New children and education complaint decisions

View online A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions Please note: our decisions are published six weeks after they are issued to councils, care providers and the person who has made the complaint. The cases below reflect the caselaw and guidance available at the time of issue and the individual circumstances of each case. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (25 011 128) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about school transport. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our investigation. Derbyshire County Council (25 011 797) Summary: On behalf of her son, Mr X, Mrs Y complained the Council failed to fully reimburse the costs of home to school transport. We find the Council at fault for failing to document its consideration of reimbursement costs. This caused Mr X and Mrs Y distress, frustration and uncertainty. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to reimburse two return journeys for the period between September 2024 and January 2025. West Berkshire Council (25 011 910) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide her son, Y, with alternative provision when he could not attend school. She also complained the Council relied on misleading school records and it wrongly pursued safeguarding referrals when the threshold was not met. We find the Council was at fault for its delay in responding to Ms X’s stage two complaint. However, this fault did not cause Ms X a significant injustice. Central Bedfordshire Council (25 012 442) Summary: Mrs X, on behalf of her daughter Ms Z, complained the Council failed to deliver the special educational provision as set out in Section F of the Education Health and Care Plan issued in August 2024. While some education was provided, this did not match what Section F required and therefore did not meet Ms Z’s needs, causing distress and affecting her ability to learn. The Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment. Leicestershire County Council (25 013 595) Summary: Mrs F complained the Council delayed issuing her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan and delayed providing the personal budget she requested to secure his provision. We found fault which caused uncertainty and for Mrs F’s son to miss out on a term of support. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Mrs F a symbolic payment to remedy this injustice. Halton Borough Council (25 015 661) Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council completed an Education, Health and Care needs assessment for Y. The Council was at fault for delay in the process, causing uncertainty and frustration and delaying Mr X's appeal rights. The Council should apologise, make a payment to address the injustice and act to prevent recurrence. Cambridgeshire County Council (25 016 183) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about her son’s lack of education provision because Miss X has started court proceedings against the Council. Cambridgeshire County Council (25 017 384) Summary: There was fault by the Council. It took too long to issue a final Education Health and Care Plan when Miss X’s son was moving from primary to secondary school. The Council also did not communicate with Miss X properly, and cannot show that it considered how her son could access his educational provision in the meantime. The Council’s shortcomings caused Miss X and her son distress and uncertainty at this crucial time. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and make a symbolic payment in recognition of the impact on her and her son. Cambridgeshire County Council (25 017 723) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to meet the legal timescales for completing an annual review of her son Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan and issuing an amended plan, and had poor communication and complaint handling. We find the Council at fault for missing the legal timescales and for poor communication. This caused frustration, uncertainty, delayed appeal rights and quantifiable loss of the cost of provision. The Council has agreed to apologise, reimburse the cost of provision and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice. London Borough of Haringey (25 018 609) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan because she has exercised her right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to hold the annual review when it did. We cannot investigate the personnel matters or the actions of school staff. It is reasonable for Ms X to raise her concerns about the disclosure of personal date with the ICO. The Council has provided a suitable remedy for the delay in its complaint handling. Leeds City Council (25 023 519) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of an Education, Health and Care Plan. Part of the complaint is late and there is no good reason for us to consider it now. We cannot investigate part of the complaint because the complainant has used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and the Courts have decided that the Ombudsman cannot intervene where the right to appeal has been used. We will not investigate part of this complaint as an investigation would not add anything significant to the Council’s investigation. Liverpool City Council (25 026 891) Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about a school’s decision to close between 19 and 23 January and the action taken to address mould in classrooms. The law prevents us considering complaints about the management of schools. Warwickshire County Council (25 031 153) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about school transport because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Suffolk County Council (26 002 534) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s data handling during a Tribunal appeal about her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because we cannot investigate matters Mrs X has already raised with the Tribunal to resolve. And, the Information Commissioner is the suitable body to consider data protection complaints. Essex County Council (26 003 654) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s actions following its refusal to carry out an Education, Health and Care reassessment. This is because she has used her right of appeal to a tribunal. Other issues raised have not caused Miss X a significant enough injustice to justify investigating. Berry Hill Primary School (26 008 145) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the School’s actions to justify our involvement. Royal Borough of Greenwich (26 012 408) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation. Nottinghamshire County Council (26 014 454) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a home to school transport application. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation. London Borough of Waltham Forest (25 021 249) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an allegation of harm to a child. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, any injustice has already been remedied by the Council and there is another body better placed to investigate. London Borough of Sutton (25 024 807) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement with Miss X when she was a young person. The complaint is late and there is no good reason for us to investigate it now. Derbyshire County Council (25 024 880) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about child protection action. The complaint has already been substantially upheld and investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a significantly different outcome. Cheshire West & Chester Council (25 029 882) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of a children's statutory complaint. