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. Owing to a technical problem we weren't able to issue our bulletins last week. This bumper edition also includes the cases you missed last week.   London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (20 000 817) Summary: Mr B complained the Council initially refused to assess his son for an Education, Health, and Care Plan and when it did, did not put the provision in place. Mr B says his son has lost out on three years of education. We have found fault with the Council for its delay issuing C's final amended EHCP. Because of the Council's delay, C did not receive suitable education provision for almost a year. The Council has agreed to make a financial payment to remedy the injustice caused to Mr B and his son. Surrey County Council (20 003 720) Summary: Ms M complained the Council had not responded to an expenses claim she made in connection with school transport for her daughter following a mistake by the Council in her appeal. The Council has agreed to pay Ms M's expenses claim. This is a good outcome. Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (20 013 021) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the effects of problems encountered on one home to school transport journey for her child. It is reasonable to expect her to apply to Court as we are unlikely we could achieve the outcome she seeks. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (20 013 333) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's response to an application for a place at School Z. This is because it is an academy. Warwickshire County Council (20 004 374) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council considering child protection referrals. It is unlikely we would find fault and there is another body better placed. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (20 007 661) Summary: the Council cannot agree never to review Mrs M's adoption support allowance, but it has proposed a streamlined review process and will liaise with a social worker in the area where Mrs M now lives if it needs information. There is no fault in the Council's decisions. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (20 010 672) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a deleted email and some information provided by the Council to a third party. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice. West Sussex County Council (20 012 863) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's failure to include his views in an assessment. This matter is not separable from the decision of a court about where his children should live. He has a right to return to court it would be reasonable to use. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (20 012 988) Summary: We cannot and will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the accuracy of a child and family assessment. Documents have been used in Court proceedings and the Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to consider a dispute about data accuracy. Leicester City Council (20 013 014) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about a social worker acting unprofessionally. It is unlikely we could achieve a significantly different outcome and there is another body better placed. London Borough of Redbridge (20 000 043) Summary: the Council delayed telling Miss B it had withdrawn a place for her son at his allocated school until the start of term and delayed telling her about her right of appeal. This caused a delay in the appeal. An apology, reminder to officers and introduction of a process to follow up with school applicants where residency cannot be confirmed is satisfactory remedy. Buckinghamshire Council (20 008 347) Summary: Mr F's son, B, should have started school in September 2018. Delay by the Council meant he did not have a school place until 15 January 2019. The Council has agreed a remedy for the delay. Leicester City Council (20 008 759) Summary: there was no fault in the way an Independent Appeal Panel made its decision not to admit Mr F's son to a secondary school.  The Ombudsman cannot question decisions made without fault. West Sussex County Council (20 012 963) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint that the Council refused to accept her school admissions application. It is unlikely we would find fault. Hertfordshire County Council (20 013 386) Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council obtaining care orders on her children who have moved to live in its care. We cannot investigate what happened in a court including the social worker's evidence. The Council has agreed to deal with complaints about the case handling this year. Essex County Council (20 002 901) Summary: Miss X complained about the school transport arrangements the Council was making for her son and that its offer of a fuel allowance was too low. The Council was not at fault in how it considered the question of the fuel allowance but its appeal policy was flawed and so Miss X did not have a chance to put her case in person. The Council has agreed to give her another chance to appeal if she still considers the transport offered is unsuitable. Surrey County Council (20 003 402) Summary: There was fault by the Council because it delayed completing an Education, Health and Care plan for Y. This caused uncertainty, avoidable distress and time and trouble in complaining. The Council will apologise and make payments to reflect the injustice. Southampton City Council (20 011 202) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about his education at a pupil referral unit from 1989-1991 because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from considering complaints about what happens in schools. We have no discretion to consider these matters. London Borough of Ealing (20 000 834) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's consideration of his allegation against a member of staff. There are other bodies better placed to do so and we cannot provide him with the information he seeks. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (20 005 381) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council inappropriately placed children with complex needs into her and her husband's foster care without providing the appropriate support or financial payment. We find the Council was not at fault in how it matched children to Mr and Mrs X's care. However, we find the Council was at fault for delays in it holding and finalising their fostering review which delayed their opportunity to apply to be level four carers. The Council has agreed to increase the financial remedy already offered to reflect those delays. Somerset County Council (20 011 378) Summary: We will not investigate Miss C's complaint that the Council was at fault throughout child protection action and in failing to remove information from its files when requested to do so. The complaint is late and there are insufficient grounds to investigate it now. Birmingham City Council (20 012 277) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about an assessment of her son's needs. She could have approached us sooner and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to consider her late complaint. Blackburn with Darwen Council (20 012 672) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's children services involvement in her child's care. We cannot investigate issues which have been considered by a Court, there is another body better placed to consider information accuracy and the remaining injustice is not direct or significant enough to justify an investigation. Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (20 012 698) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr C's complaint that a social worker was at fault in recommending an unsafe placement for his daughter. This is because the complaint concerns matters which have been decided in court. Peterborough City Council (20 004 991) Summary: Mrs X complained about a lack of education provision for her son, Y, and a delay in reviewing his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council was at fault when it delayed in finalising Y's EHC Plan following an annual review, and when it delayed in consulting with schools. This caused Mrs X unnecessary frustration, time and trouble and uncertainty. Y was also caused an injustice because without the delays, it is likely a suitable school place could have been identified earlier for him. The Council should pay Mrs X £1,400 to remedy the injustice she and Y experienced and make service improvements. