Recent statements in this category are shown below:
-
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 09-Sep-2025
Summary: Mrs X complained of the Council’s handling of her child, Y’s, Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan. Based on current evidence, the Council was at fault for failing to ensure Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan was reviewed within statutory timescales. The Council was also at fault for a one-month delay in implementing Y’s funding for his Education Other Than at School (EOTAS) package. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the distress, frustration and uncertainty this caused Mrs X. The Council was not at fault for putting the money into a managed account for Mrs X.
-
Derby City Council (24 014 779)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 09-Sep-2025
Summary: The Council was at fault for delay in assessing Mrs X’s child, W, for an Education, Health and Care Plan. This meant W missed out on provision they should have had at a key time in their education. To remedy W’s injustice, the Council will make a symbolic payment to Mrs X. It has already agreed to take suitable action to prevent similar fault in future.
-
London Borough of Sutton (25 003 211)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Special educational needs 09-Sep-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council carried out a review of her child’s Education Health and Care Plan. This is because it is reasonable for Miss X to use her right of appeal against the contents of the plan. Investigation into other matters would not lead to a different outcome.
-
Leeds City Council (25 003 473)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 09-Sep-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about delays in producing an Education Health and Care Plan as the Council has agreed to a proportionate way to resolve the complaint.
-
London Borough of Barnet (25 003 738)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Special educational needs 09-Sep-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with matters concerning her child’s Education Health and Care Plan. This is because an investigation by the Ombudsman would not add to the one carried out by the Council.
-
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 09-Sep-2025
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide an appropriate placement and specialist provision for his children Y and Z. The Council was at fault. It failed to secure the provision for Y and Z set out in their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plans and did not uphold Mr X’s complaint despite this. The Council has agreed to apologise and make payments to Mr X to acknowledge the frustration and lack of provision. It has also agreed to produce an action plan to address the shortage of special school provision in its area.
-
Surrey County Council (25 000 224)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 09-Sep-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the annual review of an Education, Health and Care Plan, or the content of the Plan, including how the Council communicated about this matter. This is because the Council has upheld Mrs X’s complaint, apologised and offered a suitable remedy for Mrs X’s injustice. Therefore, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome and there are no wider public interest issues to justify our investigation.
-
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 09-Sep-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council delayed responding to her following an annual review of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise for the delay and make a remedy payment to Miss X.
-
Kent County Council (24 017 258)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 08-Sep-2025
Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council delayed in completing the Annual Review of her daughter, C’s Education Health and Care Plan and failed to continue funding extra maths tuition or consider funding other support. We have found fault in the actions of the Council which has caused Mrs B and C significant distress, inconvenience and financial hardship. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B and C, make an additional payment to them and confirm the arrangements for the reassessment.
-
Surrey County Council (24 018 213)
Statement Upheld Special educational needs 08-Sep-2025
Summary: Miss C complained the Council named an inappropriate school in her son’s, who I will refer to as D, Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) and failed to deliver section F provision in the Plan to him. She also complained the Council’s communication with her was poor. There was fault by the Council. It did not ensure D received section F provision in his EHC Plan. It also did not arrange alternative provision for D when it was aware he was not receiving regular full-time education or later when he was permanently excluded. The Council’s communication with Miss C was also poor. Because of the fault, Miss C suffered distress, and D suffered a loss of education and provision. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss C and D, and make symbolic payments.