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. City of York Council (25 005 046) Summary: We upheld Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to deliver the provision in her son Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This meant Y’s needs were not sufficiently met, and it caused Mrs X distress. The Council was also at fault for its communication with Mrs X and its handling of her complaint which caused her further distress and uncertainty. Leeds City Council (25 016 580) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to complete the Education, Health and Care (EHC) assessment process and issue her son, Y’s, final EHC Plan within statutory timescales. She also complained it failed to provide appropriate alternative provision to Y. The Council was at fault. It did not complete the EHC assessment process and issue Y’s final EHC Plan within statutory timescales. It also delayed arranging alternative provision for Y and did not appropriately evidence how it considered the amount of provision it offered was suitable. Because of the fault, Ms X suffered uncertainty and a frustrated right of appeal. Y also missed out on provision. The Council will make symbolic payments. Leicestershire County Council (25 016 773) Summary: Ms F complained the Council caused delays in the Education, Health and Care plan process for her daughter (X) and failed to find her a suitable specialist placement. The Council apologised and made a payment to acknowledge the impact its delays caused. We found the Council’s remedy was appropriate. It was not at fault for failing to provide X with an education and special educational needs provision for the 2024/25 academic year as a school and alternative provision placement was available to her. London Borough of Barnet (25 016 916) Summary: Miss X complained on behalf of her daughter Y about the Council’s decision to provide a personal transport allowance instead of making the transport arrangements itself, and then failed to provide adequate funding to cover the transport. We find no fault in how the Council made its decision to provide a personal transport allowance and therefore cannot question the outcome. We have decided to end our investigation into matters after that point, which includes the level of funding, because it is reasonable for Miss X to have appealed the Council’s decision to provide an allowance, she did not do so, and we cannot achieve the outcome Miss X wants. Birmingham City Council (25 020 556) Summary: We found the Council at fault for not considering and recording its section 19 duties when Dr X asked for alternative provision in November 2024 and in February 2025 when Y missed 15 school days. The Council agreed to apologise to Dr X and Y and pay £200 to recognise the avoidable distress and uncertainty its actions caused to Dr X and Y. The Council has also agreed to carry out service improvements about how it makes, carries out and communicates decisions about its section 19 duties. Blackpool Borough Council (25 025 616) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a council officer’s conduct and the content of their report for the Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment process. This is because Miss X has used her right of appeal to challenge the Council’s decision not to issue an Education, Health and Care Plan and it would not be a good use of our resources to investigate separately how the Council dealt with her complaint about the matter. Lincolnshire County Council (26 000 606) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to decline Miss X’s application for post 16 education transport for her child. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council considered the matter to justify investigating. Worcestershire County Council (26 002 029) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council refused her request for compensation because it is too late. Worcestershire County Council (26 013 547) Summary: We upheld Miss X’s complaint about how the Council handled her application for school travel assistance. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by issuing an apology and offering Miss X a fresh appeal. City of Wolverhampton Council (25 024 473) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council gave her incorrect advice as a Care Leaver, resulting in debt. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons why it could not have been brought to us sooner. Oxfordshire County Council (25 024 574) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in its child protection involvement of Mrs X’s child, because matters are subject to ongoing care proceedings. Additionally, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s complaint handling to justify our involvement. Kent County Council (25 026 523) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s administration of the grammar school test as part of the school admission process. This is because it would have been reasonable for the complainant to pursue the matter by way of an appeal. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 026 659) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) dealt with a safeguarding concern about Ms X. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making and we cannot achieve the outcomes Ms X wants. Liverpool City Council (25 027 068) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about safeguarding failures. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons Miss X did not bring this complaint to us sooner. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (25 031 973) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about advice a social worker gave his tenants because we cannot achieve the outcome he wants from his complaint. London Borough of Barnet (26 015 936) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s contact with X’s family. This is because the matters complained about are already part of family court proceedings and the law does not allow us to investigate what happens in court. West Northamptonshire Council (26 016 357) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to accept Mr X’s complaint under the children’s statutory complaint procedure. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to warrant our involvement. London Borough of Barnet (26 016 549) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to consider Miss X’s complaint under the children’s statutory complaint procedure. