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. Wakefield City Council (20 002 484) Summary: Mr and Mrs F complained the Council failed to properly consider the complaints they made about the way it had looked after their daughter, G, who was in care. The Council accepted their complaints at Stage One of the statutory complaints procedure but then failed to proceed to the subsequent stages. This had caused Mr and Mrs F time and trouble in trying to get the Council to follow the guidance. The Council has agreed to start a statutory Stage Two investigation into their complaints and to make a payment to acknowledge their time and trouble. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (20 005 182) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the communication between the complainants and the Council in their role as foster carers and the removal of a child from their care. The Council has apologised and committed to learning from the communication issues and there is not enough evidence of fault in the way it made the decision to remove the child, so an investigation is not warranted. Swindon Borough Council (20 007 043) Summary: The Council was at fault for a delay in carrying out actions it had agreed with Mrs B in response to her complaint. It has agreed to update her on these actions, and to apologise. It has also agreed to make a symbolic payment of £100 to recognise the injustice caused to Mrs B by the delay. Staffordshire County Council (20 010 156) Summary: We will not investigate Ms B's complaint that the Council is at fault in failing to take action in response to her complaint about a foster carer. This is because it is unlikely we could add to the investigation the Council has carried out. Wakefield City Council (20 011 231) Summary: Mr and Mrs F complained the Council failed to properly consider the complaints they made about the way it had looked after their son, H, who was in care. The Council accepted their complaints at Stage One of the statutory complaints procedure but then failed to proceed to the subsequent stages. This had caused Mr and Mrs F time and trouble in trying to get the Council to follow the appropriate guidance. The Council has agreed to start a statutory Stage Two investigation into their complaints as soon as possible and to make a payment to acknowledge their time and trouble. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (20 002 538) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to address concerns he raised regarding his ex-partner's behaviour towards their children. He also complained the Council did not uphold all his complaint points at Stage 3 panel. He said the Council's actions led to his children being removed from his care. The Council was at fault when it failed to carry out the Stage 2 investigation in line with statutory requirements. This fault has not caused Mr X a significant injustice. Suffolk County Council (20 005 345) Summary: Mr B complained about the Council's Common Assessment Framework report and plan. Mr B says the Council's actions caused him and his children distress. The Council was at fault for not considering Mr B's complaint under the statutory complaint procedure. The Council has agreed to do so without further delay. Suffolk County Council (20 009 934) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about the level of contact he gets with his children. The Court decided this. Kent County Council (20 009 959) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr C's complaint that the Council is at fault in declining his application for a Blue Badge for his disabled son. This is because it is unlikely we would identify fault on the Council's part. Portsmouth City Council (20 010 113) Summary: We will not investigate Miss B's complaint that the Council has been at fault in the way it has treated her and her family. This is because the complaint is late, and it is unlikely investigation would add anything significant to the responses the Council has already made. Central Bedfordshire Council (19 012 009) Summary: Mrs X complains about the appropriateness of out of school education provided when she removed her child from a school. There was fault by the Council because it did not properly consider its approach to the withdrawal of Mrs X's son from school. The Council agreed a financial remedy for Mrs X and her son to address the injustice they suffered. Central Bedfordshire Council (19 012 234) Summary: Mrs Y complains about the Council's handling of a safeguarding investigation at her son's previous school. This investigation was discontinued because no worthwhile outcome is achievable by further investigation. Central Bedfordshire Council (19 012 349) Summary: Mrs A complains the Council failed to provide her son with education for more than three months when she withdrew him from his previous school. There was fault by the Council because it did not properly consider its approach to the withdrawal of Mrs A's son from school. The Council agreed a financial remedy for Mrs A and her son. Shropshire Council (19 020 440) Summary: Mrs C complained the Council failed to ensure her son, D, received the provision specified in his Education, Health and Care Plan (specifically, speech and language provision). She says that its fault caused D to miss a service he should have had and caused time and trouble to her having to chase the Council to see that the service was provided. She says the Council also delayed issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan for D and delayed finding him a new school. There is evidence of fault and the Council has agreed to apologise and to make appropriate payments. Royal Borough of Greenwich (20 004 825) Summary: There was fault by the Council because it failed to tell Mr X of his right to request a review of the decision not to give his son Y a personal budget/direct payment and took too long to complete the review. The Council should also have arranged speech and language therapy for Y in the Autumn term of 2020 and was at fault by not doing so. It has since agreed to reimburse Mr X for the therapy he has paid for, which is a partial remedy when completed. The Council will apologise, make the refund and also make Mr X a symbolic payment to reflect his time and trouble and inconvenience and distress. Cambridgeshire County Council (20 010 977) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs 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. