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. Leicestershire County Council (19 017 034) Summary: Miss Y complained the Council failed in its duty to provide suitable full-time education to her daughter, W, when they moved to a new house. Cornwall Council (19 014 211) Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council dealt with her daughter's Education Health and Care Plan. We found fault because the Council delayed in issuing the final Plan. The Council was also at fault in the way it dealt with the statutory Stage 2 investigation into Ms X's complaints as it failed to issue an apology as agreed with the recommendations in 2018. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and her daughter so we have completed our investigation. East Sussex County Council (19 014 659) Summary: Ms X complained that the Council failed to consider her application and appeal for home to school transport for her children properly. We do not find fault in the way the Council decided Ms X's case. But we consider the Council's current school transport policy is flawed in that it does not allow for people who would be disadvantaged by not being able to present an appeal through verbal representations to be able to do so. The Council is already reviewing its processes to address this issue. It has agreed to tell the Ombudsman the outcome and amend its policy. Kent County Council (19 018 598) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed issuing a final Education, Health and Care Plan following an annual review. We find the Council was at fault. It has agreed to pay Mrs X £500 in recognition of Y's missed education and pay a further £200 in recognition of the trouble she was caused. Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (19 020 355) Summary: Ms F complains the Council failed to make alternative educational provision for her son. We have found fault that has caused her son to lose out on education and the family significant distress. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment for her son's educational benefit and review its commissioning arrangements for alternative provision. East Sussex County Council (20 005 679) Summary: The Ombudsman has not found fault with the Council's decision to refuse Miss W's son free school transport. This is because the Council correctly considered the statutory guidance, and the Ombudsman cannot question the merits of a decision without fault. North Yorkshire County Council (20 007 815) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's decision not to provide her son with free transport to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Wiltshire Council (20 008 947) Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's preparation and content of a report it prepared for Court proceedings. We also cannot investigate information given by officers to the Court within those proceedings. Salford City Council (19 017 570) Summary: The complainant says that the Council failed to provide alternative education to her son who was unable to attend his primary school because of ill health. The Council also delayed in completing the son's Education, Health and Care Plan. The Ombudsman finds fault causing injustice on both complaints. He has recommended actions to remedy the injustice and to improve future practice. The Council has agreed to these and therefore we have completed our investigation and are closing the complaint. Sunderland City Council (20 008 427) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council's Children's Services department in relation to the complainants' family. This is because the actions complained of are connected with court proceedings and are therefore out of our jurisdiction. Warwickshire County Council (19 015 116) Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's decision to refuse his application for school transport for his daughter. There is no fault in the way the Council reached its decision. Buckinghamshire County Council (19 020 940) Summary: Mr A complains the Council has delayed issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan for his son, C, and so he has lost out on support that should have been provided. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for delaying reviewing and issuing the Plan for 19 months. The Ombudsman also finds fault with the Council for failing to provide information from the Plan, failing to consider the request for a personal budget, and for poor complaint handling. The Council has agreed to make a payment in recognition of lost provision, and for the distress caused to Mr A. The Council will also review how it monitors annual reviews and requests for personal budgets. East Sussex County Council (20 003 133) Summary: Mr X says the Council has not corrected errors in reports about his children, as recommended by the statutory children's complaints process. There was fault by the Council. The action the Council has already taken is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused. Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (19 013 767) Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to ensure her daughter B received adequate education and support at school as set out in her Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP), then failed to make alternative provision after B stopped attending school. She also complains of delays in updating B's EHCP and of poor complaint handling. There is minor fault by the Council in that B's EHCP was slightly delayed, but no evidence this caused injustice. Durham County Council (19 020 117) Summary: There was fault by the Council in failing to secure part of the special educational provision provided for in an EHC plan and in failing to respond to concerns alerting it to the fact provision was not fully in place. The Council will apologise, pay a financial remedy and make service improvements. North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (20 004 297) Summary: Miss Q complained an independent appeals panel had failed to properly consider her appeal for a school place for her daughter, R. This had caused the family significant distress. The investigation found no evidence of fault. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (20 008 446) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss B's complaint about the actions of her son's school regarding a disciplinary matter. This is because the law prevents us from investigating what happens in schools. Durham County Council (20 002 088) Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council wrongly stopped her and her husband from adopting a child from the Durham area, despite being approved by the Adoption Panel to do so. The Council fully upheld the complaint but failed to offer any remedy for the injustice or properly explain how the situation arose. We found fault in the Council's actions causing distress and uncertainty to Mr and Mrs B. The Council agreed to pay them £500. Nottingham City Council (20 003 205) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has treated the complainant badly and will not tell his wife to return to the family home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Birmingham City Council (19 015 148) Summary: The Council failed to provide Mr D's son with educational support in accordance with his Education, Health and Care Plan. Mr D's son missed out on approximately four weeks of full-time suitable education. The Council has agreed to make a payment of £400 to remedy the injustice this has caused. Central Bedfordshire Council (19 020 891) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of Mrs Q's son's Education, Health and Care plan. This is because she has either appealed to SENDIST or could have done so. In addition, we are unlikely to find fault with the Council on a part of the complaint that could not be appealed to SENDIST. And it would not be a good use of public resources to investigate the Council's handling of Mrs Q's complaint in isolation. Lancashire County Council (20 003 703) Summary: Mr B complained that the Council had failed to explain why his address did not fall within the geographical priority area of their preferred secondary school for their daughter. We find that the parents should have raised this matter at the appeal. We do not find any fault in the appeal process and the Council has clarified the information available for checking the geographical priority area. Nottinghamshire County Council (20 007 480) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint about the adequacy of an Education Health and Care Plan as the Tribunal is considering this. We will not investigate whether any Council delays caused Miss X an injustice until the Tribunal finishes and the final needed provision is known. Bedford Borough Council (19 013 830) Summary: There is fault by the Council in that it failed to carry out a risk assessment before placing two children, in its care, with the complainant and her partner. This caused avoidable difficulties in the placement. The Ombudsman does not find fault in other aspects of the complaint. The Ombudsman has recommended actions to remedy the complainant's injustice which the Council has accepted. Therefore, the Ombudsman is closing the complaint. Torbay Council (19 017 097) Summary: Miss X complained about the way the Council investigated concerns she had about the person caring for her granddaughter. We found there was no fault in the way the Council explored each allegation. The Council was also not at fault for limiting how much information it shared with Miss X, or for deciding to keep her granddaughter in a foster placement with her sibling. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (19 019 890) Summary: Mr B complained about the remedy the Council offered following its investigation into his complaint about a child protection investigation. He said the Council delayed completing a risk assessment, which delayed him resuming contact with his son and this caused him distress. Mr B felt the remedy offered by the Council did not reflect the distress he experienced. We decided the remedy offered by the Council was sufficient given the injustice caused to Mr B by its fault. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (19 020 059) Summary: there is no fault that has caused Mr A injustice in relation to his complaint about the actions of the Council's children's services team. Birmingham City Council (20 000 990) Summary: Mr X complains the Council has not properly apologised for fault with how the Council dealt with an adoption process. The Council is at fault because it has not completed the actions agreed to in a mediation meeting. Mr X has not received a full apology. The Council has agreed to write a letter of apology to Mr X as detailed in the mediation outcome. London Borough of Redbridge (20 001 669) Summary: Mr X complained the Council refused to consider his complaint under stage two of the statutory children's complaints procedure. The Council was at fault. It should have completed a stage two investigation when Mr X requested it. The Council has agreed to complete the stage two investigation, pay Mr X £200 in recognition of the frustration and uncertainty caused by delay and poor communication and remind relevant staff of its duties under the statutory procedure. London Borough of Newham (20 004 080) Summary: Mr B complains about the way the Council carried out its child protection risk assessments. He says the Councils reports are inaccurate and biased. The Ombudsman discontinued its investigation into Mr B's complaint. It is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. Norfolk County Council (20 004 261) Summary: Mr and Mrs C complained about an assessment the Council wrote in respect of their granddaughter D, for whom they were special guardians. They felt the Council misrepresented them in the assessment, included inaccurate information about them and treated opinions as fact, which caused them distress. We cannot find fault with the actions the Council took. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (20 007 081) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about a social worker's conduct during court proceedings and the contents of her report to the court because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from considering complaints about matters that have been, or are being, considered in court proceedings. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (20 008 076) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council contacting him in error about a matter. While he found this distressing, the Council's apology is sufficient for the injustice caused. Lancashire County Council (20 008 246) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a social worker. This is because it is a late complaint, many of the issues have been subject to court proceedings, and there is another body the complainant could complain to. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. All Hallows R C High School (20 001 988) Summary: Mr Q complained an independent appeals panel had failed to properly consider his appeal for a school place for his daughter, R. This had caused the family significant distress. There is evidence of fault and the school has agreed to hold a fresh appeal. Kent County Council (20 003 233) Summary: Ms X complained that the Council failed to provide support from the Disabled Children's Service for her severely disabled son during the COVID-19 pandemic. We have decided not to investigate the complaint further. This is because the issues in the complaint overlap with another complaint we are already investigating. Torbay Council (19 020 207) Summary: Mr B complained the Council completed an assessment during a child protection investigation without allowing him the opportunity to have input. He also complained the Council failed to give him enough time to read the assessment report, especially as he has dyslexia. We find the Council failed to give Mr B enough time to read the assessment report. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused to Mr B. Wiltshire Council (19 021 207) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's handling of her request to make contact with her daughter, who was adopted. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by us investigating. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (20 001 013) Summary: There was no fault by the Council when it required him to complete an anger management course before returning to the family home. It did so based on its assessment of the risk to the children and although it could have been more flexible, its more cautious approach was to safeguard the children, and was not fault. London Borough of Hackney (20 006 089) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Blue Badge application for the complainant's daughter. This is because the complainant can make a new application under the hidden disability rules and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome. Liverpool City Council (20 006 676) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about contact with and access to children he fostered with his former partner. Courts decide the contact and residence arrangements of children. Mr X has a right to take the matter to court it would be reasonable for him to use. Surrey County Council (20 007 841) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's refusal to pay for 70 hours of planned care after it ended working with her company. This is a matter relating to a possible breach of contract that it would be reasonable for her to take to court. Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (20 000 636) Summary: Mrs X complains about the actions of children services and their handling of a child protection intervention. She says the Council misrepresented information, did not tell her it was assessing her, did not involve her in the assessment, and did not invite her to the initial child protection conference. She also complains about the social worker and the Council's complaint handling. We find some fault with the Council. We have made recommendations. Kent County Council (20 008 240) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council in 2017 gave inaccurate information to the family court about his behaviour. We cannot investigate what happens in court including the content of reports. London Borough of Lambeth (19 011 583) Summary: Mr and Mrs B complained the Council failed to tell them of the decision not to assess their children for an Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP) so they could not challenge the decision. They also complained about the Council's involvement with them under its child protection duties. They consider the Council failed to take account of all relevant information, so the family did not have the support needed and has experienced significant avoidable distress. There was fault in the handling of the complaint which has caused injustice. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Mr and Mrs B. Cheshire East Council (20 000 757) Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement with the complainant's relationship and contact with his son. This is because the majority of the issues are related to court proceedings, and are out of jurisdiction. 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