City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (19 012 456)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries School transport 03-Feb-2020

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to provide free school transport for her children. It is unlikely we would find fault on the Council’s part.

Devon County Council (19 012 828)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries School transport 03-Feb-2020

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision following the complainant’s application for school transport assistance. This is because it is unlikely he will find fault.

Derbyshire County Council (18 011 814)

Statement Upheld Special educational needs 03-Feb-2020

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain the Council failed to meet the special educational needs of their son, Z, who has severe disabilities, causing him loss of much of his education for more than three years. There was fault by the Council, which it accepts. It will pay Mr and Mrs X £5300.

East Sussex County Council (19 008 245)

Statement Upheld Special educational needs 01-Feb-2020

Summary: The Council delayed issuing an EHC Plan for Mr C’s son, which caused Mr C and his family distress. The Council has agreed to make a payment to recognise this distress.

Leicestershire County Council (19 001 899)

Statement Upheld Special educational needs 31-Jan-2020

Summary: Ms C says the Council failed to provide an education for her daughter, X, who has special educational needs, for six months and failed to carry out an education, health and care plan assessment in a timely fashion. The Council was at fault. This caused Ms C and X injustice. The Council has already refunded some of the costs Ms C incurred as a result and apologised. It should apologise again to Ms C and X and pay them both sums in recognition of the injustice suffered.

Leicestershire County Council (19 007 662)

Statement Upheld Special educational needs 31-Jan-2020

Summary: Mr X complains a Council officer failed to contact a school sixth form as she agreed. He says this left his son, Mr Z without post-16 provision. The Council accepts there is no record the officer did what she promised. It has offered to apologise and pay Mr X £100. This is sufficient remedy for the family’s raised expectations, as the school had already refused to take further calls from the family and was unlikely to agree to admit Mr Z.

Norfolk County Council (19 008 262)

Statement Upheld Alternative provision 31-Jan-2020

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s provision of alternative education when his daughter was absent from school for medical reasons. The Council was at fault for delays in arranging alternative provision. However, the education provided by the Council was suitable. The content of the work provided by the school is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Leeds City Council (19 009 423)

Statement Not upheld School transport 31-Jan-2020

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to end her son’s entitlement to home to school transport and how it conducted her unsuccessful appeal about this. The Ombudsman has found some fault because it referred to the wrong criteria in reaching its decision. But this fault did not affect the outcome and so there was no injustice to Mrs X.

London Borough of Redbridge (19 013 806)

Statement Upheld School admissions 31-Jan-2020

Summary: Mrs D complains there were flaws in the procedure followed by a school admission appeal panel. We uphold the complaint finding the panel did not take account of information which it mistakenly believed Mrs D had not provided. It said this was “crucial” to the appeal. We consider this oversight may have affected the outcome of the appeal. We therefore recommend the Council arrange a further appeal.

London Borough of Croydon (19 014 523)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries School transport 31-Jan-2020

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide help with her son’s school transport. This is because the complaint is late and there is no reason Miss X could not have complained earlier.