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. London Borough of Newham (20 004 394) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to explain why the threshold for a safeguarding enquiry was not met. This is because the complainant can complain to the Information Commissioner. West Sussex County Council (20 009 663) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council has placed his child in foster care and is allowing him only 45 minutes a week supervised contact. We cannot investigate court proceedings. London Borough of Waltham Forest (19 016 588) Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused to complete Education, Health and Care needs assessments for his two children. He said the Council upheld his complaint but has not yet paid him the financial remedy it offered. The Council was at fault. There was poor service and delay which caused Mr X frustration and distress. It has agreed to pay Mr X £300 to recognise the frustration and distress caused but also to recognise the further frustration caused by additional delay in completing the assessments after it upheld his complaint. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (19 010 155) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not provide her with sufficient advice to make an informed choice about her options when she became a carer for her grandchild, Z. She said the Council then pressurised her into becoming a special guardian and had not provided enough financial support. The Council was not at fault. Birmingham City Council (19 020 938) Summary: Mr B complained to the Council about the service his brother received from children's services. The Council considered this complaint under the children's statutory complaint procedure. Mr B says there was fault with the Council's complaint investigation. He is unhappy with the behaviour of the Chair of the stage three panel and not being able to use a projector. He says the Council did not make adjustments for his learning difficulty. The Council was at fault for a short delay in its stage 3 complaint response, but we do not consider this to have caused Mr B or his family significant injustice. Hampshire County Council (20 003 141) Summary: Mr C complains about the actions of the Council towards himself and his child, D. The Council considered his complaint at stage one of the statutory children's complaints procedure but refused to further consider it at stage two. We find fault with the Council for denying Mr C the opportunity to progress his complaint through the statutory complaint's procedure. An injustice was caused to Mr C by putting him to the time and trouble of complaining to the Ombudsman. To remedy the injustice the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr C, consider his complaint at stage two and make staff aware of this complaint to share learning from it. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (20 001 407) Summary: Mr B complains about the actions of the Council's Children's Services. We have discontinued our investigation because it is unlikely we could add to the Council's investigation or achieve a different outcome for Mr B. Slough Borough Council (20 007 487) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss B's complaint that the Council has refused to carry out a review of the removal of her son from her care and his subsequent adoption. This is because the matters were decided in court. Cumbria County Council (20 007 573) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint that the Council has refused to allow his complaint to go to the final stage of the statutory children's services procedure. This is because there is nothing significant to be gained by doing so. London Borough of Bromley (19 017 617) Summary: Ms F complains the Council took too long to hold a review of her son's EHC Plan and to issue an updated Plan. She says this has prevented her from using her right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal and denied her son the SEN provision he needs. We have found fault. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms F. Kent County Council (20 002 292) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Children and Families assessment carried out by the Council's children's services. This is because we cannot add anything to the Council's responses and cannot achieve the outcomes the complainant wants. Milton Keynes Council (20 005 253) Summary: There was fault by the Council in how it dealt with Miss B's housing situation and in the social worker's assessment of the needs of the family. The Council was not clear about whether it had decided it owed a homelessness duty to her. There were confusing entries in the Council's Child and Family Assessment, and the Council did not send a copy of this to Miss B until she asked for it. The shortcomings caused Miss B distress and frustration. The Council should apologise to her, amend its records, and share this decision with relevant staff. Devon County Council (20 008 140) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged discrimination by the Council. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault, we cannot achieve the outcome sought and the court is better placed to consider this complaint. Surrey County Council (19 016 746) Summary: Ms X complained about the Council's response to her request for a change of social worker and other failings in the child protection process. We do not find the Council at fault in at first refusing a change of social worker, but there was some fault in the way it dealt with Ms X's complaint about the matter. There was some delay in sending out minutes of at least one meeting. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and a remind staff of relevant timescales. Gloucestershire County Council (19 020 722) Summary: Mr F complains about the Council's decision to refuse his son a Blue Badge. He says the decision puts his son and others at risk of harm. We have found no fault. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (20 002 527) Summary: The Ombudsman has completed its investigation. The Council has agreed to investigate Mr Y's complaint through the statutory children's complaints procedure in accordance with the Children Act and the statutory guidance. Medway Council (20 003 460) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's children's services assessments. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to take the matter to court. Kent County Council (20 007 191) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about an extended family member's care arrangements, as the Court is currently considering this. We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about an officer's actions assigned to a child as Mr X does not have parental responsibility for the child involved. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (20 007 632) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to investigate allegations of sexual abuse and failed to provide documents he requested. We should not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council's decision not to investigate and the Information Commissioner is best placed to handle the complaint about failure to provide documents. Cheshire West & Chester Council (19 016 342) Summary: Mr X complained about the outcome and timeliness of the Council's safeguarding investigation into his actions as a carer. The Council was not at fault in how it carried out the safeguarding investigation. It was at fault for its communication and complaints handling. This caused Mr X unnecessary distress and uncertainty. To remedy this, the Council has agreed to make a payment to Mr X and to amend its complaints policy. Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (19 020 471) Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's handling of a children's safeguarding enquiry and his subsequent complaint. East Sussex County Council (19 015 529) Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed to put in place the support in his grandson's Education Health and Care Plan, and failed to deal with his complaint properly. The Ombudsman finds there was no failure to arrange the provision. Mr X's daughter decided not to send her son to the school named in the Plan while she appealed. There was some delay in the complaint handling but the Council has apologised for this. This is a sufficient remedy. 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