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (20 001 475) Summary: We will not investigate Miss B's complaint that the Council was at fault in producing an inaccurate assessment, and in disclosing her personal information. This is because the Information Commissioner is better placed than the Ombudsman to consider the matters Miss B has raised. Suffolk County Council (20 004 045) Summary: Mr F complains about his dealings with the Council in connection with the care of his young son, B. The Council has proposed an investigation by an independent investigator under special procedures for investigating complaints about children's services. The investigation would focus on the needs of Mr F's son. This is a good way forward. Leicester City Council (20 009 867) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint about her daughter's adoptive parents failing to adhere to court orders because it lies outside our jurisdiction. This is because this is a matter that has been considered in court proceedings and it is for the courts to decide if the orders have been breached. Warwickshire County Council (20 010 812) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about care proceedings brought by the Council as the law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters which have been considered by the court. Derbyshire County Council (20 010 886) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council completing actions agreed with the Ombudsman. This is because it is unlikely we would find evidence of fault by the Council causing injustice. Essex County Council (20 002 063) Summary: Miss X complained about the Council's decision on her application and appeal for home to school transport for her son. We do not find fault with the way the Council made its decision, but the Council has accepted our suggestion for some further signposting about the right of appeal. Wolverhampton City Council (20 007 392) Summary: Mrs B complains that the independent school admissions appeal panel did not properly consider her appeal for a place for her son, C, at the school his brother attends. The Council has now offered a Mrs B a fresh appeal with a new panel. The Ombudsman proposes to discontinue our investigation because we do not consider that investigating further would lead to a better outcome. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (20 008 139) Summary: Miss X complained about the Council's decisions and actions between November 2018 and June 2020 when it refused and then delayed issuing her son, F with an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council did not issue F's final EHC Plan in line with statutory timescales. However, this did not cause F a significant injustice. The Council was not at fault when F did not receive provision in line with his plan during September 2020. We did not have jurisdiction to investigate the Council's actions and decision around whether to assess F or to issue him with an EHC Plan between November 2018 and January 2020. This is because Miss X appealed to a tribunal about the matters. Suffolk County Council (20 010 718) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to arrange medical services as it is not responsible for the issue being raised. Essex County Council (20 002 897) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to complete a Parent Carers Needs Assessment after she asked it for support with her son, Y. We found the Council was at fault. That has caused Ms X avoidable frustration. The Council has agreed to assess Ms X and Y and apologise for not completing the assessment when she initially asked for support. It will also pay her £150 to remedy any injustice caused. Hampshire County Council (20 009 708) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about social care failings in dealing with his family. These matters are historic and there is no good reason to investigate them. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (20 010 101) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about misconduct by the Council. This is not separable from matters concerning his child's contact and residence subject to court proceedings. He has a right to return to court it would be reasonable to use. Nottingham City Council (20 010 250) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about residence and contact arrangements for her children. This matter was decided by a court and Miss X has a right to return to court it would be reasonable to use. Warwickshire County Council (19 006 854) Summary: the complainant says the Council failed to provide her son with enough out of school support and act quickly to reintegrate him into school resulting in him missing a year's support. The Council accepted delay and offered an apology. The Council identified a suitable placement where the child thrives. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault for the delay and recommends a remedy. 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