Summary: We agree with the Council’s findings of fault in the way it managed the complainant’s son’s reassessment of his Education, Health and Care Plan. This has caused a loss of education and avoidable distress and time and trouble. The Council has agreed the recommended ways to remedy this. We have therefore completed our investigation and are closing the complaint.

Summary: We upheld a complaint from Mrs B, finding the Council failed to properly consider if it owed a duty to make alternative education provision for her son during his absence from school. We considered this contributed to a loss of education provision for him, which was an injustice. The Council has accepted these findings and agreed action we recommended to remedy that injustice, comprising an apology and symbolic payment to Mrs B. It has also amended relevant policy to address what it will do when children miss school in similar circumstances.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council handled her request for a school place for Y and the way it handled her request for alternative provision while he was out of school. The Council was at fault for providing unclear communication to Mrs X, causing uncertainty, but it has already taken suitable action to address the injustice caused.

Summary: Summary: Mrs Y complained about the way the Council dealt with her child, Z’s special educational needs provision and reviews of their Education Health and Care Plans. We have found a number of faults by the Council, causing injustice, including: a failure to deliver Z’s speech and language therapy provision in 2022; and delays completing the 2023 and 2024 annual review process. The Council has already taken action to remedy some of the faults found. It has also agreed to: apologise to Mrs Y; make a payment to recognise the distress caused; and confirm the position regarding any 2025 annual review personal budget requests.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions during and after a tribunal. Some matters are out of our jurisdiction and on the matters we can consider, any injustice suffered is not significant enough to warrant further investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about fixed penalty notices issued by the Council when he kept his children away from school because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable for us.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council decided a home to school transport application for post 16 education. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to warrant further investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council changing the content of the Education, Health, and Care Plan for Miss X’s child. This is because the law says we cannot investigate when someone has used their right to appeal to a Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s response to a safeguarding referral she made regarding a child in its area because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about children’s services’ actions during court proceedings. The law prohibits us from doing so. We will not investigate late complaints about events before proceedings, as there is not a good reason for the delay in Miss X bringing them to us. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions in sharing information following court proceedings. Other parts of the complaint are not about actions of the Council, or are matters it has not yet had the opportunity to respond to.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about access to information because the Information Commissioner is better placed to advise on these matters.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that software used by the Council does not meet standards for data protection. There is another body better placed to consider her concerns.

Summary: Miss X complained about the outcome of a complaint she made through the statutory children’s complaint procedure. And that the Council has not completed the recommendations from the stage three response. There was no fault in how the Council completed the statutory complaint’s procedure, so we have no grounds to question or reinvestigate its findings. Regarding the remedies, the Council has provided them, so was not at fault.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint about the Council’s delay in following the statutory children’s complaint procedure but will not investigate it further. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to start care proceeding or information the Council provided during proceedings. This is because the law prevents us from investigating complaints about the start of court proceedings or what happens in court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about information rights. This is because the information Commissioner is a body better placed to consider Mr X’s complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the actions of Council staff in connection with her child. This is because it is too closely linked with matters before the court, so we have no remit to investigate.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s care planning for children. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about what happens in court. For the rest, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s handling of the children’s statutory complaints procedure to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to consider a complaint under the children’s statutory complaint procedure. It is unlikely we would find fault.

Summary: There was fault by the Council in failing to provide suitable education when a child could not access school, and a failure to process the annual review of the child’s Education, Health and Care Plan within statutory timeframes for two consecutive years. The child missed out on six terms of suitable education and appeal rights were delayed. The Council will apologise, pay a symbolic financial payment, and make service improvements. The complaint is upheld.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council delayed issuing an Education Heath and Care Plan for her child Y following an annual review and delayed implementing Y’s Education Other than at School Package causing distress and lost educational opportunity. We found fault by the Council as it delayed carrying out the annual review and caused uncertainty over the amount of provision Y could have been receiving while unable to attend the alternative provision placement. We have recommended a suitable remedy for the injustice caused so have completed our investigation.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s actions related to her son, Y’s, education. We found the Council failed to provide Y with specialist education provision he was due, failed to adequately communicate with Miss X and failed to handle her complaints within the terms of its policy. This caused Miss X and Y avoidable distress and frustration and meant Y missed out on education he was due. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Miss X and remind officers of relevant duties to deliver special education.

