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. St Olave's and St Saviour's Grammar School (19 016 404) Summary: Mr B complained about various matters related to his son's application for a place in the sixth form at St Olave's and St Saviour's Grammar School. The main areas of his complaint related to the way in which the admissions authority decided not to honour its conditional offer of a place after his son achieved a slightly lower grade in a GCSE subject that he did not intend studying at A Level, and the independent appeal panel's handling of his son's subsequent appeal against that decision. Suffolk County Council (20 003 913) Summary: there is no fault in relation to the Council's consideration of Mr A's appeal for home to school transport on the grounds of safety of the identified route Gloucestershire County Council (20 004 771) Summary: Mr X complains about the care of his daughter in foster care, about the Council's unjustified restrictions on his contact with her and about the Council's poor communications and complaints handling. The Council is only at fault in its communications. It had already remedied its fault with an apology to Mr X before he approached us. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (20 007 085) Summary: Miss X complains that the Council wrongly removed her children, coerced her into signing an agreement for their care, failed to return them for almost five weeks and made inaccurate statements about her family to court. The Council's initial proposed remedy of £500 is inadequate. It has agreed to pay Miss X a further £1,000. Cumbria County Council (20 011 148) Summary: On the evidence currently available, we cannot and will not investigate Mrs and Mr X's complaint about lack of contact with a child the Council looks after. A Court is currently considering the child's contact arrangements and we cannot obtain the outcome they seek. Durham County Council (20 011 658) Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X's complaint about the accuracy of information the Council gave a Court and the way it was prepared. This forms part of legal proceedings which we cannot investigate. Somerset County Council (20 003 801) Summary: Ms V complained the Council failed to meet her son, W's, needs when he was out of school and failed to consider her needs over the time she had to support him. She said this had caused her time, trouble and distress and that W had missed out on education that he should have received. We have found evidence of fault leading to injustice and the Council has been asked to make an apology, pay a financial remedy and consider its procedures going forward. London Borough of Islington (20 000 981) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaints about the way children services are caring for her child. It is unlikely we could significantly add to the Council's replies to her. London Borough of Ealing (20 001 255) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about a Council assessment and the failure of the Council to protect his child from harm by her mother. These matters are not separable from the residence of his child, which is currently subject to court proceedings. Hampshire County Council (20 002 763) Summary: The complainant said that the Council had failed to start a Stage 2 investigation, under the statutory Children Act complaints procedure. This has caused avoidable frustration. We find fault causing injustice by the Council. The Council has now agreed to undertake a Stage 2 investigation and to apologise to the complainant. Therefore, we have completed our investigation and are closing the complaint. Cambridgeshire County Council (20 003 498) Summary: Mr and Mrs B have an adopted child. They complained about how the Council dealt with the placement of their adopted child's birth mother in a mother and baby foster placement close to their home, and the issues arising from this. We find there was fault by the Council causing injustice for which an apology and appropriate financial remedy has been offered. The Council has also implemented service improvements. We find there was some fault in complaint handling, and the Council agreed to our recommendation to take steps to review and act on lessons learned about the framing of complaints. Nottinghamshire County Council (20 009 674) Summary: We will not investigate the complainants complaint about the Council's handling of his daughter's child protection case. This is because it is late. Luton Borough Council (20 011 261) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's actions regarding his daughter. The matters complained of are in part historic and mostly not separable from the matter of her contact and residence. This has been decided by a court and Mr X has a right to return to court it is reasonable to use. Hertfordshire County Council (20 011 303) Summary: We will not investigate Miss B's complaint that the Council failed to provide appropriate support for her and her daughter before and after private law proceedings. This is because the actions she complains about relate to matters which have been decided in court. Birmingham City Council (20 011 804) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B's complaint that the Council is at fault in refusing to allow her to have contact with a looked-after child. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault on the Council's part. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (20 011 929) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the professionalism of the Council's children services social workers. There is another body better placed to do so. Somerset County Council (20 002 308) Summary: Mr D complained the Council delayed issuing an Education, Health and Care plan for his son and it failed to provide the provision set out in the plan. As a result, Mr D said his son was educationally disadvantaged and experienced distress. He said he also experienced distress, time and trouble in providing some of the support himself. The Council was at fault for the delay in completing the plan and for failing to provide some of the provision set out in the plan. It agreed to make a payment to acknowledge the loss of special educational needs provision for his son. It also agreed to review its procedures and ensure its staff are aware of its special educational needs' responsibilities. West Sussex County Council (20 004 009) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide support for her son who has special educational needs whilst he was out of school, and failed to adequately investigate her safeguarding concerns about the school. The Council was not at fault. St Philip's Catholic Primary School, Stockport (20 010 559) Summary: A parent complained about the school admission appeal panel's decision to reject his appeal concerning the refusal of a place for his son at his preferred primary school. But we do not have grounds to investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient sign of fault in the way the panel considered the appeal to warrant our further involvement. Kent County Council (20 005 821) Summary: Mr X complained the Council has failed to provide his son, F, with social care support following his discharge from psychiatric hospital in July 2019. The Council failed to investigate Mr X's complaint under the statutory children's complaints