are linked to the appeal. London Borough of Lewisham (25 020 703) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the content of an Education, Health and Care Plan and the lack of provision secured by the Council because it was reasonable for the complainant to use her right to appeal to the First-Tier (Special Educational Needs and Disability) Tribunal. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (25 027 920) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with a safeguarding concern. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing Mr X a significant injustice. Plymouth City Council (25 009 498) Summary: Mr X complained about the recommendations following the statutory complaint procedure and said the Council has not completed the recommendations. Mr X said this distressed him. There was no fault in how the Council completed the statutory complaint’s procedure, so we have no grounds to question or reinvestigate its findings. The Council made a merits based decision on the content of the letter to Y and completed the actions from the statutory complaints procedure within a reasonable timescale. The Council was not at fault. Royal Borough of Greenwich (25 022 107) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a child protection conference. Further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome. West Northamptonshire Council (25 022 666) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to consider his complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Buckinghamshire Council (25 004 872) Summary: There was fault by the Council. It took over a year too long to issue a final EHC Plan for Miss X’s son and failed to ensure that his alternative educational provision was sufficient when he was out of school. The Council also took too long to respond to Miss X’s complaint about this. This caused Miss X uncertainty and frustration, and meant that her son did not receive the special educational provision he needed when he was able to return to school. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X, make her a symbolic payment to recognise the impact on her and her son, and remind staff that the Council remains responsible for alternative educational provision even when this is arranged by a school. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (25 008 783) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to ensure alternative provision was in place for her son, Y, when he was unable to attend school. She said this meant her son missed out on provision listed in his Education, Health and Care Plan which affected his wellbeing and caused her stress and financial loss. We found the Council at fault and it has agreed to make a symbolic payment to Mrs X in recognition of the injustice. London Borough of Redbridge (25 010 383) Summary: There was fault by the Council and the Independent Education Appeal Panel when it heard Miss X’s appeal against the Council’s decision not to offer her child a place at her preferred school. The Panel followed the wrong process and applied the wrong test when it decided the appeal. It is unlikely that had the Panel conducted the appeal hearing properly it would have admitted Miss X’s child but its shortcomings have caused confusion. The Council has agreed to review its guidance to Appeal Panels and relevant staff, and apologise to Miss X. Birmingham City Council (25 011 661) Summary: Miss X complained the Council has failed to provide alternative provision for her daughter since she was unable to attend school in May 2024. We found there is no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (25 012 426) Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s delays and decisions it made in the Education, Health and Care needs assessment process for her child. We found fault with the Council with its failure to meet statutory timeframes and its poor communication with her. This caused Miss X significant frustration and distress. The Council agreed to apologise and pay a symbolic payment to recognise the injustice caused. Liverpool City Council (25 018 004) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about missed education and failure to secure special education provision specified in Y’s Education and Healthcare Plan. This is because Mr X has already taken the matter to judicial review on Y’s behalf and the law prevents us from investigating. Mr X has not suffered significant injustice in relation to the remaining issues complained about. Surrey County Council (25 019 637) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions after it issued a new Education, Health and Care plan naming a new school. This is because the complainant has used her right of appeal to the tribunal. We cannot investigate complaints about what happens in school and there is insufficient injustice to warrant investigation into the remaining complaints. South Gloucestershire Council (25 005 745) Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the way the Council dealt with the support of their family. Based on current evidence, there was no fault in the way it completed the Children Act complaints procedure, and so we will not investigate their substantive complaints. London Borough of Barnet (25 011 894) Summary: Miss X complains about support provided to her adult son while he was in the Council’s care. The Council considered her complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure at stage one but then refused to progress it to stage two. This was fault causing injustice, which the Council has agreed to remedy through the actions set out at the end of this statement. West Berkshire Council (25 019 149) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about children services’ actions. We have upheld Mr X’s complaint as the Council has now agreed to follow the Children Act statutory complaints’ procedure which is a proportionate way to resolve the complaint. Cambridgeshire County Council (25 020 079) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to his safeguarding referral. It is unlikely we would achieve more than the Council’s complaint responses. Somerset Council (25 020 510) Summary: We cannot investigate the Council’s decision to begin care proceedings for a child. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about the start of court action or what happened in court. Peterborough City Council (25 021 256) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how children’s services dealt with her family’s personal information. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault with how the Council dealt with her complaint and because the Information Commissioner is better placed to deal with the issues raised. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (26 002 736) 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. Hampshire County Council (25 021 141) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about information provided by the Council during court proceedings and about how it dealt with a safeguarding referral. This is because the law prevents us from investigating what happened in court and Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of the safeguarding referral is made late. Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (25 015 637) Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the way the Council dealt with a child protection concern made by a GP Practice. As part of the Council’s complaints process, an independent panel upheld most of Mr and Mrs X’s complaints and the Council accepted the Panel’s findings. The Council has apologised to Mr and Mrs X and offered them an opportunity to add a statement to their child’s case file. It has also offered them a financial remedy. The Council has also made service improvements. We will not investigate this complaint as an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve more. 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