Summary: We uphold a complaint from Mr X, finding the Council delayed in issuing his son with an Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused avoidable distress, which we consider an injustice. The Council has accepted these findings and agreed to take action that we consider will remedy this injustice.

Summary: We uphold this complaint that the Council declined to issue a response to Mrs X’s complaint unless she first accepted a sum in settlement. The Council has agreed to resolve the matter by issuing the complaint response without pre-condition.

Summary: We cannot investigate part of Mrs X’s complaints about alternative educational provision or the inclusion of an Occupational Therapy report in her child’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan because she appealed to a tribunal, and the law says we cannot investigate. We will not investigate part of the complaint because it is late. We will not investigate a delay in making the EHC Plan because there is insufficient injustice.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint because the law prevents us from investigating complaints about conduct, curriculum, internal organisation, management and discipline in schools.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a school admissions matter. The complaint is late, and it is reasonable to expect Mr X to have complained to us sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to provide Miss X and her child Y with support they have been assessed as requiring. This is because the Council has carried out an investigation in line with the children’s statutory complaints procedure and offered a proportionate remedy that recognises the injustice experienced by Miss X and Y.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council considered her Blue Badge application and appeal for her child because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

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 agreed to resolve the complaint early by completing its investigation without further delay. It will also apologise and make a payment to the complainant to remedy the time and trouble they have been to.

Summary: We upheld a complaint from Miss B, finding the Council allowed drift and delay in its management of her son’s case, when he was not in full-time education. We considered this caused injustice, mainly as distress because it is uncertain if, with greater involvement, the Council education service may have done more to help him access education. The Council has accepted these findings and agreed action to remedy this injustice. It will also introduce a written policy explaining how it will carry out its duty under Section 19 of the Education Act 1996, to provide education to children missing full-time education.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s consideration of schools during an Education Health and Care Plan assessment. We are unlikely to find fault which justifies an investigation, nor significant enough injustice.

Summary: Dr X says the Council mishandled her application for an Education, Health and Care Plan for her daughter Y. Dr X is also unhappy with the placement named in Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan and says the Council did not follow the correct process to decide the placement. Dr X also says the Council failed to consider its Section 19 duty when Y was unable to attend school. Dr X has also complained the Council failed to respond to her complaint within its published timescales. Dr X says this caused her and her family distress and inconvenience and Y to miss education. We have found fault in the actions for its delayed complaint response. The Council has agreed to write to Dr X to issue an apology.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not deliver specialist education to his daughter, Y. We found fault because the Council failed to deliver all of the provision his daughter was due to receive. This caused Mr X avoidable distress and meant Y did not receive the education she was due. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr X.

Summary: The Council accepted it delayed issuing an amended final Education, Health and Care Plan for Mr X’s child Y. The Council has proposed a payment to Mr X to recognise the impact of the delay, which is appropriate. The Council was not at fault in how it decided it would not arrange alternative provision for Y when Mr X withdrew Y from school. We cannot investigate Mr X’s later complaint about the suitability of Y’s alternative provision as the Council has not had an opportunity to respond to this complaint.

Summary: Mr Y complains about delays in the Council's assessment of D’s special educational needs and the production of their Education, Health and Care Plan. We find fault because the Council took longer than the statutory timescales to complete the process. Although the Council agreed to provide alternative education while D could not attend school, it did not record how it decided the type and amount of provision D should receive. As a result, D received part-time education for an extended period. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment and implement service improvements.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to adhere to the statutory timescales following an annual review of her son’s Education, Health and Care plan, and provide suitable alternative provision when he was unable to attend school. We found fault by the Council which caused Mrs X and Y an injustice. The Council will apologise and make payment to acknowledge the impact this had on them.

Summary: We found fault with the Council delaying production of Mrs X’s child’s Education, Health and Care Plan provision. We also found fault with the Council not delivering the full provision once it produced the final Education, Health and Care Plan and delayed consideration about Mrs X’s child’s access to education. The Council’s fault caused Mrs X uncertainty and her child to miss provision they were entitled to. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and provide symbolic payments for the injustice she and her child experienced.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council did not properly deal with her daughter Y’s special educational needs, resulting in lost provision. The Council is at fault because it did not properly investigate Mrs X’s concerns and cannot be certain provision was delivered. Mrs X’s daughter suffered missed educational provision. The Council should apologise, make a symbolic payment to Mrs X and provide an action plan showing how it will demonstrate necessary oversight.

