New children and education complaint decisions

A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions

Please note: our decisions are published three months 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.


Summary: Ms X complains of delay by the Council in deciding not to issue an Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan for her daughter, Z. The Council took too long to decide not to issue, and also failed to deal with Ms X’s complaint about this. However, there was no injustice as the resulting Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) Tribunal found Z did not need an EHC Plan.

Summary: Mrs F complains the Council delayed finalising an EHC Plan for her son, D, and proposed an inappropriate date for the annual review. The Council has accepted there was delay and has apologised, which is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: The Council was at fault for delays in agreeing funding for an extension to Mr C’s property, in order to create an extra bedroom for his grandson who was placed in his care in 2016. This fault has resulted in the family living in cramped conditions. The Council has agreed to offer a payment to remedy this injustice.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the statutory assessment and review process of her daughter’s, Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council has already accepted there were delays in the assessment process that affected Y’s provision and has paid Mrs X a financial remedy and made service improvements. However, there were further faults that occurred whilst the Council dealt with Mrs X’s complaint which has caused further avoidable frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise for those.

Summary: Mrs F complains about her appeal against the School’s decision to refuse a place for her child, G. There was fault by the School not providing details of how it allocated places and the names of the panel members to Mrs F before the appeal hearing. This did not cause injustice to Mrs F because the panel was still able to consider her appeal without fault. The School has agreed to amend its procedures to address the faults identified.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr Q’s complaint about the school named in his son’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because he had a right of appeal to SEND.

Summary: Ms X complains that the Council breached the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and failed to follow their complaints policy correctly when she complained about the breach. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is another body better placed to investigate.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s children services involvement with their grandchildren. It is unlikely we could significantly add to the Council’s responses and the Court approved the children’s care arrangements.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain the Council wrongly considers the placement of their grandchildren with them is a family arrangement and it failed to advise them on the options for securing the case of their grandchildren. There is no evidence to show the Council placed the grandchildren with Mr and Mrs X. The Council is at fault as it failed to provide sufficient advice to Mr and Mrs X about securing their care for their grandchildren and it delayed in considering their complaint through the children’s services statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by making a payment of £450 to Mr and Mrs X.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s preparation, service and content of a Court ordered report. The report forms part of legal proceedings and the law prevents us from investigating legal proceedings.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Ms J’s complaint about the content of a report the Council provided to court, and other bodies are better placed than we are to consider the other issues she raises.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint that the Council is at fault in refusing her application and appeal for free school transport for her daughter. This because it is unlikely we would find fault on the Council’s part.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to ensure her daughter, D, received a suitable education from February to July 2019 when she was not in school and failed to carry out her annual review according to the statutory timescales. The Council was at fault for not ensuring a suitable education for D from June to July 2019. It should make a financial payment to remedy the injustice this caused D. I have not investigated Ms X’s complaint that the Council failed to carry out D’s annual review within the statutory timescales.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint the Council breached a Court order for her contact with her child. It is reasonable to expect Miss X to apply to Court.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the information the Council provided a Court. We should not investigate her children’s welfare as a Court is considering this.

Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate Mr J’s complaint that the Council has failed to share with him information relating to meetings about his children. Further investigation is unlikely to add anything to the investigation which has already taken place.

Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate Mr J’s complaint about the actions of social workers involved with his family, and the way the Council handled his data. This is because other organisations are better placed to the consider the issues Mr J has raised.

Summary: there is no fault in the Independent Appeal Panel’s decision not to admit Mr P’s daughter, G, to the school. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed issuing an Education, Health and Care plan, failed to deliver the provision set out in the plan and failed to review it. She also complained about the alternative education provided whilst C was out of school. The Council was at fault for the delays in issuing the plan and a failure to review it. There was no fault in the alternative education it provided whilst C was out of school. The Council should apologise and pay Mrs X £350 for the time and trouble caused.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council wrongly kept her away from her son between 2010 and 2013 as she believed there was a court order in place. She also complains the Council did not promote contact and did not give her adequate information and support. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for not recognising Miss X’s son was a looked after child sooner. However, the faults did not cause Miss X any injustice. We do not find fault with the Council’s other actions.

Summary: The Council was not at fault for its actions in response to a referral which raised concerns about the welfare of Mrs B’s daughter. It acted in line with its statutory duties – and within its legal authority – by considering the available information, conducting an assessment, and closing the case.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about the Councils actions in response to allegations that the complainant physically abused his children. This is because the matters complained of have been considered in court, or were known to the Ombudsman more than 12 months ago, and are therefore out of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the information the Council gave a Court. We cannot investigate legal proceedings.

Summary: there is no fault in the Council’s February 2019 decision to refuse B’s parents’ request for his deferred entry to Reception. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman has discontinued his investigation into Mr & Mrs C’s complaint about how the Council dealt with matters relating to their son’s education. This is because a tribunal has already considered many of the matters which Mr & Mrs C raised, and it is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault with other matters raised.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council treated the complainant during a safeguarding investigation. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the complainant can complain to the Information Commissioner.

Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council handled the child protection case for her child. We cannot investigate this complaint as it relates to decisions ultimately made by the courts. The issues Miss X raises would best have been raised as part of proceedings and we cannot achieve the outcome Miss X seeks.

Summary: The Council has agreed to put Miss J’s complaint, which is about its actions before and after she left its care, through the statutory complaints process for complaints about children’s services. So the Ombudsman should not consider the matter further at this stage.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a potential breach of her personal data. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is the appropriate body to consider her concerns.

Summary: The Council failed to provide Ms X with reasons for ending support to her and her son. The Council also referred Ms X for mediation which was not suitable for her needs and she was caused distress as a result. The Council should pay Ms X £300 to recognise the distress caused and offer to provide Ms X and her family with further support.

Summary: Mr and Ms C say the Council was at fault for applying for a care order for her disabled child when the child was not at risk. The Council was at fault. Its decision to issue proceedings was wrong on the facts and law. This caused Mr and Ms C injustice. The Council has agreed to pay them £1000.