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 Redbridge (19 000 964) Summary: Mrs C complained on behalf of her son Z, that the Council failed to ensure Z received suitable full-time education and Special Educational Needs (SEN) provision after it concluded he was unable to attend school for health reasons. Mrs C says that upon Z's return to school, the Council continued to fail to provide the SEN provision. Gloucestershire County Council (20 009 654) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint that the Council's Schools Admissions Appeal Panel failed to provide her child with a place at School Z. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused her to lose out on a school place. London Borough of Haringey (20 001 417) Summary: Mr B complained about how the Council dealt with a child protection referral concerning his family. We have found no fault by the Council in this substantive matter. However, there was fault in the Council's handling of Mr B's complaint, for which a remedy has been agreed. Essex County Council (20 009 008) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the content of a court report and a social worker's actions in preparing it. These matters are not separable from the decision of the court and Mr X has a right to return to court it would be reasonable to use. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (20 009 206) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about a report the Council gave a Court. The report forms part of legal proceedings which prevents us from investigating it. Sheffield City Council (20 009 225) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the content of a court report. This matter is not separable from the court's decision about her grandchildren's contact and residence and it would be reasonable for her to use her right to return to court. West Berkshire Council (20 010 097) Summary: We will not investigate the Council's decision to assign an officer to Ms X's family of a gender she does not prefer. We will not investigate how the Council provided information to a Tribunal. Buckinghamshire County Council (19 011 528) Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council failed to ensure therapies and assessments detailed in her son, D's, Education, Health and Care Plan were provided. The Ombudsman finds there was avoidable delay, missed provision for D and time and trouble caused to Mrs X in chasing this up. We have made recommendations for an apology, financial remedy and service improvements. London Borough of Islington (19 007 748) Summary: The Council was not at fault for deciding Mrs B's behaviour was unreasonable, or for restricting her contact with its social work department. It followed its policy and properly justified its decision. It was also not at fault for how it managed Mrs B's correspondence during her year-long contact restrictions. It dealt quickly with everything she sent, despite staff absences. Torbay Council (20 003 002) Summary: Mrs B complained about the action taken by the Council in respect of her children when they were in foster care. We cannot find any fault with Council's actions. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (20 003 097) Summary: The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for providing misinformation and wrongly telling Miss Y to tell her employer of her involvement with children's social care, causing her to lose her job. The Ombudsman also finds fault with the Council for failing to remedy the injustice caused to Miss Y, resulting in further delay and distress. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council for placing Miss Y's child on the child protection register. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss Y, provide her with a financial remedy and review how it considers remedies for injustice caused by maladministration. Swindon Borough Council (20 008 306) Summary: We cannot and will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's children services actions in relation to his family. There are other bodies better placed to consider some aspects. We cannot investigate the Police or a school's actions. The Council's actions are too inextricably connected with legal proceedings. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (20 008 443) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about a children services assessment. It is unlikely we could achieve a significantly different outcome. Surrey County Council (20 008 555) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs B's complaint that the Council was at fault in removing her children from her care and placing them for adoption. This is because the complaint concerns decisions made by the Court. London Borough of Newham (19 014 640) Summary: Ms E complained the Council failed to provide her son with the provision required in his Education, Health and Care plan. She also complained the Council failed to respond to her complaints about the matter. We find the Council was at fault by not providing Ms E with a realistic timescale of when it would complete the agreed points to resolve her complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms E for the injustice caused to her. West Sussex County Council (20 006 872) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about an inaccuracy in the Council's records. The Council accepted this and corrected the error, which is sufficient to remedy the injustice caused. London Borough of Lambeth (20 007 445) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's reply to her complaint. The events she complains about are over seven years old and there are no good reasons the late complaint rule should not apply. Sunderland City Council (20 009 172) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss B's complaint that the Council was at fault in removing her children from her care. This is because the complaint concerns decisions made by the court. King David High School, Liverpool (20 001 119) Summary: Mrs Q complained an independent appeals panel had failed to properly consider her appeal for a school place for her son, R. This had caused the family significant distress. The investigation found evidence of fault and the school has agreed to hold a fresh appeal. West Sussex County Council (20 001 844) Summary: Mrs B complains the Council has not properly considered her request for school transport assistance. She says the Council's appeal policy does not follow statutory guidance and has led to delays in it considering her case. The Ombudsman finds fault in the Council's appeal procedure, delays in its responses and assessment and in how it explained its decisions. St Augustine's RC High School, Clitheroe (20 002 519) Summary: Mr and Mrs B complained the admissions authority did not carry out their son's school placement appeal correctly and it was refused. This caused the family distress. We found fault with the admissions authority causing injustice. The admissions authority has agreed to apologise to Mr and Mrs B to remedy this injustice. Our Lady's Bishop Eton Catholic Primary School (20 002 694) Summary: Miss X complained about how the School considered her child's admissions application and appeal and managed its waiting list. The School and admissions appeal panel were not at fault. St Augustine's RC High School, Clitheroe (20 002 695) Summary: Miss B complained the admissions authority did not carry out her son's school placement appeal correctly and it was refused. We found fault with the admissions authority causing injustice. The admissions authority has agreed to apologise and offer a fresh appeal to remedy this injustice. Buckinghamshire Council (20 008 651) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's failure to provide for her child's special educational needs. It is unlikely we would find fault. Isle of Wight Council (19 015 597) Summary:  Ms C complained to the Council that it delayed reassessing her son E's needs and deciding about his personal budget. Ms C says these delays meant her son's needs were not met and she was caused uncertainty and distress. The Council refused to consider Ms C's complaint at Stage 2 of the statutory children's complaint procedure. As a result, we investigated both Ms C's complaint about delay and the Council's complaint procedure. On the evidence available, we found fault with the Council's management of E's personal budget and its refusal to consider Ms C's complaint at Stage 2 of the statutory complaint procedure. Staffordshire County Council (20 003 792) Summary: We find fault with the way the Council handled Mr B's request to progress his complaint to stage two of the children's services statutory complaints process. This means Mr B was denied an independent investigation. The Council agrees actions to remedy the injustice. London Borough of Lewisham (20 007 425) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that a Council employee abused the complainant and threatened to have her children taken into care. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the complainant can report the incident to the police. Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (20 008 284) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's response to his requests for a male social worker. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (20 008 687) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about a child and family assessment the Council sent him which included details of not just his son, but three other children. This is because complaints about data protection issues, such as this, are best considered by the Information Commissioner's Office. Medway Council (20 008 436) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs B's complaint that the Council has refused to reimburse her for school fees she incurred due to fault on its part. This is because Mrs B used her right to appeal against the content of her daughter's Education Health and Care Plan, and this places the matter outside our jurisdiction. Wakefield City Council (20 008 636) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about historical allegations of abuse. There are no good reasons the late complaint rule should not apply. Hampshire County Council (20 001 596) Summary: Mrs X complains about delays in the Council's response to her request for an Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP) for her daughter, inadequate educational provision in the interim and a refusal to compensate her for the money she has spent on private educational services. The Council is at fault and has caused injustice. It has agreed to pay financial remedies, to apologise and to make a service improvement. Somerset County Council (19 014 705) Summary: Ms B complains about the actions of the Council associated with the process for an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan for her son. She also complains about the Council's failure to provide or fund home tuition for him. We find there was fault by the Council in the EHC plan process, and in record keeping. The faults identified led to injustice for Ms B, for which a remedy has been agreed. Manchester City Council (19 020 354) Summary: there is no evidence of fault in Manchester City Council's handling of its concerns about the suitability of the home education Ms D was providing to her daughter. As there is no evidence to corroborate Ms D's account of the actions of a Council officer in July 2019 and it contradicts the officer's record, this complaint is not upheld. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (20 002 596) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X's complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault and so we cannot question the panel's decision. London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (20 001 579) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel, and so we cannot question the merits of its decision. 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