Summary: The Council failed to give Ms X an opportunity to attend the appeal panel hearing and failed to keep notes from the hearing. An apology, arrangement for a further appeal hearing, payment to Ms X and guidance for officers is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the contents of a council officer’s report regarding Miss X’s son’s special educational needs and the support he needed at school. This is because the injustice she claims stems from the support provided by the school and the law does not allow us to investigate such matters.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an Education, Health and Care plan because the complainant can appeal to the Tribunal. Other parts of the complaint are late.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about funding for childcare following her house move because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about her son’s education because the law prevents us from investigating complaints about how and what pupils are taught in school.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s home to school transport complaint as the Council has agreed to consider the losses and effect of not having home to school transport between January and June 2026. This is a a proportionate way to resolve the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about post-16 education transport because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable. The Council has agreed to provide transport.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with his child. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider it now.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to his safeguarding concerns and its handling of his complaint. There is insufficient evidence of fault, and it is reasonable for him to raise his concerns as part of related court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s support to Miss X during a time when she was a Looked After Child, including a lack of support when she turned 18 years of age. This is because a complaint about the Council’s actions is now late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider it now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the calculation of the complainant’s special guardianship allowance. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part, and our intervention would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about alternative education provision. Mrs X had a right of appeal for her children’s Education, Health and Care plans, and there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s application of its Section 19 duty to warrant our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to make appropriate arrangements for Mr X to sit his A-level exams. This is because the Council was bound by the exam board’s requirements and we cannot overturn them. We cannot therefore achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to advise Ms X about alternative educational pathways for her son. This is because the injustice Ms X claims is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the decision not to extend a temporary school placement for Mr X’s son, Y. This is because the Council had no part in arranging the placement and the decision not to extend it was one made by Y’s school, which is not a body within our jurisdiction.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the school named in an Education, Health and Care Plan. Mrs X has appealed to a Tribunal and so the law says we cannot investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council refusing to arrange free post 16 home to school transport. We are unlikely to find fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a school admissions appeal panel refusing to grant a school place. The Council has agreed to offer a fresh appeal with a new panel and we would achieve nothing more.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and pay her £200 for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s conduct during an appeal to a tribunal. This is because the law prevents us from considering complaints about a council’s conduct during an appeal to a tribunal.

Summary: The Council was at fault. It failed to complete Ms X’s child, Y’s Education, Health and Care needs assessment within statutory timescales due to a shortage in Educational Psychologists. This service failure caused Ms X and Y uncertainty, avoidable distress and frustration. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X and Y to remedy their injustice.

Summary: The Council was not at fault in how it decided it did not need to arrange alternative provision for Mr X’s child, W, when they stopped attending school in December 2024. It was, however, at fault for a delay sending Mr X a copy of W’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused Mr X frustration, for which the Council will apologise.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s consideration of her application and appeals for post-16 school transport assistance for her son. The Council was at fault. It failed to appropriately explain its rationale in its stage two appeal decision letter. As a result, Mrs X suffered distress and uncertainty. The Council will apologise to Mrs X, make a symbolic payment, and issue staff guidance.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to complete the recommendations made following a stage three children’s statutory complaint. We found the Council at fault for delays in implementing some of the agreed actions and for its consideration of the recommendations. The Council has agreed to apologise for the delay and reconsider the financial remedy in line with the panel’s recommendation.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint about the Council’s failure to complete a statutory complaints procedure investigation in time. The Council has agreed to provide a suitable remedy, and this removes the need for us to investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about several failures by the Council. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s care planning for children. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about the start of court action. Additionally, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s handling of the children’s statutory complaints procedure to justify an investigation.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint about delay in the administration of the children’s statutory complaint procedure but will not investigate it. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy any injustice caused to Miss X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to progress Mrs X’s complaint through its complaint procedure. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to warrant our involvement.

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to properly consider if it needed to amend the special educational provision in Mrs X’s child’s Education, Health and Care Plan when they struggled to engage with the education on offer at their school. This caused Mrs X avoidable frustration and uncertainty. To remedy Mrs X’s injustice, the Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment.