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement. London Borough of Sutton (26 016 844) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions relating to an assessment it carried out in 2020. This is because the matters complained about are not separable from court proceedings that have already happened or are ongoing and could reasonably be raised in court. Suffolk County Council (26 016 511) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to provide alternative educational provision. Miss X has appealed to a tribunal and so the law prevents us from investigating. London Borough of Newham (25 011 206) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to respond to Mrs X’s requests to confirm who funded the special educational needs provision set out in her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because the issue did not cause Mrs X or her son significant injustice. Hartlepool Borough Council (25 013 733) Summary: We have found fault with the Council for delaying its section 19 decision. This left Mr X’s daughter without education for 9 months when she was unable to attend school. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment. West Northamptonshire Council (25 013 935) Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council carried out an Annual Review of her son’s (Y) Educational Health and Care Plan and its failure to arrange alternative education and special educational provision for Y when he was out of school. She also raised the issue of the Council’s complaint handling. We found no fault with the Council. We cannot investigate the Council’s post-review amendments to Y’s plan as they were part of Mrs X’s appeal to the Tribunal. We will not investigate anything that was linked to Mrs X’s appeal. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (25 016 821) Summary: The Council was at fault for not advising Mrs X of the concerns raised by her child, Y’s, school in its consultation response, for delays in amending Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan after an annual review and for delay in arranging provision when Y was out of school. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and make a payment to acknowledge the frustration, uncertainty, delayed appeal rights and missed provision the faults caused. Leicestershire County Council (25 018 902) Summary: Mrs X complained her son has been out of education since July 2024 due to delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. She says the alternative provision has been limited and does not amount to a full-time suitable education which she says has left her unable to work and has caused distress to the whole family. There were delays and the Council failed to properly consider its duties to provide a suitable full-time education including provision for special educational needs. A remedy including an apology and symbolic payment is agreed. Essex County Council (25 021 028) Summary: Mr X complained the council changed his daughter’s transport arrangements which resulted in her travelling without essential equipment as the Council said the transport provider could not accommodate the equipment. We have found the Council was at fault. The Council will now take action to address the injustice. Cumberland Council (25 021 040) Summary: We cannot investigate part of Miss X’s complaint about how the Council secured the content of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan or her complaint about alternative provision because she appealed to a tribunal, and the law says we cannot investigate. We cannot investigate matters relating to her safeguarding concerns about a school because the matters relate to the internal management of a school. We will not investigate the Council’s complaint handling or overview of the concerns because the tests in our Assessment Code are not met. Bedford Borough Council (25 025 232) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to re-assess her child, Y’s Education, Health and Care needs and that the Council delayed issuing a decision after Y’s annual review. This is because there is no evidence of fault to justify investigating. London Borough of Ealing (25 026 331) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about alternative and special educational provision. The complainant has used the right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability and this prevents us considering the provision made for her child. Hayfield Cross Church Of England School (26 012 782) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the School’s admissions appeal panel refusing her appeal. It is unlikely we would find fault which caused Mrs X to lose out on a school place. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (26 015 079) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about staff at an educational setting. The law prevents us from investigating certain educational matters. In any case, the complaint is made late. London Borough of Ealing (26 016 447) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council refused to carry out an Education, Health and Care needs assessment. This is because the complainant has used their right of appeal to a tribunal about the same matter. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (25 025 901) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about children services’ actions. There are no reasons to justify reinvestigating the Council’s Children Act statutory complaints’ procedure reply. Nottinghamshire County Council (25 026 020) Summary: We cannot investigate part of Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s child protection involvement with her family because the matter was considered by a court. We will not investigate part because it is likely the matters have been or could have been raised during court proceedings. We will not investigate the Council’s complaint handling because there is insufficient injustice. Medway Council (25 027 537) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse a blue badge to Miss Y’s child. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. Lincolnshire County Council (25 031 333) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) service. This is because further investigation is unlikely to achieve a worthwhile outcome. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (26 014 123) Summary: We have upheld Mrs Y’s complaint about the Council’s delay in considering her complaints under the statutory procedure for children’s social care. The Council has now agreed to progress the complaint under the statutory procedure promptly and consider an appropriate remedy for the delay. This provides a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused so we are satisfied with the actions the Council has agreed to take. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (26 016 339) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions during court proceedings. There is insufficient evidence of fault in its complaint handling to warrant an investigation. Norfolk County Council (26 016 575) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to investigate Ms X’s concerns about its contact with her family. It is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s decision, not to investigate. Nor will we investigate a complaint about those matters either, because it is a late complaint and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate it. Lancashire County Council (25 000 738) Summary: We found fault with the Council delaying outside the statutory timescales in producing Mrs X’s child’s Education, Health and Care Plan, delaying its consideration about whether it owed a Section 19 duty to provide alternative provision of education to Mrs X’s child and for delays handling Mrs X’s complaint. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and provide her with symbolic financial gestures for the injustice its fault caused to Mrs X and her child. Norfolk County Council (25 008 912) Summary: There was no fault by the Council in the provision of interim education after a child, Y, was permanently excluded from school. Y received between 17 and 21 hours of provision per week. Lancashire County Council (25 013 868) Summary: Miss Z complained on behalf of a child’s parents about the Council’s failure to complete their child’s (Y) Education, Health and Care Plan review within statutory timescales. We found there was a significant delay by the Council in issuing a final amended Plan for Y. This was fault. The Council has already made several service improvements and has agreed to make a symbolic payment to Y and his parents for the injustice caused by the faults. Buckinghamshire Council (25 016 212) Summary: We find fault with the Council for the delay in issuing Child Y’s EHCP and its communication with Mr X. We do not find fault with the Council for its consideration of its section 19 duties to arrange alternative provision. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy to reflect the delay and the distress caused. Essex County Council (25 019 641) Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not amend her son’s Education, Health and Care plan following her son’s annual review and used an outdated plan to consult with schools. We have found the Council was at fault. The Council has proposed a suitable remedy to the injustice caused by its fault. London Borough of Wandsworth (25 020 914) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her daughter with a suitable full time education when she was unable to attend a Pupil Referral Unit (PRU). We discontinued our investigation as it is not clear that Mrs X wishes us to pursue her complaint. Bath and North East Somerset Council (25 025 425) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about failings in an Education Health and Care Plan’s assessment as these are not separable from matters appealed to a Tribunal. And the delay in producing the Education Health and Care Plan is not significant enough to warrant an investigation. Worcestershire County Council (25 026 298) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the way the Council made its decision not to carry out a reassessment of her child’s special educational needs. This is because Miss X has used her right of appeal to challenge the decision itself. Derbyshire County Council (26 008 602) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council delaying in invoicing her for her contribution towards post 16 home to school transport which she accepts she owes. We are unlikely to find any Council fault has directly caused her an injustice. St John Payne School (Chelmsford) (26 010 987) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the school’s admissions appeal panel refusing his appeal. It is unlikely we would find fault which caused Mr X to lose out on a school place for his daughter, B. Whitley Bay High School (26 017 012) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the independent appeal panel’s decision not to admit her daughter to the school. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Southampton City Council (25 025 260) Summary: We have upheld Miss X’s complaint about how the Council handled her complaint about the short breaks allocation for her disabled child. We will not investigate this complaint because the Council has agreed a suitable remedy. Trafford Council (25 031 721) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council refused to accept her complaint because it concerns events that happened more than 12 months ago. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to justify investigating. Wiltshire Council (26 009 048) Summary: We will not investigate X’s complaint about the Council’s child protection investigation. This is because it is made late and I see no good reason to exercise discretion and consider it now. Nottinghamshire County Council (26 014 712) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council has failed to safeguard her child. This is because it is closely connected to matters before the courts. Liverpool City Council (26 015 081) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council’s children’s services. This is because it concerns matters that have been considered in court and because it is made late. There is insufficient evidence of fault with the Council’s decision not to investigate the matters for the same reasons. Birmingham City Council (26 016 226) Summary: We will not investigate X’s complaint about whistleblowing. It is reasonable for X to escalate their concerns to the relevant prescribed body. Essex County Council (26 016 256) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s actions when she was a looked after child and its handling of her complaint about this. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to consider it now. Kent County Council (25 026 129) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in issuing an Education Health and Care plan and fault in complaint handling. The Council has upheld the complaint and investigation would not add anything significant or lead to a different outcome. Torbay Council (25 028 153) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to identify an appropriate mainstream educational option for the complainant. This is because she has appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) against the Council’s decision not to maintain her Education Health and Care plan, and the subject of the complaint is not separable from the matters the Tribunal may consider. London Borough of Redbridge (25 013 382) Summary: The Council was at fault in delaying assessing child Y’s need for an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. It was also at fault in delaying issuing an EHC Plan for Y following mediation. The Council’s faults caused Y’s mother, Mrs X, uncertainty, and delayed her appeal rights. The Council has agreed to apologise and make Mrs X a payment to remedy the injustice caused by its faults. The Council was not at fault for failing to deliver direct payments for Y’s agreed social care support. Norfolk County Council (25 013 833) Summary: The Council failed to ensure Ms X’s children, Y and Z received suitable alternative provision or any of the specialist provision in their Education, Health and Care Plans between May and December 2024 when they could not attend school for medical reasons. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment recognise the impact this had on Y and Z’s education and the distress and uncertainty caused to Ms X. Brighton & Hove City Council (25 015 125) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed completing her child Y's EHC Plan, failed to ensure he received suitable education and the special educational provision in his EHC Plan, delayed implementing the agreed outcome of mediation and communicated poorly. There was fault causing injustice, including delayed appeal rights, uncertainty and loss of opportunity for Y, and avoidable distress and time and trouble for Mrs X. The Council agreed actions to remedy the injustice caused. Staffordshire County Council (25 019 170) Summary: Mrs X complains about the delay from the Council in completing an Education, Health and Care needs assessment for her child. She says the Council failed to meet statutory deadlines and has not agreed to pay for an occupational therapist report she paid for. Mrs X confirms this issue has affected both her mental health and her child’s health and learning. We found the Council at fault. It delayed in completing the Education, Health and Care needs assessment and further delayed in completing the plan. We find that it should apologise to Mrs X and make payment to recognise the injustice caused. London Borough of Redbridge (25 019 664) Summary: The Council was not at fault for cancelling the planned annual review of child Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan when their family moved to a different council area. The Council was also not at fault for failing to deliver direct payments for child Y’s agreed social care support. I have ended my investigation into the other aspects of Mrs X’s complaint. Worcestershire County Council (25 026 206) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the lack of educational provision the Council provided and matters relating to her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because the complaint has been upheld and investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to lead to a significantly different outcome. Devon County Council (25 026 397) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council handled matters relating to his child’s educational provision. This is because the complaint is late and it would have been reasonable for Mr X to complain to us sooner. London Borough of Islington (25 031 382) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing a fixed penalty notice for school non-attendance. This is because Miss X paid the penalty charge, so it is not appropriate for us to investigate it. Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (26 002 269) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of an Independent Review Panel considering a permanent school exclusion. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. London Borough of Wandsworth (25 013 658) Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to complete actions it agreed at stage three of the children’s statutory complaint procedure. The Council was at fault for failing to implement the agreed actions. This caused Mrs X and her son, Y, further distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council should apologise, make further symbolic payments, and send us evidence of service improvements and an action plan for completion of agreed works. Kent County Council (25 024 048) Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council handled Mr X’s complaint under its corporate procedure instead of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by dealing with it under the statutory complaint procedure. It will also make a payment to Mr X to acknowledge the delay. London Borough of Enfield (26 003 592) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about a report the Council had prepared about her child for court or its refusal to consider her complaint about this. The law prevents us from investigating anything that has been or is the subject of court proceedings. There is not enough evidence fault and we also cannot achieve the outcomes Miss X wants. London Borough of Bromley (26 015 990) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s children’s services refusing to consider her complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement, and we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X seeks. Leeds City Council (25 014 805) Summary: The Council is at fault for delay completing the Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment and finalising the Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council apologised and explained this was because of a delay receiving the Educational Psychologist report. The Council has offered a financial remedy for the frustration and uncertainty this caused. Swindon Borough Council (25 019 231) Summary: There was a ten-month delay by the Council in issuing an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This was fault. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic financial payment to acknowledge the impact of the delay, and make service improvements. West Sussex County Council (25 024 684) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s actions when her child was unable to attend school and the support it provided for his special educational needs. There is insufficient evidence of remaining injustice to warrant an investigation, and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Surrey County Council (25 026 089) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to secure educational provision for her child because Mrs X has used her right to appeal to a Tribunal and the law says we cannot investigate. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about her child’s education prior to April 2025 because an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve anything more for her. North Yorkshire Council (25 026 146) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about arrangements for education transport. The Council has already upheld the complaint, and our intervention would not add anything significant or lead to a different outcome. East Sussex County Council (25 028 762) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s request it assess his child for an Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because there were appeal right to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and it was reasonable for Mr X to use them. Even if we were to investigate, there is no worthwhile outcome we could now achieve. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (25 029 597) Summary: There was fault by the Council in failing to consider the holistic needs of a disabled parent and disabled child, where the parent’s disability prevents them facilitating travel to the early years setting named in the child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. While there is no transport duty for young children under the Education Act 1996, the Council does have discretion to make support available under various mechanisms. We would expect a council to explore the full range of options rather than risk leaving a child without access to education provision they have been assessed as needing. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment, review alternative mechanisms for support and make service improvements. Birmingham City Council (26 010 039) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X complaint about post 16 home to school transport. We are unlikely to significantly add to the Council’s offer. Latimer Arts College, Kettering (26 010 091) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel for us to be able to question its decision. Torbay Council (26 017 165) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision against providing alternative provision for his child. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process, and we cannot achieve the outcome he wants. Durham County Council (25 014 965) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to identify and meet Ms X’s child’s social care needs, and failed to properly address her subsequent complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation. Lincolnshire County Council (25 025 950) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s response to safeguarding concerns she raised about children in her extended family. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to accept and consider her complaint. Birmingham City Council (25 026 352) Summary: We will not investigate the Council’s refusal to consider Mrs X’s complaint about the accuracy and content of the Council’s reports for the court and its handling of her data protection concerns. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making. The law prevents us from investigating anything that has been or is the subject of court proceedings. We also will not reinvestigate concerns Mrs X has already taken to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). London Borough of Camden (25 031 426) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of a statutory children's services complaint. There is insufficient evidence of fault because the Council was entitled to pause the complaint while related court proceedings were ongoing and informed Miss X of her right to continue the statutory complaints procedure once those proceedings had concluded. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (25 031 489) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about his dealings with a school. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about the management of schools. Buckinghamshire Council (25 031 550) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council refused to correct assessments and records held by Children’s Services because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to advise on these matters. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (25 032 108) Summary: We have upheld Miss X’s complaint because the Council delayed considering this under the statutory children’s complaints process. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Miss X. North Yorkshire Council (26 014 440) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in the Council’s administration of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. We are satisfied with the action the Council proposes to take to address Mr X’s complaint. North Northamptonshire Council (25 015 940) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to secure all the special educational provision set out in Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan and failed to secure alternative provision for him while he was unable to attend school full time. The Council was at fault meaning Y did not receive the educational provision he was entitled to. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to recognise the injustice, and act to prevent recurrence. Hampshire County Council (25 011 967) Summary: Miss X complains the Council has not dealt properly with her daughter Y’s education, causing delay to appeal rights and missed special educational needs provision. The Council is at fault because it delayed issuing Y’s Education Health and Care Plan, delayed therapy assessments and did not respond to Miss X’s complaint properly. Miss X suffered delay to her right of appeal, Y has suffered significant delay to assessments of her needs and Miss X did not receive a proper complaint response. As well as the appropriate remedies the Council has already offered, it should apologise to Miss X and provide training and guidance. 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