New children and education complaint decisions

View online A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions Please note: our decisions are published six weeks 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.   Somerset County Council (18 010 275) Summary: Ms X complains of failures by the Council to meet her son, Mr Z's special educational and care needs, causing significant distress to her family. While there was no fault in the SEN matter, the Council failed to properly consider the safeguarding risks to Mr Z's younger siblings repeatedly raised by Ms X. This went on for almost three years, causing her distress and leading to the younger siblings suffering repeated unprovoked violent assaults by Mr Z, who was much larger than them, as well as fear of further attacks. Salford City Council (19 020 975) Summary: Mrs X complains of inadequate support from the Council after she left her husband due to domestic abuse. She says the Council has wrongly refused to consider her complaint under Stage 3 of the statutory children's complaints procedure. The Council is at fault and has remedied this by offering Mrs X a Stage 3 review. Buckinghamshire County Council (19 018 260) Summary: The Council is at fault as it delayed in holding an interim annual review of Miss X's Education, Health and Care plan when notified she was no longer attending college and when requested to do so by Miss X and her college. The Council's delay caused significant distress and uncertainty to Miss X which it has agreed to remedy by apologising to her and making a payment of £500 to her. Cumbria County Council (19 014 575) Summary: Ms B complained the Council had failed to arrange Looked After Child meetings from when her child, C, first went into care. It also failed to communicate properly with her or to address complaints she made. This meant she was unable to exercise parental responsibility for C. There is evidence of fault and the Council has been asked to apologise, make a financial settlement and to amend documentation. Devon County Council (20 003 495) Summary: Ms X complains the Council has refused to pay her legal fees despite agreeing to do so. There is no evidence the Council advised Ms X to obtain legal advice or agreed to fund the cost of this advice. The Council's refusal to pay Ms X's legal fees does not therefore amount to fault. Buckinghamshire Council (20 006 752) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the way in which the Council carried out a Serious Case Review. This is because we cannot achieve anything more than the previous investigation by the Council. Cambridgeshire County Council (20 007 949) Summary: The Ombudsman will not and cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's decisions on his children's care. The Court is deciding this. Buckinghamshire County Council (19 020 627) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council delayed in issuing her son's final EHC plan following an annual review in April 2018 for over two years. The Council's delays and errors in the EHC plan process amount to fault. This fault has caused Mrs X and her son an injustice. London Borough of Sutton (20 006 597) Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the content of her daughter's Education Health and Care Plan. She had a right of appeal against this it would have been reasonable to use. Buckinghamshire Council (20 007 155) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about 11 + examination organisation. Mrs X appealed the decision not to award a grammar school place to the Tribunal which remedied the significant injustice. Durham County Council (19 020 852) Summary: The Council was not at fault for its decision to end Mrs B's special guardianship support. It properly applied its policy and statutory guidance, and considered detailed information about her finances, so we cannot question its decision. London Borough of Bromley (20 004 076) Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's decision to take her children into care. A court decided these matters. Suffolk County Council (20 005 558) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X's complaint about how a Council responded to his safeguarding referral because he does not have parental responsibility for the children concerned. Central Bedfordshire Council (20 006 149) Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Miss B's complaint that the Council was at fault in removing her children and failing to safeguard them. This is because the complaint concerns decisions made in court. Leicestershire County Council (20 006 419) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint she was excluded from her granddaughters' child protection case. At this time, we cannot properly consider what injustice earlier events may have caused. Mrs X applied to court to reinstate contact with her granddaughters, and any decision we can make will rely on the outcome of those court proceedings. Essex County Council (19 016 753) Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his appeal for school transport for his son. The Council was at fault as its appeals process did not allow for parents to put their case in person or by telephone at the second stage. The Council has amended its policy to allow for this since it dealt with Mr X's appeal. The Council has agreed to review its decision at stage two under the amended policy and give Mr X the opportunity to make oral representations. Devon County Council (20 000 941) Summary: Mr X complains his son has not received the Speech and Language Therapy provision set out in his Education, Health and Care plan. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council as it has secured the specified special educational provision. Rutland County Council (20 006 500) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X's complaint the Council refused to hold an early review of an Education Health and Care Plan. The Tribunal is currently considering the Education Health and Care Plan's adequacy and we cannot consider the same issues. Surrey County Council (20 006 397) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X complaints about the child protection the Council gave her as a child. The events are over 20 years old and there are no good reasons the late complaint rule should not apply. Devon County Council (20 006 637) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B's complaint that the Council has been at fault in its decisions regarding the care of her grandchildren. This is because the complaint concerns matters which will be decided in court. Coventry City Council (20 007 267) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the content of a report produced by the Council. This is because Mr X can raise his concerns about the accuracy of the report in court. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (20 006 563) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X's complaint about a data breach. The Office of the Information Commissioner is better placed to deal with the breach and Mr X has a right to take court action it would be reasonable for him to use. Essex County Council (20 006 967) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X's complaint about data protection issues. This is because the Information Commissioner's Office is the appropriate body to consider her concerns. Lancashire County Council (20 007 482) Summary: A parent complained about the decisions of two school admission appeal panels to refuse her appeals for places for her daughter at two academy schools. But we cannot investigate this matter as we are precluded by law from considering complaints about appeals for academy schools. Cheshire East Council (19 018 374) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to arrange suitable alternative education for her son, Y, after he stopped attending school due to ill health. She also complained the Council allocated insufficient funding towards Y's education. Mrs X said this situation caused her stress and negatively affected Y's educational and social development. The Council was at fault when it delayed arranging alternative education for Y and failed to issue a final EHC Plan within statutory timescales. However, this did not cause Y an injustice. Devon County Council (19 020 560) Summary: Miss B complains the Council failed to implement a child protection plan put in place when her son, who is now 15, was a baby. She considers the Council has not provided adequate support to her. She further complains about the way the Council has considered her complaints and the remedy provided. She says it has had an adverse impact on her and her son's mental health and she has suffered financially by not receiving the benefits to which they were entitled. There was fault which caused injustice to Miss B. The Council has apologised to Miss B but it will now make a payment to her. London Borough of Bexley (20 005 125) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions in relation to care arrangements for the complainant's niece and nephew. This is because he could not add anything to the Council's responses or provide the outcomes that the complainant seeks. He cannot investigate issues relating to the complainant's sister or the children, as she does not have authority to complain on their behalf. Hertfordshire County Council (20 005 675) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the care of the complainant's children, who are looked after. This is because there is nothing further that another investigation could add to that previously carried out by the Council. Norfolk County Council (20 006 618) Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's response to a child safeguarding matter from 2006. Mr X was an adult witness, and he could have approached us sooner. Dorset Council (20 007 210) Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X's complaint that a social worker gave evidence to a court which is biased and incomplete. The Ombudsman cannot investigate what happens in court including the content of a court report. Norfolk County Council (19 012 867) Summary: Mr F complains the Council refused to pay for alternative education for his son, B, when he withdrew him from school. Mr F's complaint comes down to a difference of opinion about how best to meet B's special educational needs. The Council amended B's EHC Plan after Mr F withdrew him from school. Mr F disagrees with the changes, but the Ombudsman cannot consider the matter as he had a right of appeal to the Tribunal. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (19 013 093) Summary: staff shortages, staff sickness and a significant increase in demand meant the Council took more than 12 months to amend B's Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan when he transferred to college and he did not get the support he needed. The Council has apologised, addressed the staffing issues and agreed action to address the impact of the service failure on B. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (19 016 215) Summary: Mr B complained the Council failed to properly consult those affected when deciding to expand a local school and based its decision on inaccurate and misleading information. There is no fault in the Council's decision to expand the local school. The Council delayed responding to Mr B's complaint. That caused Mr B to have to go to time and trouble to pursue it. An apology is satisfactory remedy. Westminster City Council (19 017 968) Summary: Miss B says the Council failed to properly consider her application for transport assistance for her daughter. The Council failed to follow its own policy and Government guidance when considering Miss B's appeal. That means Miss B cannot be satisfied the Council properly considered her appeal. A further appeal and review of the Council's travel assistance policy is satisfactory remedy. Gloucestershire County Council (19 011 450) Summary: Miss B complains about how the Council dealt with her when it took child protection and safeguarding action. The Council has responded to the issues to make contact arrangements clearer and has apologised if there were misunderstandings. Overall, there is no clear fault by the Council. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (20 001 726) Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's failure to provide adequate social work support to his son. The Ombudsman has found the Council to be at fault because it did not properly investigate this complaint under the statutory children's services complaints procedure. This has caused Mr X some uncertainty about whether the outcome may have been different. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a time and trouble payment to Mr X and consider the complaint under the correct procedure without delay. It should also review its complaint handling processes. North Yorkshire County Council (20 006 457) Summary: The Ombudsman will not and cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's children services actions. There are no good reasons the late complaint rule should not apply to older events. And we cannot investigate issues which has been decided by a Court. Surrey County Council (20 006 612) Summary: We do not have the power to investigate this complaint about the Council's response to concerns about Mr Y's child's care. This is because it involves matters already considered by a court and due to be further considered by the court. Hampshire County Council (19 015 647) Summary: Mrs X complains about the way the Council handled assessing her grandson for an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan, the Council's provision of education, and delays handling her complaint. She says this meant her grandson missed out on education, and caused stress and anxiety to him and the wider family. