Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to secure the education provision on her son H’s Education, Health and Care Plan, failed to amend the Plan, or complete any post-16 transition assessments. We find fault with the Council for failure to complete reviews or amend the Plan. We have agreed remedies for Ms X’s avoidable frustration, time and trouble and for H’s lost provision. We have also agreed service improvements.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to properly assess her blue badge application for her son in a timely manner and that it failed to make reasonable adjustments at the face-to-face assessment. The Council is at fault for failing to consider the request for reasonable adjustments and failing to provide detailed reasons for refusal of a blue badge. The Council has accepted our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused by making a payment to acknowledge the distress caused and it has agreed to make service improvements.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s delay in issuing an Education, Health and Care plan for her son, Y, and its failure to provide full-time alternative education when he was unable to attend school. The Council was a fault for delay in issuing the plan, failed to keep a record of why it decided the part-time alternative education was suitable for Y, and failed to respond to the complaint. It should apologise, make a payment to Mrs X and consider what steps it can take to reduce the delays in obtaining advice from educational psychologists.

Summary: The complainant alleged that the Council delayed in issuing a final Education, Health and Care Plan for her son, delayed in finding a suitable specialist school placement for him and failed to provide suitable alternative education when her son was not attending school. We have decided that there is no fault by the Council in respect of the substantive issues concerning delay in finding an alternative specialist placement or failure to provide alternative education. There was a slight delay in issuing a final Plan, but the injustice is minimal. We have therefore completed our investigation and are closing the complaint.

Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council reviewed her daughter, Y’s, Education, Health and Care plans in 2021 and 2022 and about its communication. The Council was at fault for delay in finalising changes to Y’s EHC plan after the 2021 annual review and for poor communication. This caused Miss X frustration, for which the Council has agreed to pay £100. Y did not experience a significant personal injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to name Ms X’s preferred school in her child’s Education, Health and Care plan. This is because Ms X has a right of appeal to a Tribunal and it is reasonable for her to use it.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has managed to education of a child. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Some issues are also made late.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the assessment of the complainant’s son’s special educational needs and the provision made to meet those needs. The complainant has used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and this places the key matters outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault and so we cannot question the panel’s decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in relation to Miss X’s children. We could not come to sound conclusions at this time because care proceedings are ongoing.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to ensure the young person he fosters received suitable education. The Council was at fault for failing to consider Mr X’s complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. This meant Mr X went to unnecessary time and trouble going through the Council's corporate complaints procedure and complaining to the Ombudsman. The Council has agreed to apologise and complete an investigation under stage two of the statutory procedure. It will also carry out training for relevant staff.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of Council staff affecting the complainant’s family. This is because the complaint matters were considered and decided in court. The actions of the Council’s staff cannot be separated out from matters we have no remit to consider.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Ms X’s complaint and failure to reply to a legal letter. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The substantive matters of Ms X's complaint to the Council are not separable from matters that have formed or could reasonably have formed part of court proceedings, and we cannot investigate them. A legal ruling thus prevents us from investigating how the Council dealt with a complaint about a substantive matter we have no legal authority to investigate.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to properly advise her about the choices available for B’s education arrangements. She says the Council named Elective Home Education (EHE) on B’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan, even though she had not asked for this. Mrs X also complains the Council failed to secure special educational provision for B and failed to issue an amended Final EHC Plan. We have found the Council at fault for not addressing Mrs X’s concerns about EHE and for not securing B’s special educational provision in full. We have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council carried out an Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment for her daughter F and about a failure to provide suitable alternative provision between June and December 2022. The Council failed to consider whether it was necessary to obtain new Occupational Therapy advice which caused uncertainty around whether provision in F’s final EHC plan could have been different. It also failed to have proper oversight of alternative provision put in place for F. On balance this meant F went without suitable alternative provision during this period. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and make payments to her to acknowledge the injustice this caused her and F. It will also carry out service improvements.

Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council has managed her son, B’s, education and special educational needs since September 2021. We find the Council was at fault. This caused significant distress to Mrs X and B. The Council has appropriately remedied the injustice to Mrs X. To address the injustice to B, the Council has agreed to pay Mrs X an additional £3,069.24. The Council has also agreed to issue guidance to relevant staff.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about home to school transport as it is unlikely we would find fault.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to pay the complainants costs, after an appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. This is because the Tribunal decided not to award costs to the complainant, and we cannot investigate any complaint that has been dealt with by a tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s Schools Admissions Appeal Panel’s failure to provide his child with a place at School Y. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused them to lose out on a school place.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council did not consider its duties under the Equality Act 2010 when it carried out a child and family assessment. Mr and Mrs X also complained the Council delayed investigating their complaint that the assessment was discriminatory. We found fault by the Council in its complaint handling and the Council has agreed a remedy to address the injustice identified.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that a Council officer misled the complainant about the use to which the information he shared would be put, and failed to set out the possible outcomes of the process in which he was involved. This is because it is unlikely investigation would achieve anything significant or lead to a substantially different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council’s LADO failed to act on the complainants concerns that medical staff made a malicious referral against her. This is because the issue happened too long ago and I see no good reason to exercise discretion and investigate it now.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her son (Y) who has special educational needs with education or suitable alternative provision when he was unable to attend school due to ill health. We find the Council at fault as it did not act sooner to arrange alternative provision for Y and review the matter. The Council should apologise to Mrs X and make payments to reflect Y’s missed education and uncertainty and frustration caused. The Council should also make service improvements to prevent recurrence.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed in completing an Education Health and Care Plan for her son and failed to provide education for the entire school year from September 2021. The Council took two months longer than it should to complete the EHC plan which is fault. It has failed to show that suitable education was provided for Mrs X’s son during the time he was not attending school which is also fault. A suitable remedy is agreed.

Summary: Ms and Mr X complained the Council failed to ensure their child D received a suitable education or had their special educational needs met. There was fault in how the Council ensured D received the special educational provision set out in their Education, Health, and Care plan, and reviewed the plan. This meant D did not receive suitable education or support for their special educational needs. This also caused avoidable distress for D, Ms X, and Mr X, and avoidable time and trouble for Ms and Mr X. The Council agreed to apologise, ensure suitable education and special educational support is in place for D without delay, and pay a financial remedy. It will also ensure it considers our findings as part of its SEND Improvement Plan.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide occupational therapy provision set out in her child, Child Y’s, Education Health and Care (EHC) plan since September 2022. The Council was at fault for not providing Child Y with the occupational therapy provision set out in their EHC plan because of the failure to source an occupational therapist to provide this provision. The Council will apologise and pay Mrs X £1700 for the loss of occupational therapy provision between September 2022 and May 2023. When the Council provide Child Y with occupational therapy it will provide Mrs X with a further financial remedy to recognise any loss of provision from June 2023.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in issuing an Education Health and Care Plan. This is because investigation would achieve nothing significant.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the complainant has appealed to a tribunal. This places the matter outside our jurisdiction. We have no powers to consider the complainant’s concerns about their child’s school.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s Schools Admissions Appeal Panel’s failure to provide his child with a place at School Y. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused them to lose out on a school place.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s Schools Admissions Appeal Panel’s failure to provide her child with a place at School Y. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused them to lose out on a school place.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to follow the Children Act complaints’ procedure. It has now agreed to do so.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council failed to write to the complainant to inform him of the outcome of safeguarding enquiries it made about his child and because it failed to respond to his complaint about the matter. The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint by writing to the complainant to inform him of the outcome of its safeguarding enquiries and will consider his complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to appropriately safeguard Mr X’s child Y. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome for Mr X.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed considering a complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint by apologising to the complainant and offering to make a payment to them to remedy the time and trouble they have been too. It has also arranged a stage three panel to take place at the beginning of August.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council did not properly consider her school transport appeals for her son and daughter, who are disabled. We consider there is fault by the Council. It has agreed a remedy.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council failed to ensure the provision of full-time education for their son, Y. They also complained the Council failed to secure the provision set out in his education, health and care plan between February and November 2022. The Council failed to issued Y’s amended plan in line with the statutory timescales, and failed to ensure Y had a suitable education and the provision in his plan for two academic terms. The Council agreed to pay Mr and Mrs X £4,000 to recognise the injustice caused to Y.

