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. Hertfordshire County Council (20 008 018) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint that the Council was biased in favour of her former partner. The matters complained of are not separable from those where Miss X has a right to return to court it would be reasonable to use. Essex County Council (20 010 360) Summary: On the evidence currently available, we will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the lack of financial support from the Council to help her look after her nephews. This is because the complaint is late. We will not exercise discretion to investigate it because Mrs X could have complained sooner. There are no good reasons why the late complaint rule should not apply. Surrey County Council (20 010 575) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the content of a Section 37 report and the social worker who wrote it. This is because the law prevents us from investigating matters which have been discussed in court. City of York Council (20 011 049) Summary: We will not investigate Miss D's complaint that the Council failed to ensure that a member of staff sends her a personal apology for including inaccurate information in a social work report. This is because it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. Milton Keynes Council (19 020 623) Summary: We upheld Miss X's complaint about the Council's handling of her daughter Y's education, health and care (EHC) plan and education provision. The Council delayed holding a review and arranging alternative provision for Y. There were also errors in the way it amended Y's plan before she moved to secondary school. The Council will apologise, make a payment to Miss X and Y to remedy the injustice caused, and review how it amends plans when children move between primary and secondary school. Hertfordshire County Council (20 010 726) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint that the Council failed to take safeguarding action to protect her child. The Court is considering the child's care and we cannot investigate the same issues. Plymouth City Council (20 010 825) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's refusal to reconsider the outcome of a complaint it investigated in 2017 and the remedy it agreed. This matter is historic and there is no good reason to investigate it. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (19 002 856) Summary: We upheld Mrs X's complaint about the Council's handling of her daughter's education, health and care plan. The Council caused delays, demonstrated unprofessional practice, and failed to secure the provision Mrs X's daughter required. The Council will apologise and make a payment to recognise the distress and frustration it caused Mrs X, and the loss of provision for her daughter. It will also take action to improve its service to other families. Milton Keynes Council (19 020 371) Summary: We upheld Mr X's complaint about the Council's handling of his son D's education, health and care plan. The Council failed to secure the provision in the plan while D was out of school. It also delayed in reviewing the plan when D moved into the area and finalising an amended plan. This caused uncertainty and frustration for Mr X. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Mr X and D. It will also remind staff of the timescales for reviewing and amending plans. Derby City Council (20 007 253) Summary: The Council is at fault for withdrawing an offer of a place for Ms X's child at her preferred school when she moved to a new house. The Council failed to establish the relevant facts and apply its Admissions Policy to Ms X's case. The appeal panel failed to consider if the policy was properly applied. The Council should re-offer the place. Birmingham City Council (19 019 194) Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to ensure her information, and that of her foster children, was kept confidential. It shared her address with the birth mother who was not allowed contact with the children. This has caused significant distress to the family whose human rights have been affected. The Council has agreed to make a payment for the family to move house and to change its procedures to ensure such data breaches are prevented in the future. It has also agreed to disseminate the learning from this complaint. Devon County Council (19 021 160) Summary: Mrs X complains about the way the Council dealt with her son Y's care package and agreed the Direct Payments for his care needs. We found fault by the Council in its failure to consider Mrs X's complaints through the statutory complaint procedure. But this did not cause her a significant injustice because the Council dealt with her concerns through its corporate complaint procedure. However, the Council took too long to in its investigation causing Mrs X frustration and time and trouble in chasing the Council for responses. The Council has accepted our recommended remedy in this case so we have completed our investigation. London Borough Of Barnet (20 001 487) Summary: Mr B complained about the actions the Council took in respect of his complaints about the service he received as a care leaver. We found the Council was at fault and should have considered Mr B's complaint at stage three of the statutory complaints procedure. But we consider the action taken by the Council including the payment offered (£1500), is sufficient to put matters right. Essex County Council (20 007 809) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's children services team not supporting her nine years ago and her mother's employment contract terms. There are no good reasons why the late complaint rule should not apply. West Sussex County Council (20 010 383) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's response to a safeguarding referral because he has since taken the matter of his child's safeguarding to court. Staffordshire County Council (20 010 814) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about matters during a court case in 2013 and the actions of her son's special guardians at contact sessions. We cannot investigate matters that happened during court proceedings, and it would be reasonable for Miss X to return to court if she is dissatisfied with contact arrangements. St Bede's Catholic High School, Ormskirk (20 002 466) Summary: Miss X complained that the independent appeal panel which heard her appeal for a place at the School for her son did not allow her to attend a remote hearing and did not consider her evidence properly. We find there was fault by the appeal panel in the way it considered the appeal. The School has agreed to offer a fresh hearing. Bracknell Forest Council (20 002 959) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council delayed in issuing the final Education, Health and Care (ECH) plan for her son. She also complains the Council failed to provide suitable full-time education for her son after she stopped home education. We find fault with the Council. We have made recommendations. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (20 004 507) Summary: There was an eleven month delay in issuing an EHC plan. While the Council has accepted fault and offered a financial remedy, this is lower than the Ombudsman would usually recommend. A recommendation to increase the payment is made. Leeds City Council (20 008 121) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council has failed to deal with his complaint about his son who is in care and problems with contact arrangements. The Council has agreed to deal with the complaint and keep to the legal time requirements. Mr X may return to this office if he disagrees with the outcome. London Borough of Redbridge (20 001 280) Summary: the complainant complained the Council did not give proper notice of a change in its schools' admissions policy and failed to properly consider his application for a school place. The Council said it amended the policy following an adjudication by the Office of the Schools Adjudicator and its appeals panel properly considered the appeal against the decision on the application. We find the Council acted without fault. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (20 000 314) Summary: Mr and Mrs E complained about the Council's application of child protection procedures to their family. They say the Council failed to properly consider their views which lead to their daughter being placed on a child protection plan. We find the Council was at fault because it delayed sending Mr and Mrs E a copy of the initial child protection conference minutes. It also had to re-arrange the initial child protection conference when not all professionals could attend. In addition to the remedy it offered, the Council has agreed to our recommendations to implement service improvements to prevent reoccurrence of the identified fault. West Sussex County Council (20 000 694) Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X's complaint about her child's current care arrangements as the Court is considering this. And we will not investigate her complaint about events in 2015 as there are no good reasons why the late complaint rule should not apply. London Borough of Waltham Forest (20 005 986) Summary: Ms B complains about the way the Council responded to a child protection referral about her children. We find fault with the Council for failing to complete the statutory complaint process. This caused Ms B injustice. The Council agrees actions to remedy the injustice. Kent County Council (20 009 466) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's children services team's approach towards him. There are no good reasons why the late complaint rule should not apply. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (20 010 325) Summary: We will not investigate Miss C's complaint that the Council has failed to investigate and explain why her son was removed from her care and why she has been denied contact with him. Her complaint about her son's placement is late and there are no grounds for us to consider it now. It would be reasonable for Miss C to pursue contact issues in court. Nottingham City Council (20 010 853) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B's complaint that the Council was at fault in its involvement with her family in the course of child in need and child protection action. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault on the Council's part, or add anything to the investigation the Council has carried out. Hertfordshire County Council (19 009 098) Summary: Mr A complained regarding the Council's school transport charges for his disabled son. He said he could not afford them, and they were unfair. We find there is no fault by the Council regarding the contributions it has charged. Worcestershire County Council (20 002 208) Summary: Mr G complained the Council delayed finalising his daughter's, X, Education Health and Care Plan. He said it failed to provide her with suitable alternative provision when she was out of school due to ill health. Mr G also complained about the Council's delay in dealing with his complaint. The Council was at fault for the delays in the Education Health Care Plan completion and dealing with Mr G's complaint. This has caused Mr G's family significant distress and time and trouble. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice. Lancashire County Council (20 002 848) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her son, F, with suitable education following his permanent exclusion from school in March 2019. She also complained the Council delayed issuing F's Education, Health and Care Plan and delayed approving his post-16 placement. The Council provided F with suitable alternative provision in line with the law following his exclusion from school. It was at fault for failing to issue F's Education, Health and Care Plan in line with statutory timescales and for failing to name his post-16 placement before the start of the academic term. The Council agreed to apologise and pay Mrs X £300 to acknowledge F's loss of educational opportunity between September and November 2020. It also agreed to pay Mrs X £100 to acknowledge the frustration and time and trouble the matter caused her. West Berkshire Council (20 002 957) Summary: Mrs C says the Council is at fault for a failure to enforce its school admissions policy by carrying out checks to ensure children applying for places at a local school were eligible. As a result, Mrs C says she and her child, X, suffered injustice as Mrs C was refused a place at the school despite living in the catchment area. The Council was not at fault. The Council made reasonable checks to ensure applicants met the admissions criteria and the appeal panel applied national and Council policies correctly. Lancashire County Council (20 005 038) Summary: Mr X complains that an appeal panel did not properly consider Ms Y's appeal for a school place for her child. There was fault in how an appeal panel considered Ms Y's appeal for a place for her child at a school. As a result, Ms Y cannot be satisfied the hearing was fair which causes uncertainty to her. The Council will remedy this injustice by sending a written apology to Ms Y. West Berkshire Council (20 006 739) Summary: Mrs D says the Council is at fault for a failure to enforce its school admissions policy by carrying out checks to ensure children applying for places at a local school were eligible. As a result, Mrs D says she and her child, Y, suffered injustice as Mrs D was refused a place at the school despite living in the catchment area. The Council was not at fault. The Council made reasonable checks to ensure applicants met the admissions criteria and the appeal panel applied national and Council policies correctly. London Borough of Enfield (20 011 112) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about racist bullying in a school two decades ago. A statutory bar prevents us investigating matters that happen in schools. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (20 010 135) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about a children services assessment as it is unlikely we would achieve a significantly different outcome than already achieved through the Council's children social care complaints process. Menorah High School For Girls (20 000 727) Summary: based on the evidence I have seen, the Governors' response to Mr P's complaint may be tainted by the appearance of bias since the investigator and two of the panel members appear to have had links with the school. There are, however, no grounds for the Ombudsman to question the outcome. The school has agreed to review its complaints procedures to avoid the appearance of bias when considering complaints in the future. 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