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council's decision to pause the Stage three statutory complaints process while related court proceedings are ongoing. Liverpool City Council (26 013 322) Summary: We will not investigate X’s complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement with his family, or its refusal to consider his complaint. Social Work England is better placed to consider the substantive matters, and we would be unlikely to find fault in the Council’s decision to refuse the complaint. Wakefield Metropolitan District Council (26 014 197) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about information the Council presented during court proceedings. The law prevents us from investigating matters which have been subject to court proceedings. Dorset Council (26 014 205) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about information the Council presented during court proceedings. The law prevents us from investigating matters which have been subject to court proceedings. Royal Borough of Greenwich (26 014 555) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about information the Council provided during court proceedings. The complaint is late, and the law prevents us from investigating complaints about the start of court action or what happened in court. Suffolk County Council (25 025 787) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s actions regarding Mr X’s child’s school attendance. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome or achieve anything more for Mr X. Buckinghamshire Council (25 026 506) 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. Leeds City Council (25 027 152) Summary: We have upheld this complaint about the Council’s failure to complete an Education, Health and Care Plan for Ms X’s child within the statutory timeframe. The Council has agreed to provide a suitable remedy, and this removes the need for us to investigate. Medway Council (25 027 279) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan annual review. This is because the issue concerns the issue concerns the way the Council reached its decision about the contents of his Education, Health and Care Plan and that decision carried a right of appeal to a Tribunal which it would have been reasonable for Mrs X to use. Surrey County Council (25 028 343) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of an Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because Mrs X had the right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and it would be reasonable for her to do so. We also cannot investigate issues about the internal management of a school. North Northamptonshire Council (25 028 405) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her child school travel assistance. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify us investigating. Surrey County Council (25 029 687) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the content of an Education Health and Care Plan. Mrs X has appealed to the Tribunal about this matter and so the law says we cannot investigate. Liverpool City Council (26 007 808) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a home to school transport application. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation. Herefordshire Council (26 010 391) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council withdrawing home to school transport. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Kent County Council (26 010 642) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the suitability of transport the Council has arranged for Ms X’s child to travel to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Hertfordshire County Council (26 012 079) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation. Torbay Council (26 014 021) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council communicates with a political representative about special educational needs and disability matters. This is because we have decided any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Slough Borough Council (24 022 733) Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her son Y that the Council failed to secure the special educational provision in his Education, Health and Care Plan, failed to comply with the legal timescales for reviewing his plan, and had poor communication. We find the Council at fault for not securing all of Y’s special educational provision, not completing an annual review in time, and for poor communication. This caused significant injustice of missed educational provision, frustration, uncertainty and time and trouble. The Council has offered a symbolic payment and service improvements that remedy the injustice. Hampshire County Council (25 011 651) Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with his requests for the parental mileage costs of taking his daughter to an alternative education provision causing distress and financial loss. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters. So, we have completed our investigation. Southend-on-Sea City Council (25 015 293) Summary: The Council was at fault in failing to secure the therapeutic provision included in child Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This fault caused Y a loss of therapeutic provision, and their mother, Mrs X, frustration and uncertainty. The Council agreed to apologise, make a payment to remedy the injustice caused by its fault, and ensure provision is secured in future. Hertfordshire County Council (25 016 031) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to secure suitable educational provision when her daughter, Y, was unable to attend school. We find the Council at fault for failing to consider whether it owed a section 19 duty. This caused Y and Mrs X uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused. North Northamptonshire Council (25 016 613) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to parents’ concerns about a primary school because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (25 019 752) Summary: We have ended our investigation into Mr X’s complaint about the actions of the Council relating to his child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because some parts of Mr X’s complaint are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate and there is no worthwhile outcome investigating the remaining points within jurisdiction. Essex County Council (25 020 540) Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to tell Mrs X that if she paid for a private educational psychologist assessment for her child’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) assessment, it would not mean the assessment would finish any sooner, or that it would not reimburse her. If the Council had not been at fault, Mrs X likely would not have paid for the advice, so the Council will reimburse her. Lancashire County Council (25 024 337) Summary: We upheld part of Miss X’s complaint about delay in the Education, Health and Care Plan process for her child, Y. The Council agreed to apologise and pay Miss X £950. We will not investigate the remainder about the suitability of the Y’s school because it is outside of our jurisdiction. Buckinghamshire Council (25 024 769) Summary: We have upheld this complaint about the Council’s failure to complete an Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment for Mr 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. East Sussex County Council (25 024 811) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to make alternative educational provision for the complainant’s child. This is because the complainant has used his right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability), and the subject of the complaint is not separable from matters which have been, or could have been, considered by the Tribunal. London Borough of Ealing (24 022 640) Summary: We have discontinued the investigation. The Council is still considering part of Mr X’s complaint through the statutory children’s complaints procedure. The remaining matters concern court proceedings, or issues closely connected to those proceedings, which we cannot or have decided not to investigate. Further investigation would not achieve a worthwhile outcome. North Yorkshire Council (25 023 514) Summary: We have upheld Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s dismissal of her concerns that it failed to properly consider her children’s needs. The Council has now agreed to consider Miss X’s complaint under the statutory procedure and a remedy for delay. This provides a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Kent County Council (25 024 257) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Children’s Social Care services. This is because it relates to matters that have been the subject of court proceedings. We will not investigate matters that might be separable to those proceedings because we could not add to the Council’s response. Therefore there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by an investigation. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (25 024 709) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his dealings with Children’s Services in 2024 because there is nothing we could add to the Council’s response, and nothing worthwhile we could achieve by investigating his complaint now. East Sussex County Council (25 025 174) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council exercised its child protection duties. This is because it is about the start of a criminal investigation and the law prevents us from investigating these matters. We will not investigate part of this complaint as we could not add anything significant to the investigation carried out by the Council and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (25 026 559) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about parental responsibility and access to a child because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. West Berkshire Council (26 011 038) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement with Miss X’s family. The law prevents us from investigating matters which have been subject to court proceedings. Suffolk County Council (25 012 689) Summary: Miss F complained about the Council’s handling of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. We found there was a delay issuing the final plan which caused distress, delayed appeal rights and a loss of SEND provision for two months. The Council has agreed to reimburse Miss F for the cost of private OT assessments she obtained and make other payments to remedy the injustice. Cambridgeshire County Council (25 014 953) Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to ensure alternative provision was available to Child Y when they were permanently excluded, and again when their placement broke down. This meant Child Y was without education for significant periods of time. The Council has agreed to apologise and make financial payments in recognition of distress. Manchester City Council (25 017 225) Summary: We upheld a complaint from Miss X, finding the Council at fault for not doing more to support her son having access to education. This included failures by the Council to complete a reassessment of his Education, Health and Care Plan and delays following a review. We considered the combined faults caused injustice as a loss of education provision and distress. The Council accepted recommendations we made to remedy this injustice and improve its service, set out at the end of this statement. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (25 018 883) Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to properly consider if it needed to arrange alternative education for Mr X’s child, W, when they struggled to attend school. This caused Mr X avoidable uncertainty about whether, had the Council not been at fault, it would have arranged education for W. To remedy Mr X’s injustice, the Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment. The Council will also take action to prevent fault in future. Suffolk County Council (25 023 424) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the Education, Health and Care planning process. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. London Borough of Wandsworth (25 024 230) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Education Health and Care plan delays. Parts of this complaint is late, or it is reasonable for Miss X to take the issue to the Tribunal. On the parts of the complaint we could investigate, the Council has already offered a proportionate remedy. This removes the need for us to investigate. North Yorkshire Council (25 024 355) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about school transport because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Norfolk County Council (25 024 603) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the management of the complainant’s son’s special educational needs. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation, and the complainant has used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (25 024 786) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s management of the complainant’s child’s special educational needs. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons for us to consider it now. Buckinghamshire Council (25 026 496) 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. Suffolk County Council (25 027 777) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about school transport because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (26 008 406) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the outcome of a school admissions appeal panel. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Birmingham City Council (26 009 384) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide free transport to school for Ms X’s child. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Sunderland City Council (26 009 903) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a school allocation for Miss X’s child. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision to warrant further investigation. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (26 011 125) Summary: We have decided not to investigate Miss X’s complaint about the school admissions panel refusing her appeal. The Council upheld her complaint and has agreed to remedy the complainant’s injustice by completing a new appeal Further investigation by us would therefore not be proportionate. Derbyshire County Council (26 013 309) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an incident on school transport because there is nothing we could add to the Council’s response. London Borough of Enfield (26 013 971) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to consider Mr X’s child’s needs when deciding his education placement through the EHCP process. This is because Mr X has a right of appeal to a Tribunal and it is reasonable to expect him to use it. Leeds City Council (26 014 038) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about school transport because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Surrey County Council (26 014 041) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about alternative educational provision and special educational provision. Mrs X has appealed to the First-Tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). Norfolk County Council (25 016 426) Summary: We have upheld Ms X’s complaint because the Council should have considered her complaints under the statutory procedure. The Council has now agreed to investigate this complaint under the statutory procedure, providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Dorset Council (25 024 288) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of contact arrangements. This is because there is not enough evidence the Council is at fault to warrant an investigation. North Northamptonshire Council (26 008 407) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint because it concerns a report produced for the Family Court. The law prevents us from considering the content or preparation of court reports. Norfolk County Council (25 029 378) 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 his concerns as part of the related court proceedings. We also could not achieve a worthwhile outcome. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (25 012 927) Summary: Ms X complained the Council named a school in her daughter’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan that was unable to meet her daughter’s needs and refused to hold an urgent review of the EHC Plan. Mrs X also complained the Council failed to provide a suitable education or the provision specified in her daughter’s EHC Plan for a whole school year. We found the failure to hold an annual review within the statutory timeframes is fault. As is the Council’s failure to ensure Y received a suitable education or the provision set out in her EHC Plan. This fault has caused Ms X and Y an injustice. The Council will apologise to Ms X and Y and make payments to Ms X. Cambridgeshire County Council (25 013 012) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to complete an Education, Health and Care needs assessment for his son within statutory timeframes, and he was not attending school full time. We found the Council at fault with its significant delays and not properly considering its alternative provision duty, causing significant frustration and uncertainty. The Council agreed to apologise and make symbolic payments to recognise the injustice caused. It also agreed to take action to improve its services. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (25 014 594) Summary: The Council failed to process and deal with the transfer of an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan from another council area in line with law and statutory guidance for Mrs X’s son, Mr Z. It failed to hold an annual review before amending Mr Z’s Plan and failed to put in place any education between September 2025 and March 2026. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr Z and Mrs X and make a payment to acknowledge the injustice caused. It also agreed to carry out an organisational action plan to ensure it processes transferred EHC Plans in line with law and guidance in the future. Milton Keynes Council (25 014 638) Summary: Miss X complains the Council has not carried out any annual reviews for her Education, Health and Care Plan for five years. Miss X says this has caused her distress and meant she has not been able to access education. We have found fault in the Councils actions for failing to complete an annual review and failing to provide Miss X with education. The Council has agreed to write to Miss X to issue an apology, pay her a symbolic payment and complete service improvements. Medway Council (25 014 645) Summary: Miss X complained that the Council failed to arrange suitable alternative education for her son, B, after his school closed. She said this caused B to miss out on education for a significant period which affected his wellbeing and caused her uncertainty and inconvenience. We found the Council at fault for failing to secure an alternative school place or other educational provision for B for a prolonged period. The Council has apologised and made a symbolic payment to Miss X in acknowledgement of the injustice caused. It has also made improvements to its service. We consider these to be suitable remedies. Suffolk County Council (25 015 795) Summary: There was fault by the Council. The Council responded to Mrs X’s concerns, but it did not ensure she was involved in the development of her son’s targets. There were also some discrepancies between the Education Health and Care Plan, and the education her son received. This caused Mrs X worry and frustration, and the Council will apologise to Mrs X for the impact on her. Somerset Council (25 016 814) Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed arranging and funding provision in her son B's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. She also complained about delays in the EHC annual review process. We found the Council at fault for the delays and loss of provision. This caused B significant distress and Miss X avoidable stress, frustration and financial difficulty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice. Cambridgeshire County Council (25 017 677) Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council delayed carrying out a phase transfer review for her son and did not rectify errors in annual review documentation. We have found that the Council was at fault. However, it has already offered a suitable remedy. We have not investigated Mrs X's complaint about the implementation of her son’s 2024 Education, Health and Care plan. This complaint is late and there is no good reason why Mrs X could not have complained to us sooner. Westmorland and Furness Council (25 021 454) Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mrs X’s complaint about the delay holding her son’s annual review and finalising his Educational, Health and Care plan. During our investigation the Council apologised to Mrs X and offered to pay her a suitable financial remedy for the delay in holding the annual review, so further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. The delay in finalising the plan has not resulted in a significant injustice, and we have not investigated this matter further. London Borough of Haringey (25 023 893) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the process of reviewing and amending the complainant’s child’s Education Health and Care plan. The complaint about matters which took place before 2025 is late and there are no good reasons to consider it now. The later aspects of the complaint have already been upheld, or could reasonably have been the subject of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). West Berkshire Council (25 024 592) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of an Education, Health and Care assessment. This is because the complainant has used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and the Courts have decided that the Ombudsman cannot intervene where the right to appeal has been used. Hertfordshire County Council (25 026 761) Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s failure to provide her child, Y, with school placement, full-time education and with the provision set out in Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan. Miss X also complained the Council failed to provide her with respite support. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Y and Miss X. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused. Surrey County Council (26 008 455) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide free transport to school for Ms X’s child. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Manchester City Council (26 010 805) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of an application for home-to-school transport assistance. This is because there is not enough evidence the Council is at fault to warrant an investigation. Surrey County Council (26 011 871) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to withdraw school transport for the complainant’s children. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. Coventry City Council (25 024 736) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s actions which have been considered by a court in relation to the care of her child. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been considered in court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so. Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 029 531) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to accept Miss X’s complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (26 011 347) Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed progressing a complaint to stage two of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint by completing its investigation without further delay. Shropshire Council (25 004 976) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide suitable alternative provision to her granddaughter when she could not attend school. We cannot investigate the period from January 2025 when the Council decided not to reassess the Education, Health and Care Plan which Mrs X appealed. The loss of education is too closely linked to the matters subject to appeal. For the period September 2024 to January 2025, we found fault causing uncertainty and consider the recommended action of an apology and symbolic payment provide a suitable remedy. Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 026 305) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the school named in her child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care Plan and Council decision-making related to Y’s school transport. We cannot investigate her disagreement with the named school because she used her right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal. Since bringing her complaint to us, the Council has reviewed its decision and upheld her appeal regarding Y’s school transport. An investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome or achieve anything more. Kent County Council (25 027 607) 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. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation by us. Archbishop Beck Catholic College (26 007 614) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the outcome of a school admissions appeal panel. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. West Northamptonshire Council (26 008 595) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide free school transport to Ms X’s child. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Kent County Council (26 008 930) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide free post-16 transport to education. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Derby City Council (26 009 886) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about school admissions. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Leeds City Council (26 009 983) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the school admissions panel to warrant investigation. Essex County Council (26 010 390) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about school transport provided by the taxi service commissioned by the Council. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Staffordshire County Council (26 013 591) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a school’s role in issuing a Fixed Penalty Notice for school non-attendance. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about the internal management of schools. For the rest, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider Miss X’s resulting complaint, and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (26 013 700) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about school transport to an out-of-borough Church of England school because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (24 019 251) Summary: The Council has already accepted that it was at fault for how it supported Mrs X as a special guardian, and that this caused her an injustice. Its proposed symbolic financial remedy, however, did not adequately recognise that injustice. It has now agreed to offer Mrs X an increased payment in line with our guidance on remedies. Swindon Borough Council (25 013 443) Summary: Mr and Mrs Y complained about the Council's handling of safeguarding concerns raised about their care of two foster children. Although the Council has already upheld part of the complaint, shortcomings in its complaint investigation meant the substantive concerns were not fully addressed. We found fault in the Council's handling of the safeguarding process and complaint which caused uncertainty and distress. The Council will make a symbolic payment and invite Mr and Mrs Y to provide a written account to be placed on the Council’s records. City of Doncaster Council (25 019 943) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council’s decision not to investigate his stage two complaint about his child. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making to justify our involvement. West Northamptonshire Council (25 023 619) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the way the Council dealt with her complaint about its handling of her safeguarding concerns about her child. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s handling to justify us investigating. It would also be reasonable for Ms X to take any issues she has with the existing care and contact arrangements for her child back to court. London Borough of Croydon (25 024 432) Summary: We have upheld Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in completing consideration of her complaints under the statutory procedure. The Council has agreed to resolve this complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Ms X by the delay. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (26 002 712) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about her request for a parent carer assessment and the support provided for her son because there is nothing we could add to the Council’s investigation at this time. Trafford Council (26 012 938) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to accept Mr X’s complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement, and the substantive matters would be better placed with the Information Commissioner’s Office. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (25 025 598) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s children’s services’ involvement in Mr X’s child’s case. The substantive parts of the complaint are about matters that have been considered in court, so the law prevents us from investigating them. The related matters are not proportionate for us to investigate in isolation. 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