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 (20 008 678) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Personal Transport Budget paid by the Council toward the cost of transporting her daughter to school. This is because the Council has now offered a higher payment which Mrs X says she is happy with. An investigation by the Ombudsman could not therefore achieve anything more. Norfolk County Council (20 002 136) Summary: There is no evidence of fault in how the Council managed the educational provision for a looked after child, Y. There was a delay in assessing Y's Special Educational Needs, however this did not cause an injustice. Cheshire East Council (20 007 458) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the child protection actions of social workers. Most of these are not separable from matters of contact and residence decided by a court. Investigation of the rest is not warranted by the alleged fault, and it is unlikely to lead to the outcome Ms X wants. Kent County Council (20 008 613) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's children services involvement with his family. It is unlikely we would find Council fault has directly caused the cessation of contact between Mr X and his children. The Information Commissioner's Office is better placed for his data protection complaint. And we are unlikely to improve on the Council's remedy offer for an unbalanced assessment. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (20 008 102) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint the Council delayed and imposed unreasonable conditions on a child performance licence. The claimed injustice is not significant enough to justify an investigation. Northamptonshire County Council (20 002 614) Summary: The Council were at fault for including inaccurate information about Mr C when completing a single assessment, it was also at fault for how it dealt with his complaints. It has agreed to make a payment to remedy the injustice these faults caused Mr C. Derbyshire County Council (20 009 214) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint that the Council refused to obtain an occupational therapy assessment following a review of her son's needs causing her distress and significant costs. Mrs X appealed to the special educational needs tribunal and therefore we cannot lawfully investigate. Telford & Wrekin Council (19 017 225) Summary: The Council considered S's wish to increase contact with his parents and siblings, but it failed to arrange his reviews for a time and place he would be able to attend without having to miss school and did not ensure the Independent Reviewing Officer spoke to S before the reviews. The Council has agreed to take action to ensure S fully understands its reasons for not increasing contact and to prevent similar failings in future. Reading Borough Council (20 006 726) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council in relation to its involvement with the complainant's family. This is because the issues complained of relate to court proceedings and are therefore out of our jurisdiction. Plymouth City Council (20 007 320) Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the actions of Council officers during care proceedings for their grandchild. We cannot investigate the complaint because we cannot investigate a complaint about the start of Court action or what happened in Court. Cheshire East Council (19 013 314) Summary: Mrs C complained about delay by the Council in issuing her son's Education Health Care Plan following a review and reassessment. Mrs C also says that the Council has failed to acknowledge that she was forced into Elective Home Education. We find the Council failed to, complete an annual review of the Plan in 2018, inform Mrs C of its reassessment decision in a timely manner and there was a significant delay in issuing a final Plan. We recommend an apology and financial payment for the injustice caused. We have found no further fault by the Council. Dorset Council (19 016 920) Summary: The complainant says that the Council delayed in completing her granddaughter's Education, Health and Care Plan and this has meant the child has lost out on important provision and the family caused avoidable distress. The Ombudsman upholds the complaint and has recommended actions to remedy the resulting injustice. The Council has accepted these. Therefore, the Ombudsman has completed his investigation and is closing the complaint. Derby City Council (20 005 436) Summary: Mrs X complains that a school admissions appeal hearing for her daughter was not properly conducted. There is insufficient evidence to show Mrs X's arguments were balanced against prejudice to the school if her daughter were admitted. This is fault by the Council which caused injustice to Mrs X and her daughter. The Council has agreed to hold a further appeal hearing to remedy this. Devon County Council (20 008 352) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss B's complaint that the Council has failed to make appropriate educational provision for her son. This is because Miss B has used her right to appeal against the content of her son's Education Health and Care Plan, and this places the matter outside our jurisdiction. Middlesbrough Borough Council (20 003 452) Summary: The Council is at fault for failing to deal with Mrs X's complaint through the statutory children's complaints process. The Council should apologise to Mrs X and arrange for her complaint to be considered. London Borough of Bexley (20 005 411) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr B's complaint the Council failed properly to conduct a Children and Family assessment as ordered by the First-tier Tribunal. This is because Mr B has already used a right of appeal to a statutory tribunal to resolve the matter complained of, and we have no discretion to investigate. Surrey County Council (20 000 725) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide appropriate advice regarding her options when she withdrew her son from school due to his ill health. She complains a council officer suggested she had acted illegally could be prosecuted if her son did not receive an appropriate full-time education. The Council's failure to provide full information or to direct Mrs X to the Council's other education teams for advice on her options amounts to fault. This fault has caused Mrs X and Y an injustice. Peterborough City Council (20 002 380) Summary: Mrs B complains the Council delayed amending her son's, child C, Education, Health and Care plan (EHCP) during his transition from primary to secondary school. We found the delays caused C distress and meant he missed out on a month of education and transition support. The Council agrees actions to remedy the injustice to C. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (20 004 503) Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council delayed in issuing her son's Education, Health & Care Plan (EHCP). Having issued the EHCP, she says the Council failed to advise her on her appeal rights. Mrs X also complains the Council delayed her son's annual review and about its approach to amending the EHCP. The Council is at fault and has caused injustice to Mrs X and B. It has agreed to financial remedies and an apology. Gloucestershire County Council (20 006 700) Summary: The Ombudsman has found procedural fault in the way the school admissions panel considered Mrs B's admissions appeal. This caused Mrs B an injustice and so we have recommended the Council hold a new appeal. London Borough of Haringey (20 008 177) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's actions concerning a parental group. The Council's apology is sufficient for the injustice caused and the matter does not warrant further investigation. Hertfordshire County Council (20 008 358) Summary: We will not investigate Ms C's complaint that the Council has been at fault in failing to promote contact between her and her daughter. This is because it is unlikely we would identify fault on the Council's part, and because investigation would not achieve anything significant for Ms C. Birmingham City Council (20 008 519) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council gave wrong advice to a parent and mishandled her application for a school place for her child. This is because the school the parent applied for is an academy. Northamptonshire County Council (19 005 571) Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council's handling of her son, Y's special educational needs. We have not found fault with the Council's handling and consider Mrs X could have exercised her appeal rights to the Tribunal about the content of Y's Education, Health and Care Plans. The Council took just over month longer than it should to finalise Y's Post-16 review, but this was not a fault that caused significant injustice to warrant a personal remedy. East Sussex County Council (19 017 372) Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to put in place the social care support set out in her daughter's Education Health and Care Plan following a Tribunal decision in November 2018. We have found fault in the way the Council dealt with the matter. The Council has agreed a suitable remedy to make up for support sessions missed. Trafford Council (20 008 462) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs B's complaint that the Council was at fault in its management of her son's transition to secondary education. This is because Mrs B used her right to appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal, and this places the matter outside our jurisdiction. West Sussex County Council (19 010 990) Summary: Mrs C says the Council failed to communicate with her or provide her with support when it placed some of her grandchildren in her care and failed to share with her daughter the information the Council held about the risk posed by her partner. The Council failed to properly consider and discuss with Mrs C support she might need when the children first moved into her care and during a transition period for one of the children. The Council discussed its concerns about the partner with Mrs C's daughter. Failure to provide Mrs C with enough support meant she had to manage the children on her own at a distressing point in their lives, caused her avoidable distress and led to her going to time and trouble to pursue her complaint. An apology and payment to Mrs C, alongside training for social workers is satisfactory remedy. Darlington Borough Council (19 020 378) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council arranged respite care for her son, Y, which did not meet his assessed needs. She also complained the Council offered her insufficient direct payments and did not respond to her complaint about this in a timely manner. She said this caused her stress and had a negative effect on Y's social development. The Council was at fault when it delayed responding to Mrs X's complaint in line with statutory timescales. The Council should make a payment of £150 to acknowledge the stress, time and trouble she experienced because of this. The Council was not at fault in its management of Y's respite placement and direct payment funding. Herefordshire Council (20 000 734) Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council's handling of a child's placement into her care. She says the Council failed to correctly assess the needs of the child and did not put the child's needs first. Mrs X says the Council did not adequately address the impact of its actions on her, her family and the child. She says the Council's actions caused avoidable distress and financial loss to her. We have found fault by the Council in this matter and the Council has agreed a remedy to address the injustice caused. London Borough of Croydon (20 007 980) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint that the Council failed to involve him in its decision-making concerning his daughter and produced an inaccurate assessment. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome he is seeking. 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