Summary: Miss F complains through her mother, Mrs J, that the Council has failed to provide the provision set out in her EHC plan since July 2021. We found there was service failure which caused Miss F to miss out on education for six terms and significant distress to Mrs J. The Council has agreed to make payments to them to remedy that injustice.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to complete the recommendations it identified as being necessary in October 2022, after it upheld her complaint that it had not provided her son L, with an education for over 12 months. Mrs X said L remained without any educational provision or an up-to-date Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council failed to implement some of its own recommendations, failed to ensure L received the specialist provision from October 2022 to June 2023 and failed to review L’s Education Health and Care Plan in line with the statutory guidance. The Council agreed to pay Mrs X £5,150 to recognise the distress caused and lack of education, and it will issue L’s amended plan within one month.

Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Independent Admissions Appeal Panel considered her appeal for a place in year 3 at the School for her child Z. There were some faults in the way the Panel considered the appeal. The School has agreed to arrange a fresh appeal with a different panel to remedy the injustice this caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the suitability of a school named in an Education Health and Care Plan. The Tribunal is considering this.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s statutory complaints investigation in relation to her child. The Council was at fault as it delayed writing to Mrs X and explaining its reasons which led to a safeguarding investigation which caused Mrs X frustration. The Council recognised it was at fault and apologised to Mrs X. This was appropriate.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about children services decision to have a child protection plan. There are no good reasons why the late complaint rule should not apply.

Summary: We found fault by the Council on Mrs J’s complaint about it failing to ensure her son received suitable alternative education provision. The evidence does not show if, and how, it considered and decided whether it had a duty to provide it. There were periods of delay, and opportunities to progress were lost. It failed to deal with her complaint properly. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Summary: Mrs Y complained about the delays in the statutory Education, Health and Care plan assessment and an assessment by an educational psychologist. She also complained about the Council’s poor communication with her about the assessments. Mrs Y said the Council’s actions caused her and her son avoidable distress and uncertainty. The Council was at fault for the delays. The Council agreed to our recommendations on how it should remedy the injustice caused to Mrs Y and B.

Summary: There was fault by the Council. There was delay in carrying out an Education, Health and Care plan needs assessment. A child, Y, who could not attend primary school for 18 months had almost no education during this time. Y now has a place at a new school and is accessing some therapeutic educational provision. A payment recognises the service failure and distress caused to Mrs X.

Summary: delay by the Council amending B’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan following an emergency review meant he started special school a term later than he should have done, and the Council did not check he was receiving suitable education when he attended school part-time while waiting for the amended Plan. We have recommended a symbolic remedy for the injustice this caused.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not update or review her son’s Education Health and Care Plan (“EHCP”) in good time and was poor in its communications, resulting in distress and missed provision. We found the Council at fault. We recommended it provides an apology to Mrs X, pays her £500 for distress, pays her £100 for time and trouble, considers a further remedy upon issuing a final EHCP and acts to prevent recurrence.

Summary: The Council was at fault because it delayed completing an assessment for an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan for Mrs X’s son. The delays caused Mrs X avoidable distress because of the uncertainty of future provision for her son. The Council have agreed to pay Mrs X a financial remedy to properly recognise this injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the content of an Education Health and Care Plan. It is reasonable to expect Miss X to have appealed to the Tribunal.

Summary: Mr X complained about flaws and delays in the way the Council has investigated of his complaint under the statutory complaints process. I have found there were unnecessary delays at both stages of the statutory complaints process and the stage 2 investigation was inadequate. There were multiple failings in the care and support the Council provided to Mr X as a child in care. These failings amount to fault and caused Mr X a significant injustice which was not properly addressed under the statutory complaints process.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint as we are unlikely to find Mrs X has been caused any significant injustice by the fault she alleges against Children Services.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about special guardianship payments. Doing so would not lead to a different outcome to that already achieved through the Council’s own complaint process.