procedure. This caused Mr X uncertainty about whether the outcome may have been different. The Council agreed to arrange and start a stage 2 investigation under the statutory children's complaints procedure within one month of the final decision. It also agreed to make a symbolic time and trouble payment to Mr X and review its complaints policy. Lancashire County Council (20 011 329) Summary: We will not investigate Miss C's complaint that the Council has refused to escalate her complaint about the outcome of a child protection enquiry. This is because the complaint concerns matters which may be raised in court. Staffordshire County Council (20 011 655) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about evidence that may be used by the Council in court proceedings, as it is reasonable for Mrs J to raise this matter in court. It is unlikely we would find fault on the Council's part in refusing to accept Mrs J's complaint. Hertfordshire County Council (17 016 451) Summary: there has been considerable disruption to G's education since May 2017, and while this is regrettable, it is not the result of fault by the Council. I will not consider events before May 2017. Leeds City Council (20 002 869) Summary: Mr X complains that there was fault in how an appeal panel considered his appeal for a place at a school for his daughter which meant he did not receive a fair hearing. There was fault in how an appeal panel considered Mr X's appeal. As a result, Mr X cannot be satisfied the hearing was fair. To remedy this injustice the Council has agreed to arrange a fresh appeal with a different panel and clerk. London Borough of Brent (20 005 445) Summary: Ms X complains about the Council's actions in relation to her son's special educational needs. She complains about the delays in the annual review process in 2019 and delay in the Council naming a special school in her son's education, health and care (EHC) plan. We find fault as there was delay in the Council responding to the annual review report. We have made recommendations. London Borough of Redbridge (20 003 902) Summary: Mr X complained about inaccuracies and bias contained within a Child and Family Assessment and related issues. We do not find the Council to be at fault. Staffordshire County Council (20 009 952) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the actions of a social worker in writing a court report. These matters are not separable from those that have been heard in court, or in respect of which Mr X has a right to go to court it would be reasonable to use. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (20 010 657) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr and Mrs B's complaint that the Council has failed to take action in response to their complaint about a member of its staff. This is because the action they complained about does not relate to the delivery of the Council's functions, and the outcome they want relates to its role as an employer. Hampshire County Council (20 011 198) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about data sharing and an officer's professionalism. There are other bodies better placed to consider these issues. Suffolk County Council (20 011 419) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr B's complaint about a report produced by the Council for use in private law proceedings. By law, we cannot consider matters relating to court reports. Birmingham City Council (19 004 079) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed in holding her son, Mr Z's, annual review of his Education, Health and Care Plan, mishandled the process when she asked for a personal budget to pay for provision because she was home schooling him, and then delayed in providing the funds once the Council had agreed them. The Council was at fault in how it carried out the annual review and personal budget processes. It also delayed by 6 months in providing the agreed funds. The Council has agreed to provide evidence it has carried out the service reviews it had identified before this Ombudsman investigation. It has also agreed to make Mrs X a payment to acknowledge the injustice the faults caused her and Mr Z. London Borough Of Barnet (19 017 963) Summary: We have concluded our investigation into Mrs C's complaint about how the Council dealt with her daughter's attendance issues. We find that there is no evidence of fault, other than that which the Council had already identified and remedied. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (19 016 642) Summary: Ms X complains that the Council failed to fulfil its promise of financial support after she obtained a Special Guardianship Order. She also complains that the Council refused to allow her to change her social worker. There is no fault by the Council. Halton Borough Council (20 001 737) Summary: Mrs D complained about the Council's involvement with her family after an incident of domestic violence. We find the Council was at fault when it wrongly told Mrs D's husband that he could not return home. The Council also failed to explain the purpose of Child in Need meetings, delayed providing her with a document after repeated requests, delayed dealing with her complaint and failed to consider her complaint under the statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused. Essex County Council (20 010 323) Summary: I will not investigate this complaint about what happened when the complainant was taken into care in 1974. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise the Ombudsman's discretion to investigate it now. City of York Council (20 010 551) Summary: I will not investigate this complaint about the way in which the Council dealt with safeguarding concerns raised by the complainant in relation to his children. This is because we are unlikely to be able to add anything further to the Council's response to the complaint. The remedy offered is within our guidelines. Leicestershire County Council (20 011 239) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about support to her family before her daughter was taken into care in 2017, and the care of her daughter afterwards. We cannot investigate the conduct of court proceedings. The support matter is historic, and Miss X could have come to us much sooner. There is no consent for Miss X to complain on her now adult daughter's behalf. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (20 011 308) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the manner of the removal of her children. This is not separable from matters that are for a court to decide. Manchester City Council (20 012 170) Summary: We will not investigate Miss B's complaint that the Council's social worker and her manager were at fault in the course of child protection action relating to her son. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome Miss B wants. Suffolk County Council (20 003 644) Summary: Mr L complains the Council failed to consider his allegations of a lack of safeguarding at his son's school or to make provision when Mr L withdrew him from that school. Mr L says his son was unable to take advantage of the services specified in his Education, Health and Care Plan. Mr L also says he was caused time, trouble and distress by the Council's actions. Investigation into this complaint has been discontinued. 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