Summary: We found fault with the Council’s failure to arrange school transport for Ms X’s daughter (Y) from the beginning of September 2025 and with the way it dealt with Ms X’s complaints. The Council’s fault caused injustice to Y and Ms X. The Council has agreed to apologise, reimburse the cost of Y’s school journeys from September 2025 and respond to Ms X’s safeguarding concern. The Council has also agreed to make symbolic payments to recognise Ms X’s distress and the time spent complaining.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to provide his son, Y, with a suitable education and support for his special educational needs when Y wanted to return to school for further education. He also complained about delay in the Education, Health and Care Plan process, failure to reimburse examination fees and poor communication. We found the Council to be at fault because it took too long to issue a final Education, Health and Care Plan and did not carry out an agreed action. This caused distress, uncertainty and frustration. To remedy this injustice, we recommend the Council should apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mr X. Parts of Mr X’s complaint were not investigated because they related to an appeal made to the SEND Tribunal.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide the provision set out in Mr Y’s Education Health and Care Plan. She said this caused Mr Y distress and impacted his health. We find the Council at fault which caused injustice. The Council will apologise, secure the provision set out in Mr Y’s Plan and make a payment to remedy the injustice.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of her daughter’s Education, Health and Care Plan, and failure to provide appropriate provision in line with it or full-time education when she stopped attending school. The Council accepted fault and provided a remedy to recognise the frustration, distress and missed provision. We are satisfied the remedy was appropriate to reflect the injustice in the limited period we have considered, and did not make further recommendations.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to secure educational and special educational provision for the complainant’s child. Investigation of the period before the Council issued an amended Education Health and Care plan is not warranted because it would not lead to a different outcome. We cannot investigate later matters because the complainant used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability).

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Y’s special educational needs. This is because her father, Mr X, has used his right of appeal to the First-Tier Tribunal and could have asked the Tribunal to consider the issues he has raised as part of his appeal.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about her dealings with the staff and governors of a school because the law prevents us from investigating complaints about the management of schools.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a school admissions appeal. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify further investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council refusing to grant home to school transport as it is unlikely we would find fault which has caused her to lose out on transport.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint about a school admissions appeal but will not investigate it further. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mrs X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a school admissions application. This is because any injustice caused is not significant enough to warrant further investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about unsuccessful appeals for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation by us.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the school named in an Education, Health and Care plan. Mrs X has appealed to a Tribunal and so the law prevents us from investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because the Council proposed a way forwards and there is not enough evidence of fault in its handling of her complaint to justify our involvement.

Summary: There was procedural fault in the Council’s assessment of a Blue Badge application made by Miss Y. The Council will invite Miss Y to apply again, complete a fresh assessment and review its Blue Badge policy to ensure compliance with national guidance.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about data processing and her request for rectification because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better suited to consider the issues complained about.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council allegedly failing to act on Mr X’s child protection concerns. Mr X has commenced court action against the Council, so the law prevents us also investigating. It is not proportionate for us to investigate complaint-handling in isolation.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s children’s services’ involvement in Miss X’s child’s case. The complaint is about the content of the Council’s representations to court and related matters. The law prevents us from investigating what happens in court, and the related matters are not separable from the proceedings themselves.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint about a children’s statutory complaints procedure but will not investigate it further. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in the Council’s administration of the statutory children’s complaint procedure. This is because the Council has agreed to take action to remedy any injustice caused to Miss X.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint about the Councils delay in administering the statutory children’s complaint procedure but will not investigate it further. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to consider Mr X’s complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to warrant our involvement.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about information the Council provided to court and the police. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about what happened in court, and about action taken by the police when investigating crime.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about information the Council provided during court proceedings. This is because the law prevents us from investigating complaints about what happens in court. For the rest, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s handling of the children’s statutory children’s complaints procedure to justify an investigation, and Social Work England is better placed to decide if a social worker is meeting their professional standards of conduct.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained that the London Boroughs of Ealing, Hounslow and Southwark failed to manage properly the proposed adoptive placement with them. This led to them not having a child placed with them, as they had expected. We find some fault causing avoidable distress, grief and time and trouble for the complainants. The Councils have agreed the recommended ways to remedy their injustice, and to implement service improvements to prevent a recurrence of faults in this case. We have therefore completed our investigation and are closing the complaint.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained that the London Boroughs of Ealing, Hounslow and Southwark failed to manage properly the proposed adoptive placement with them. This led to them not having a child placed with them, as they had expected. We find some fault causing avoidable distress, grief and time and trouble for the complainants. The Councils have agreed the recommended ways to remedy their injustice, and to implement service improvements to prevent a recurrence of faults in this case. We have therefore completed our investigation and are closing the complaint.