New children and education complaint decisions

View online A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions Please note: our decisions are published three months after they are issued to councils, care providers and the person who has made the complaint. The cases below reflect the caselaw and guidance available at the time of issue and the individual circumstances of each case. Rutland County Council (19 010 847) Summary: there is no fault in Rutland County Council's further consideration of Ms B and Mr F's complaint about services provided by its children's services team or in the action it took to remedy those parts of the complaint it upheld West Sussex County Council (20 000 256) Summary: The Council followed the correct procedure when carrying out an assessment following a report that Mr X's son, Mr Y, had physically assaulted his daughter. Without administrative fault we cannot criticise the social worker's professional opinion. However, the Council sent the report to the wrong address and delayed in responding to the complaint, which is fault. The Council has apologised for this which I consider is a suitable remedy. London Borough of Haringey (19 013 653) Summary: Mrs X complains the transport provided by the Council for her daughter to attend school as late for a week. We found fault as Mrs X's daughter missed the start of the school day. The Council has already apologised to Mrs X for any inconvenience caused which is a suitable remedy in this case. So, we are completing our investigation. All Saints Catholic High School (20 001 046) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X's complaint that the Schools Admissions Appeal Panel failed to provide her child with a place at her preferred school. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused her to lose out on a school place. Lancashire County Council (20 000 963) Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's data handling and an officer's behaviour. There are other bodies better placed to consider his complaints. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (20 001 246) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B's complaint that the Council is at fault in preventing him from having unsupervised contact with his children. This is because Mr B may take the matter to court and it would be reasonable for him to do so. Swindon Borough Council (20 001 136) Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint, about how and where D should receive education, because it is a matter it would be reasonable to take to tribunal. London Borough of Lewisham (19 011 532) Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council completed its safeguarding investigations following an allegation against him when he was a friends and family carer. The Council was not at fault in how it completed its investigation, however, it failed to offer him independent support. That did not cause Mr X a significant injustice and the Council has since arranged independent counselling for Mr X. It has agreed to remind staff of the need to offer independent support to foster carers when an allegation against them is made. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (19 013 208) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss B's complaint about the way the Council communicated with her and responded to her concerns about her children. This is because the issues are too closely linked to ongoing court action. West Berkshire Council (20 000 661) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X's complaint about delay by the Council in responding to his complaint about a data breach because the substantive complaint is for the Information Commissioner. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints about complaint handling matters where we are unable to consider the substantive issue. Leicester City Council (20 000 695) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's assessment of his family and its view of his contact with his children. The complaint is outside our jurisdiction because a court is dealing with the matter. Kent County Council (19 005 567) Summary: Ms X complains about the Council's delay in the EHCP process, resulting in missed SEN provision for her son and distress. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault and recommends it pays £6375 for missed SALT provision; pays £1000 in recognition of other missed provision; pays £300 for distress and uncertainty and takes action to prevent recurrence. Norfolk County Council (19 007 575) Summary: There were delays starting alternative education provision for Mr's C's daughter, after it was concluded she was medically unfit to attend school. The Ombudsman finds this fault caused injustice in the form of lost education. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to remedy this injustice. Leeds City Council (19 011 908) Summary: Ms X complained the Council's school admissions appeal panel was not racially diverse and made comments about her child's race during the appeal hearing. She complained the Council delayed the appeal hearing as it sent correspondence to her previous address. The Council was not at fault for sending letters to a previous address as it was unaware Ms X had moved. Also, there was no fault in the make-up of the panel or the way it reached its decision on the appeal. Blackpool Borough Council (19 013 387) Summary: Mr B complains the Council did not properly deal with his transport to school application. The Council was not at fault. Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (19 012 176) Summary: Mr B complains about the actions of the Council in respect of care for his disabled children. Where his complaint concerns social care, which is the responsibility of the Council, the statutory three-stage procedure for children's services complaints applies. That procedure has not yet been completed. The Council has indicated its willingness to compete the process and that is the appropriate way for Mr B to pursue his complaint at this time. On this basis, the Ombudsman has discontinued his consideration of this complaint. Where Mr B's complaint concerns respite provision and the principal issue is one of clinical care, the appropriate service to deal with this is the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. Derbyshire County Council (19 006 673) Summary: Mrs C says the Council was at fault for failures of communication and for delay in processing her application for payments to pay for her son, Mr X's, care. She says this caused injustice because she had to fund social care herself. The Council was at fault for delay and poor communication. It has agreed to pay Mrs C a sum in recognition of this fault. Lancashire County Council (19 008 046) Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed transferring her daughter, D, from a Statement of Educational Need to an Education, Health and Care Plan and did not provide her with a suitable education. Miss X said this caused her and D distress and D missed out on a significant period of education. The Council delayed significantly in transferring D to an Education, Health and Care Plan and failed to provide her with a suitable alternative education. The Council has agreed to make a financial payment to Miss X to remedy the injustice it caused her and D and review its processes. Norfolk County Council (19 010 021) Summary: Mrs C complained about the actions of the Council regarding provision of education and therapies in accordance with her daughter's (D) Education, Health and Care plan. We are unable to investigate most of the events due to Mrs C appealing to SEND and we find no fault in the intervening period. Leicestershire County Council (19 010 529) Summary: Mr and Mrs K complain the Council has failed to support their daughter, L, sufficiently through failing to complete and then properly put in place the provision detailed in her Education, Health and Care Plan. There is evidence of missed provision and time and trouble caused to Mr and Mrs K in chasing this up. Prendergast Hilly Fields College (19 013 563) Summary: Mr B complains that the school unreasonably refused his son, C, a place in the sixth form, failed to hold an appeal hearing and acted as though C had an education health care plan (EHCP) when, at the time, he did not. He says that, as a result, C missed a month of education. The Ombudsman finds no fault by the school. London Borough of Bromley (19 008 165) Summary: Miss B complained about the actions of the Council in dealing with her complaint about the adoption of her daughter, C. On the evidence available we find there was some delay in the complaints process which caused Miss B injustice. The Council has agreed to pay her £300 and provide further information on several issues. West Sussex County Council (19 011 596) Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's decision to take his children off a child protection plan. He says the Council produced inaccurate and biased reports and the children protection review conference did not consider his views. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the report and does not find fault with the child protection review conference. He also does not find fault with the Council's decision to remove the children from the child protection plan. Thurrock Council (19 009 487) Summary: Miss X complains about the Council's handling of her school transport refund request and its decision to complete a fraud investigation. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for failing to provide Miss X with information about what transport costs she could claim for. I do not find fault with the Council's other actions. Dorset Council (19 010 563) Summary: Mrs B complained about delay by the Council in arranging suitable transport for her son C to get to school. She had to drive him herself for an additional two months and was left without sufficient funds to do so for two weeks. We find the Council at fault for delay on two occasions and it has agreed to pay Mrs B a total of £750. We look at individual complaints about local public services and all registerable social care providers in England. We remedy injustice and share learning from investigations to improve services. When we find a council or care provider has done something wrong, we recommend how it should put it right. We are free to use and make our decisions independently. Find out more about us at www.lgo.org.uk Manage preferences or unsubscribe Contact us

This email was sent to ooseims.archieves@blogger.com using GovDelivery Communications Cloud on behalf of: The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman · 53-55 Butts Road · Coventry · CV1 3BH