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault for the delays in the EHC process and for poor communication with the family. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Mrs X to reflect the injustice caused. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (19 017 504) Summary: Mrs W complains the Council failed to pay her University tuition fees although it said it would. Although it later agreed to pay, it told Mrs W it needed to reimburse her monthly payments rather than pay the full loan in one payment. There is evidence of fault as Mrs W has been caused time and trouble chasing up the Council, but this is not so significant that the Council should pay the full amount owed to the Student Loans Company in one payment. London Borough of Redbridge (20 004 551) Summary: A parent complained about the admission appeal panel's decision to turn down his appeal about the refusal of a place for his daughter at his preferred primary school. He also complained about the Council's refusal to reconsider his application following the Schools Adjudicator's decision to partially uphold an objection to its admission arrangements. But we do not have reason to investigate these matters because there is no sign of fault by the Council or the panel which has caused the parent a significant injustice. West Sussex County Council (20 005 597) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the way in which the Council managed a change of placement for a foster child. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision to pass on information to the new carer. Additionally the Ombudsman cannot achieve the complainant's desired outcomes relating to issues that the Council has upheld. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (20 007 122) Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council took his children into care and gave a court false information about the family history. The complaint is outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction because a court decided what should happen to the children. London Borough of Bromley (19 017 867) Summary: Mrs F complains the Council delayed notifying her of its decision not to issue an Education, Health and Care Plan for her daughter. The Council has accepted there was a delay and has already apologised. This is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused. Lancashire County Council (20 004 905) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the way the Council prepared an Education Health and Care Plan. The Tribunal is considering what the Education Health and Care Plan should say and until it has concluded we are not able to find out the injustice to Mrs X and her child. Lincolnshire County Council (20 007 205) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council's Schools Admissions Appeal Panel failed to provide his child with a place at his preferred school. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused them to lose out on a school place. Rutland County Council (19 012 800) Summary: although the Council has not provided evidence of its attempts to engage with Ms M before holding a strategy discussion, or her refusal to allow social workers to speak to B, there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to question the Council's decisions to begin a child protection investigation or to make B the subject of a child protection plan. I have decided not to investigate the matter further since further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. Lancashire County Council (19 016 674) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to offer financial support when her grandchildren came to live with her. She says this caused her financial hardship. The Council was at fault for not providing basic information about the different ways someone can care for another person's child and for not considering whether it could offer financial support when she asked for it. It should pay her £150 for the uncertainty caused and consider the request for financial assistance. Nottinghamshire County Council (20 004 289) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council not allocating him a place at his preferred school for his child. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault and we would not achieve a significantly different outcome that already obtained. Telford & Wrekin Council (19 009 491) Summary: The complainant alleges that the Council misled him and his wife about the possibility of future medical difficulties for a child, whom they had expressed an interest in adopting, prior to them agreeing the placement. The child was subsequently diagnosed with significant difficulties. The Ombudsman agreed to accept the complaint even though the Council had not considered the complaint at the final stage of the statutory complaint procedure. The Ombudsman finds fault causing injustice in the way the Council has managed the adoption and complaint processes. The Council has agreed the Ombudsman's findings and recommendations and therefore we are closing the complaint. Cheshire East Council (19 007 739) Summary: Mr E complains about the actions of a Council and a Trust in relation to child protection concerns and a child protection examination carried out on his son. While there were faults, I do not consider these led to the injustice that Mr E has claimed. In addition, both organisations carried out appropriate work to try and remedy the situation and prevent similar occurrences. Torbay Council (18 011 079) Summary: The Ombudsmen uphold Mr R's complaints about his son's access to therapy, the Council's communication and delays with complaint handling. Mr R and his son suffered frustration, distress and they lost the opportunity to access therapy and respite. The Council and Trust agreed to apologise and provide a financial remedy to remedy the injustice they suffered. The Trust also agreed to implement systemic improvements. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (19 008 982) Summary: The Ombudsmen cannot investigate Ms X's complaint. She has previously appealed to the tribunal about the contents of her son's Education, Health and Care plan. 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