Norfolk County Council (19 015 452)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Special educational needs 15-Feb-2020

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council failed to involve him in decisions about his son’s education. The complaint is late and there are insufficient grounds for the Ombudsman to investigate it now.

Suffolk County Council (18 018 601)

Statement Upheld Special educational needs 11-Feb-2020

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to ensure his son, Y, received the provision set out in his Education, Health and Care Plan. Mr X also complained the Council delayed issuing Y’s final amended Plan for over 14 weeks. He said this caused his son distress and had a significant negative impact on his education and psychological development. The Council was at fault when it failed to issue Y’s final amended Plan within the required timescales. This caused avoidable distress. The Council has agreed to pay Mr X £150 to remedy this injustice.

London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (19 008 019)

Statement Upheld Special educational needs 11-Feb-2020

Summary: the Council accepts it should have done more to secure B’s return to school when he was out of school between January and July 2018. His parents, however, were resolute in their decision he should not return to school. Any fault by the Council has not, therefore, caused an injustice for which the Ombudsman should recommend a remedy. The Ombudsman cannot consider the complaint once B’s parents appealed to the Tribunal.

Suffolk County Council (19 014 782)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Special educational needs 11-Feb-2020

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in producing an Education Health and Care Plan. It is not possible to assess the extent of any injustice caused by this delay until the provision they should have been receiving is known. A Tribunal is currently deciding this.

Gloucestershire County Council (19 015 371)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Special educational needs 11-Feb-2020

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the evidence used to support the Council’s proposals in an Education Health and Care Plan. The Tribunal is deciding whether those proposals are adequate and we cannot investigate the same issues as a Tribunal.

Hertfordshire County Council (19 003 254)

Statement Upheld Special educational needs 10-Feb-2020

Summary: Mr V complained the Council failed to issue a revised Education, Health and Care Plan for his son, W, at the correct time. He said this meant W was not sufficiently supported while he attended his then school. There is evidence of fault in the delay before W’s revised EHCP was issued and in the way the Council checked whether the school had put in place the specified support.

Sheffield City Council (19 004 255)

Statement Upheld Special educational needs 07-Feb-2020

Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to provide her sons with sufficient support for their education. There is evidence of fault leading to injustice and the Council has agreed to make a payment for missed education and uncertainty and to acknowledge delay in responding to her complaints.

City of York Council (18 003 094)

Statement Upheld Special educational needs 06-Feb-2020

Summary: The Ombudsman upholds Mrs X’s complaint about the way the Council dealt with her son’s Education, Health and Care plan. The Council communicated poorly and caused delay. It focused on the affordability of the placement rather than whether it met Mrs X’s son’s needs. This caused Mrs X frustration, anxiety and time and trouble in pursuing her complaint. The Council has agreed to meet some of Mrs X’s costs. It will also apologise and improve services to address the faults identified.

South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (18 015 138)

Statement Upheld Special educational needs 06-Feb-2020

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council failed to transfer their son, Mr Z’s Learning Difficulties Assessment onto an Education, Health and Care plan. They say that because of this, Mr Z has not had an adequate education after his college course ended. We found the Council failed to transfer Mr Z to an Education, Health and Care Plan as it had agreed it should do. He therefore probably missed out on planning for adult life, and Mr and Mrs X missed being able to challenge the Council’s decisions about this. The Council’s complaint response was also at fault, causing them avoidable distress. The Council has agreed to pay a financial remedy for Mr Z, apologise to him and his parents and make service improvements to prevent reoccurrence of the identified fault.

Reading Borough Council (18 012 037)

Statement Upheld Special educational needs 05-Feb-2020

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to properly decide
Mrs B’s son’s special educational needs provision for over a year. This meant he was in an unsuitable placement for a full academic year. The Council also failed to answer Mrs B’s complaint. It has agreed to apologise and make payments totalling £3,350 to recognise Mrs B’s injustice (and that of her son).