Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (24 013 122)

Report Upheld Special educational needs 24-Jul-2025

Summary: The Council failed to secure the special educational provision in Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan. It also failed to carry out the annual review of Y’s Plan, despite sending letters to Mrs X saying it had done so. This resulted in Y missing out on their special educational provision and caused Mrs X and Y uncertainty, distress and frustration. 99 others also received annual review completion letters when no meeting or consultation had taken place.

Lancashire County Council (24 023 153)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Special educational needs 01-Jul-2025

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council carried out a review of a child’s Education Health and Care Plan. This is because she has used her right of appeal to a tribunal.

Surrey County Council (25 000 549)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Special educational needs 01-Jul-2025

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decisions relating to an Education, Health and Care Plan for Mrs X’s child. This is because Mrs X appealed those decisions to the First-tier Tribunal and the law does not allow us to investigate. Additionally, we will not investigate earlier delays because this is a late complaint. Finally, we will not investigate a complaint about delays in subsequently issuing a plan, because it is unlikely we would find fault.

Cheshire East Council (25 000 940)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Special educational needs 01-Jul-2025

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to send an amended Education Health and Care Plan to her child’s school. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Leicestershire County Council (25 001 056)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Special educational needs 01-Jul-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to make appropriate educational provision and support available for the complainant’s daughter. This is because the Ombudsman’s intervention would not achieve anything significant or lead to a different outcome, and is not therefore warranted.

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (24 001 929)

Statement Upheld Special educational needs 01-Jul-2025

Summary: Mrs M complained on behalf of herself and her adult daughter, Miss D. She complained about faults by City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council and NHS West Yorkshire Integrated Care Board leading to Miss D being unable to go to college and missing out on special educational provision. She also complained about poor communication by the organisations. We have upheld the complaint and found the faults caused significant injustice to Miss D and Mrs M. This includes Miss D missing all her education and essential special educational needs support for about 12 months. Mrs M could not take her usual breaks from her caring role, leaving her exhausted. The organisations’ faults also caused Mrs M avoidable distress and time and trouble. The organisations accepted our recommendations, so we have completed our investigation.

Cornwall Council (24 011 634)

Statement Upheld Alternative provision 01-Jul-2025

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide alternative provision for her son when his educational placement broke down. She is also concerned about the Educational Psychologist report, the Councils requests for medical evidence and its failure to consider her complaint at stage two. The Council is at fault for failing to offer a stage two investigation. This has caused Ms X distress for which I have recommended a remedy.

Lancashire County Council (24 013 612)

Statement Upheld Special educational needs 01-Jul-2025

Summary: Miss X complains the Council did not deal with her son Y’s education properly, causing loss of education. The Council took too long to issue Y’s Education Health and Care Plan and to provide a school placement. Miss X suffered delay to appeal rights, avoidable distress and Y lost education opportunity and special educational needs provision. The Council should pay Miss X £300 for avoidable distress and £5,500 for loss of education and special educational needs provision.

East Sussex County Council (24 014 321)

Statement Upheld Special educational needs 01-Jul-2025

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide alternative provision while her daughter was unable to attend school. She also complained the Council failed to arrange transport when a place at a special school was agreed. We found the Council’s failure to provide alternative provision for approximately two and half terms is fault. This fault caused distress and frustration and meant Miss X’s daughter missed out on an education at a significant point in her school career. The Council will apologise and make payemnts to remedy this injustice.

East Sussex County Council (24 017 531)

Statement Upheld Special educational needs 01-Jul-2025

Summary: Miss X complained the Council has failed to provide suitable alternative provision for her son, or the provision specified in Section F of his EHC Plan since September 2023 when his school place broke down. Miss X also complains about delays in the annual review process and in issuing a final EHC Plan. We found the delays in the annual review process were fault. As was the failure to provide appropriate alternative provision and to ensure y received the provision in his EHC Plan. This fault has led to missed education and caused Miss X distress and frustration. The Council will apologise and make payments to remedy this injustice.