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. Norfolk County Council (25 012 333) Summary: We found fault with the Council not suitably investigating Mr X’s concerns about the lack of one-to-one Education, Health and Care Plan provision in place for his child on his first contact. We also found fault with the Council not meeting its response timescales at stage one of Mr X’s complaint. The Council’s actions caused uncertainty, distress and frustration to Mr X. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and provide a symbolic financial gesture for the injustice caused by its fault. Cambridgeshire County Council (25 012 639) Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to comply with legal timescales when completing an Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment for her daughter Y, did not correctly seek health and social care advice during the process, and failed to provide alternative educational provision. We find the Council at fault for missing legal timescales, not seeking advice correctly, and not making a timely decision on whether it owed a duty to provide alternative provision. This caused injustice in the form of uncertainty and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice. Birmingham City Council (25 013 434) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to deliver the provision detailed in her child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. Mrs X said this distressed her, Y’s needs were not assessed, and she spent time and trouble challenging the Council. There was fault. The Council did not ensure Y received the provision in the EHC Plan and its complaint handling was poor. This frustrated Mrs X and caused uncertainty. The Council should apologise and make a financial payment. Oxfordshire County Council (25 022 733) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to visit a 9 year old boy at home because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation, and nothing we could add to the Council’s response. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (25 024 043) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in assessing and meeting the complainant’s child’s education, health and care needs. This is because the complaint is late in part, and the complainant has used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). Derbyshire County Council (25 006 348) Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s delays with completing the annual review process of her child’s, Y, Education, Health and Care Plan. Miss X also complained about the Council’s failure to provide Y with the provision set out in his Plan. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Y and Miss X. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused. Staffordshire County Council (25 008 553) Summary: Mrs X says the Council failed to provide the education and physiotherapy provision set out in her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. She reports this issue has caused her child a great deal of distress and Mrs X has had to pay for physiotherapy provision herself. We found the Council at fault. It did not fulfil its responsibility to provide the provision fully. It should apologise and make payments to Mrs X to recognise the injustice caused. Lancashire County Council (25 011 684) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s consultation and assessment before issuing an Education Health and Care Plan as Mr X appealed to the Tribunal. We also cannot investigate the education provision in the meantime as it is not separable from the disagreement about what is a suitable setting. Westminster City Council (25 007 659) Summary: Ms B complained that the Council delayed in completing a stage two investigation of her complaint about children’s services. We found the Council delayed by about five months which has caused Ms B frustration. The Council has offered to make a symbolic payment of £150 which we consider is a reasonable remedy. It has also agreed to complete the investigation and apologise to her. London Borough of Bexley (25 014 162) Summary: The Council was at fault for considering Mr X’s complaint through the wrong process (the children’s statutory complaints procedure). It then failed to properly consider the complaint at stage two and stage three of the children’s statutory complaints procedure in line with the relevant law and statutory guidance. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, pay him a financial remedy and reconsider his complaint. It has also agreed to create an action plan to prevent similar fault occurring in the future. Blackpool Borough Council (26 000 296) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to carry out a child and family assessment for Mrs Y, and the Council not providing any financial support or guidance to Mrs X. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault for the first part of complaint, for the remaining part, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Birmingham City Council (26 003 180) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about information the Council provided during court proceedings. This is because the law prevents us from investigating complaints about what happens in court. Southend-on-Sea City Council (26 009 662) Summary: We will not investigate X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with a child. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to investigate their complaint because X does not have parental responsibility for the child. Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (25 012 641) Summary: The Council was at fault in delaying in issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan for child Y. It was also at fault for failing to arrange suitable alternative educational provision for Y. The Council’s handling of Mr X’s complaint was poor. The Council’s faults caused Y lost educational provision, and caused Mr X uncertainty, frustration, put him to time and trouble and delayed his appeal rights. The Council agreed to apologise and make payments to Mr X to remedy the injustice caused by its faults. It has also agreed recommendations to improve its services. West Northamptonshire Council (25 013 090) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to secure suitable education for Y while he was out of school and delayed completing a reassessment of his Education, Health and Care needs. The Council was at fault for delay in agreeing to a reassessment and for not securing suitable education, causing frustration and meaning Y missed out on education he was entitled to. The Council has agreed to apologise and make payment to recognise the injustice caused. Oxfordshire County Council (25 014 335) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to ensure her daughter received a suitable education when she was unable to attend school. Mrs X also complained the Council has failed to ensure her daughter received the special educational provision set out in Section F of her Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. We found the Council’s failure to ensure Y received a suitable full time education between November 2024 and July 2025 is fault. As is the failure to provide the provision set out in the EHC Plan. These faults have caused Mrs X and Y distress and uncertainty and meant Y missed out on a suitable education for a whole academic year. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Mrs X. Medway Council (25 017 275) Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide a suitable school placement for her son. The Ombudsman is unable to consider her complaint as Miss X used her right of appeal and other matters are closely connected to the matters appealed of and so we would not investigate them. Cambridgeshire County Council (25 022 396) Summary: We upheld most of Miss X’s complaints about delays in the Education, Health and Care process regard her child, Y; her complaint about lack of alternative provision; and her complaint about poor communication because the Council upheld the complaints. The Council apologised, offered a total symbolic payment of £2,300, and explained service improvements it had made. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies. We did not investigate part of the complaint because it was late. Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (25 024 037) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council accepting the appointment of a person she says poses a risk to children by virtue of their employment to a position on the local Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education. We cannot investigate religious education and worship in schools. The Council’s role is marginal, and we would be unlikely to find fault in the Council not finding a safeguarding risk simply because the person works for a local organisation whose employees Ms X says have attempted to proselytise children in schools. West Sussex County Council (25 027 399) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to carry out an Education, Health and Care needs assessment for her child. This is because Mrs X used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). Somerset Council (25 028 384) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to issue an Education, Health and Care plan for her child. This is because Mrs X used her right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (26 006 176) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s school’s admissions appeal panel refusing her appeal. It is unlikely we would find fault which caused Ms X to lose out on a school place. Leicestershire County Council (26 009 940) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to carry out an Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment. This is because Mrs X has used her right to appeal to the First-Tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). Essex County Council (26 010 523) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the internal management of a school. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about what happens in schools. Manchester City Council (25 013 216) Summary: We find no fault in the way the Council handled Miss X’s complaint about lack of respite care for her foster child. The Council found fault and injustice, apologised, made a payment to Miss X, and improved its service, as the statutory complaint investigation recommended. The Council has agreed to make a further payment to remedy some outstanding injustice. Suffolk County Council (25 021 654) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with her children. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s recent handling of her children’s case to justify our involvement. Other parts of Miss X’s complaints are late and could have been brought to us sooner. Kent County Council (25 022 165) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council did not check its records to confirm if Mr X had parental responsibility, failed to consult him when undertaking assessments and failed to safeguard his child. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would add to the Council’s response, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation, and it is unlikely we will find fault. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (25 023 288) Summary: We upheld Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by issuing an apology and paying Mr X a symbolic payment to acknowledge the injustice caused. Lancashire County Council (25 023 867) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of Miss X’s child’s school or how the Council responded to a complaint about a safeguarding matter. We cannot investigate what happens in schools and we will not investigate the Council’s investigation into a safeguarding concern because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Telford & Wrekin Council (26 010 484) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the actions of a children’s services social worker. The law prevents us from investigating matters which are subject to court proceedings. In any case, Miss X’s concerns would be better placed with Social Work England. Trafford Council (25 003 312) 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, causing injustice, by the Council with its failures to: properly consider Mrs Y’s transport request in 2024; and complete the 2024 annual review within the statutory timescale. We have not found fault with the educational provision made for Z from 2024. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice by apologising and making a payment to recognise the upset caused. West Sussex County Council (25 008 985) Summary: Mr D complained the Council failed to adhere to the statutory timescales for the Education, Health and Care needs assessment process for his daughter (X) and about the education X received since 2021. The Council accepted it caused delays in the statutory process, it communicated poorly with Mr D, and to some fault how it considered X’s alternative provision. Overall, we agreed with the Council’s findings, but its remedy was not enough to acknowledge the impact this caused X and Mr D. The Council will make a further payment to acknowledge the injustice its faults caused. Some parts of Mr D’s complaint were late and therefore not considered. Derby City Council (25 011 113) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to complete an Education Health and Care needs assessment for Y within statutory time limits and failed to make alternative provision available to him when he was out of school. The Council was at fault for delay and for not making alternative provision available to Y, causing uncertainty and frustration and meaning he did not receive the education he was entitled to. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to recognise the injustice and act to prevent recurrence. Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (25 014 085) Summary: Mrs B complained in respect of her daughter, C, that the Council failed to complete an Education, Health and Care needs assessment within the 20-week statutory time frame or ensure suitable education was provided during the period C was not attending school. We found fault in the actions of the Council. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B and C, make a symbolic payment and improve its procedures for the future. Cornwall Council (25 015 931) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not issue her child’s Education Health and Care Plan within statutory timescales. Mrs X says this caused her child to miss out on educational provision and caused her unnecessary distress and financial strain. We find the Council at fault which caused injustice. The Council will provide an apology and a financial remedy to Mrs X to remedy the injustice. Somerset Council (25 017 992) Summary: Ms Y complains the Council significantly delayed completing her child's EHC (Education, Health and Care) needs assessment and issuing a final plan after the SEND Tribunal ordered it to complete an assessment. She says the delay meant her child did not receive the support identified through the EHC process as early as they should have done. We find fault causing injustice which the Council will remedy with the actions listed in the final section of this statement. Devon County Council (25 019 367) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to make alternative and special educational provision for the complainant’s child. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part, and the complainant has used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). Buckinghamshire Council (25 028 581) 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. London Borough of Ealing (25 012 878) Summary: Miss X complained about the way the Council dealt with respite support for her and her children. There was no fault in the way the Council completed the statutory procedure, but it failed to make a payment agreed as part of this process. This caused Miss X further frustration. The Council should apologise and provide evidence of payment. West Northamptonshire Council (25 023 434) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council cancelled an adoption panel meeting with short notice and its communication around this. This is because we have upheld the complaint as the Council has agreed to provide a proportionate remedy for any injustice caused. Staffordshire County Council (25 023 728) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to end its involvement with his family following an assessment because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Mr X’s complaint about the content of the assessment is better suited to the Information Commissioner’s Office. We will not investigate the Council’s complaints handling because the tests in our Assessment Code are not met. London Borough of Hounslow (25 025 551) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s actions while her child was in foster care. This is because decisions about her child’s future are for the court and the law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been subject to, and decided in court proceedings. Lancashire County Council (26 009 526) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council calculated Mr X’s Special Guardianship Allowance. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. We also will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about historical payments of fostering allowance as it is late. Staffordshire County Council (26 010 171) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about information the Council provided during court proceedings. This is because the law prevents us from investigating complaints about what happens in court.  Leeds City Council (25 026 268) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of reports of historical abuse and a Subject Access Request (SAR). This is because the complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate it now. We will not investigate the matter about a SAR request as the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider it. Hampshire County Council (25 015 848) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council in the course of child protection action. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant our intervention. Torbay Council (25 023 679) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s use of the complainant’s personal information. Our intervention would not add anything significant to the response the Council has already made, and the complainant can bring her concerns about the misuse of her information to the attention of the Information Commissioner’s Office. London Borough of Enfield (25 013 992) Summary: Mr X complained the Council has not arranged education transport for his daughter, Y. Mr X said this distressed him. There was fault in the way the Council required Mr X to transport Y to and from school without his consent, despite accepting a transport duty for Y. This frustrated and distressed Mr X. The Council agreed to apologise and make a financial payment. Buckinghamshire Council (25 015 730) Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to secure the special educational provision in Mrs X’s child, W’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This meant W missed out on provision they needed. The Council was also at fault for failing to properly consider if it needed to arrange alternative provision for W when they struggled to attend school. This caused Mrs X avoidable uncertainty about whether the Council would have arranged alternative provision. To remedy W and Mrs X’s injustice, the Council will make symbolic payments and carry out actions to prevent similar fault in future. Oxfordshire County Council (25 023 025) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to deliver provision in his child’s EHC plan and did not arrange suitable education for his child. This is because the issues are too closely linked to the content of the EHC plan, which Mr X has appealed to the Tribunal. We also cannot investigate issues about the internal management of a school. London Borough of Redbridge (25 022 742) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about child protection, Special Educational Needs provision and Z’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because Mx Y could have appealed to the First-Tier Tribunal and there is insufficient evidence of fault. Cambridgeshire County Council (25 025 162) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council lied in Court. The law prevents us from investigating matters that were considered, or could have been considered, in Court. Darlington Borough Council (25 029 803) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the contact arrangements that arose from court proceedings. The law says we cannot investigate matters considered by a court or issues that are too closely linked to court proceedings. West Sussex County Council (26 006 810) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions relating to special guardians and kinship care support. The Council has already investigated the complaint under the three-stage Children Act 1989 complaint procedure. We could not add to the investigation the Council has already carried out and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Torbay Council (26 009 818) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a social worker. Social Work England is better placed to decide if a social worker is meeting their professional standards. For the remainder, the Information Commissioner is better placed to decide complaints about data protection. Hertfordshire County Council (26 009 862) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to investigate Miss X’s concerns, about how it dealt with her as a Looked after Child. The complaint relates to matters which happened over 12 months ago, and it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s decision, not to consider it. Nor will we consider it either, because it is a late complaint and I have not seen any good reasons why a complaint could not have been made to us sooner. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (26 010 019) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decisions relating to X’s business. X has an alternative legal remedy to pursue a claim through the courts. It is reasonable to expect X to use this remedy to achieve what they are looking for. Worcestershire County Council (25 002 610) Summary: The Council was at fault for repeatedly failing to pay Ms X’s daughter’s direct payment invoices on time throughout the 2024/25 academic year. This caused Ms X distress, inconvenience and financial pressures, for which the Council has already provided a suitable remedy. It would not be proportionate to recommend any further action. London Borough of Newham (25 008 569) Summary: The Council failed to provide agreed educational catch-up provision for Ms X’s child, Y and significantly delayed responding to her complaints. There was no fault in the Council’s handling of Ms X’s transport appeals. We have not investigated other parts of Ms X’s complaint as they are late. The Council has agreed to apologise for the uncertainty, distress and frustration caused and complete the process relating to Ms X’s complaint. It has also agreed to service improvements to prevent recurrence. Derbyshire County Council (25 011 131) Summary: The Council failed to ensure Mrs X’s child, Y, received the specialist provision in their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan after they stopped attending school. It also failed to properly consider whether it owed Y a section 19 duty. The Council was at fault for the delay in carrying out an annual review of Y’s EHC Plan and for missing the phase transfer deadline. The Council has apologised and paid Miss X £3880 to remedy the injustice caused. We are satisfied with the Council’s actions. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (25 013 205) Summary: The Council was at fault for delay issuing Mrs X’s child B’s Education, Health and Care plan and Personal Budget, for failing to provide B’s special educational provision, and for communicating poorly with Mrs X. This caused Mrs X distress, frustration, and uncertainty, and meant B missed some education. We find the Council has offered a suitable remedy for the injustice caused. Dorset Council (25 014 012) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly oversee a nursery's charging arrangements for funded early education. The investigation found the Council failed to properly assess the nursery's charging arrangements once concerns were raised. This caused avoidable financial loss, distress, uncertainty, and time and trouble. The Council agreed recommended actions to remedy the injustice caused. Dorset Council (25 015 376) Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to provide Mrs X’s child B with alternative educational provision, for delay in its search for a suitable school place for B, and for its poor communication with Mrs X. This meant B missed out on a year of educational provision, and it caused Mrs X distress, frustration, and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to remedy the injustice. London Borough of Islington (25 016 860) Summary: Miss X complained her child was wrongly removed from the school roll. We have not investigated the decision to remove the child as this is out of our jurisdiction. We find no fault with the Council’s actions once it was aware of the matter. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (26 009 654) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about an adult education course. This is because the law prevents us from investigating certain educational matters. Somerset Council (25 015 242) Summary: The Council failed to consider Ms X’s complaint through the correct statutory complaint procedure. This delayed the Council’s consideration of Ms X’s complaint, causing her uncertainty and frustration. The Council should apologise, consider Ms X's complaint through the correct procedure and make a payment to Ms X. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (25 015 517) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the ending of a kinship care arrangement because there is nothing we could add to the Council’s response, our investigation would not change the outcome and there is, therefore, no worthwhile outcome achievable for us. Somerset Council (25 016 322) Summary: The Council investigated Ms X’s complaint about her child, Y’s, social care through the children’s statutory complaint procedure. In its complaint response, the Council accepted it delayed assessing Y and providing them with social care provision, which was fault. The Council has apologised. It has agreed to make a payment to Ms X to recognise the impact of its failings. London Borough of Bromley (25 023 032) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the category of harm Miss Y’s children were recorded suffering from, or at risk of suffering from, during a child protection conference. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify our involvement. Worcestershire County Council (26 009 087) Summary: We have upheld Mrs X’s complaint about delays in the children’s statutory complaints process. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by paying Mrs X a symbolic remedy to recognise her injustice and complete its investigation. Surrey County Council (26 009 675) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a child protection conference held in 2024. This is because the complaint is made late and I see no good reason why it could not have been made sooner. South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (26 009 701) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions relating to X’s child. This is because there are other bodies better placed to investigate X’s complaint. Lincolnshire County Council (26 009 707) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement with Mr X’s family. This is because the law prevents us from investigating anything that is or has been subject to court proceedings. Hampshire County Council (26 009 728) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about information the Council provided during court proceedings. This is because the law prevents us from investigating complaints about what happens in court.    Kent County Council (26 009 734) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care planning for Miss Z’s children. This is because the law prevents us from investigating complaints about the start of court action or what happens in court. 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