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 Havering (19 016 908) Summary: Mrs S has complained about the way the Council responded to her request for school transport for her son, T, who has an Education and Health Care Plan and attends an out-of-borough school. The Ombudsman has found fault in the way the Council considered Mrs S's response to the refusal of her school transport application. We consider that the actions already taken and proposed by the Council, together with the further agreed actions represent a suitable remedy for the injustice to Mrs S and T. London Borough of Croydon (20 001 050) Summary: the complainants complained the Council told them they had a right of appeal against an EHC Plan issued on the directions of the SEND Tribunal. This led them to spend avoidable time and experience inconvenience in preparing for an appeal on which the Tribunal judge cast doubt. The Council says it acted in line with its understanding of the law which it says is not clear. We found the Council at fault and it has agreed to the remedy recommended. Leeds City Council (20 001 761) Summary: The Ombudsmen find a Trust did not respond to a request for a change of physiotherapist appropriately. There is evidence that staff were trying to meet the patient's needs but this fault has left uncertainty about whether a further review could and should have happened. The Trust has agreed to provide an apology and to take steps to learn from the complaint. Telford & Wrekin Council (20 009 833) Summary: We 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. Salford City Council (20 002 458) Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's management of his contact with his daughter. The Council is at fault and has caused injustice to Mr X. The Council has agreed to an apology and financial remedy. Liverpool City Council (20 009 434) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about data protection issues because the Information Commissioner's Office is better placed. Peterborough City Council (19 013 929) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not ensure her child, Y, received provision set out in their Education, Health and Care Plan. She also complained it delayed in completing Y's annual review and about poor complaint handling. The Council was at fault. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and Y for the identified faults and pay Mrs X £4000 to be used for Y's educational benefit to remedy the impact of the lost provision. It will also pay her £500 to acknowledge the frustration caused and time and trouble taken to pursue her complaint and review its procedures. London Borough of Hounslow (19 019 418) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly provide for Y's education when she told it she no longer wanted to educate him at home. The Council was at fault for delays in reviewing Y's Education, Health and Care plan and for failing to provide alternative education to Y while he was out of school. This meant Y was without suitable education for a year and caused Mrs X unnecessary stress, time and trouble. We recommend the Council makes a payment to Mrs X and to Y and makes service improvements to prevent the fault occurring again. Essex County Council (20 001 298) Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council dealt with her application and appeal for home to school transport for her daughter. The Council was not at fault in how it reached its decision, but it did not provide her with all the information she asked for. It has apologised for this oversight. The Council has agreed to review the information it provides when home to school distance is an issue in an appeal. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (20 005 985) Summary: The Council was not at fault for its consideration of whether to extend Ms B's transitional special guardianship support payments. Ms B did not provide information to justify an extension of the payments. We cannot look at Ms B's complaint that she did not agree her support plan before becoming a special guardian, because the Special Guardianship Order says she did, and we cannot question a court order. Oxfordshire County Council (20 002 153) Summary: Mr X complained the Council took too long to issue his daughter's, Miss Y's, Education Health and Care plans and failed to arrange alternative education for her after she could not attend school because of health problems. We find the Council was at fault causing Miss Y to miss 25 weeks of education and causing avoidable distress for Mr X and his family. The Council has agreed to pay Mr X £250 to remedy this distress and review its policy on pupils unable to attend school because of ill health. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (20 007 922) Summary: Mr X complained about being given wrong information about a residential education placement and about recording conversations with Council staff. We should not investigate because there is not enough outstanding injustice to warrant our investigation. Darlington Borough Council (19 020 720) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council has failed to ensure her sons Y and Z receive short break provision in line with their assessed needs following a Stage 3 review panel. She also complained the Council offered her direct payments which were not sufficient to meet her sons' needs. She said this matter caused her and her family stress and put her to unnecessary time and trouble. There is no fault in the Council's actions. Gloucestershire County Council (20 000 692) Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council refuses to deal with her complaint at stage two of its complaints procedure. She says this has caused distress and frustration, and has impacted on her and her daughter's health. The Ombudsman does not find the Council at fault. West Sussex County Council (20 008 875) Summary: We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X's complaint about contact with their granddaughter. The family has a right to go to court about these matters it would be reasonable to use. Manchester City Council (20 009 717) Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X's complaint that the Council has placed her child for adoption. A court has decided the case. Derbyshire County Council (18 014 369) Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council failed to provide education for her son, C, since 2016. We find the Council made reasonable efforts to provide education since 2018 and made a backdated payment to recognise the impact on C. The Council delayed in responding to Mrs B's complaint which caused frustration and time and trouble. The Council has agreed to pay Mrs B £150. Derbyshire County Council (19 018 918) Summary: Mrs C complains the Council has refused to fund her daughter's transport to college. She says this has caused injustice as she has had to pay. The Council was at fault. Its post-16 transport policy does not accord with the Government's guidance. The Council has agreed to hold a fresh transport appeal and to revise its guidance. Essex County Council (20 005 439) Summary: Ms X complains about the Council's decision to refuse her application for school transport for her son. We do not find fault with the Council's decision. Kent County Council (20 009 227) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision not to provide his son with free transport to school. This is because it is reasonable for Mr X to use the appeal rights available to him. Hertfordshire County Council (20 009 543) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council gave wrong information to the complainant about free school meals. This is because the Council has provided an appropriate response and there is not enough injustice to require an investigation. London Borough of Redbridge (20 009 303) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about child protection action taken by the Council. We have already decided a complaint by Ms X about this matter. The remaining points of complaint considered by the Council since our decision are not substantively different and do not warrant investigation. Milton Keynes Council (18 017 556) Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to provide education to meet her son's needs as specified in his Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP). She said that as a result her son missed education. There was fault in the delay by the Council which caused injustice to Mrs B and her son. The Council agreed to apologise and to make a payment. 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