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (20 005 610) Summary: Miss X complains that the Council failed to provide financial support when she agreed to accommodate a child. She says its communication and complaint handling were poor. The Council has agreed it is at fault and has caused injustice. It has agreed a financial remedy and service reviews. London Borough of Merton (20 009 719) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council produced a children and family assessment report which was biased against him and that it failed to handle personal information properly. A court considered the welfare of Mr X's child and investigation is not likely to achieve the outcome he wants. It is reasonable for Mr X to go to the Information Commissioner about the handling of his personal data. Hampshire County Council (20 011 992) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the accuracy of a child and family assessment. It is unlikely we would find any significant fault which has directly caused Mr X any significant injustice. It is unlikely we could add to the Council's reply and there are other bodies better placed. London Borough of Lambeth (20 012 012) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint that the Council is acting in breach of a court order. Ms X has a right to return to court it would be reasonable to use. Gloucestershire County Council (20 012 467) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the contents of a social work assessment. This is because the matter has been subject to court proceedings. Devon County Council (20 013 064) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs B's complaint that the Council is at fault in giving false information to the court. This is because the law prevents us from considering what happens in court. Lancashire County Council (20 005 826) Summary: Miss Q complained the admission appeals panel acted with fault by telling her R had a place at the school, which was not then given to her. This had caused Miss Q and her family considerable distress. There is no evidence of fault in how the appeal was carried out. Wiltshire Council (20 006 984) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council failed between 2013 and 2015 to pay a care allowance and travel expenses for 'Child A' who they cared for. Mr X complains late and could have complained sooner. There is not enough reason to exercise discretion to investigate now. London Borough of Bromley (20 008 732) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's handling of a child protection case, his contact with his children, and its reply to his complaints. A court is considering the arrangements for Mr X's children. There is no reason to investigate the handling of the child protection case and we are not likely to achieve what Mr X wants. Suffolk County Council (20 008 963) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about the information the Council gave a Court or the contact or care of his child. This is all part of legal proceedings, which we cannot investigate. Gloucestershire County Council (20 009 710) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council delayed giving the complainant an allowance after she became a Special Guardian for a child. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (20 011 289) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council making police checks on Mr T. The complaint is late and there are not good enough reasons to investigate it now. Suffolk County Council (20 012 479) Summary: On the evidence currently available, we will not investigate Miss X's complaint about how the Council's children's services handled her case as a child. This is because the issues Miss X complains of are historical and the complaint is late. There are no good reasons why the late complaint rule should not apply. Buckinghamshire Council (20 007 528) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint the Council has refused to reimburse her for college fees she incurred due to fault on its part. This is because Mrs X 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. Liverpool City Council (20 006 517) Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council failed to provide financial support prior to and following her application for a Special Guardianship Order (SGO). She also complains the Council failed to communicate with her or assess her adequately. The Council is at fault, which has caused injustice. It has agreed an apology, a financial assessment and a financial remedy. West Sussex County Council (20 010 611) Summary: We do not propose to investigate this complaint about the compilation and content of a Children and Families (CAF) assessment regarding the complainant and his family. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome that investigation would achieve. Lancashire County Council (20 011 550) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's response to a report of harm to his daughter. This matter is not separable from those later considered by a court in deciding where the child should live. Mr X has a right to return to court it would be reasonable to use. Wakefield City Council (20 011 759) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the way the Council carried out a safeguarding investigation after a concern was raised about his actions. There is insufficient evidence of personal injustice to Mr X caused by fault to warrant an investigation. London Borough of Harrow (20 012 109) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the contents of a report, written in relation to the complainants Special Guardianship Order. This is because the report concerns a matter that has been subject to court proceedings. Derby City Council (20 004 972) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council repeatedly delayed in finalising her son, Mr Y's, Educational Health and Care Plan which led to him missing out on provision he needed to progress at school. Mrs X also complained the Council did not plan for Mr Y's transition from school to adulthood. Mrs X said the Council's actions have negatively affected Mr Y's educational development and caused her and her family stress and upset. The Council was at fault when it delayed completing the Plan within the required statutory timescales, leading to frustration for Mrs X. The Council has agreed to provide an apology and take action to ensure it keeps to statutory timescales in future. Leicestershire County Council (20 006 051) Summary: Miss X complained the Council changed her son Y's, who has special educational needs school transport arrangements without giving her notice. She also complained the Council failed to respond to the complaints she raised about this within the required timescales. She said this situation caused her stress and led to Y losing out on 10 weeks of school. The Council was at fault when it did not give Mrs X enough notice of its intention to change Y's travel arrangements. This likely caused her distress. The Council has agreed to address the injustice to Mrs X by reminding its staff of the importance of giving service users reasonable notice of changes to transport arrangements. The Council was also at fault when it delayed carrying out a risk assessment for Y, but Y did not sustain an injustice because of this. London Borough of Sutton (20 012 342) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint that the Council failed to meet her son's special educational needs. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant investigation in the matters that are within our jurisdiction. Mrs X has also used her right to appeal against the Council's decisions to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. We are unable to consider what her son's needs are and how the Council arrived at its decisions about them. London Borough of Haringey (20 012 416) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint that the Council held a review of her son's Education Health and Care Plan without either of them present. There is not enough evidence of fault or injustice to warrant investigation. London Borough of Southwark (20 011 663) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement with the complainant and his sister's children. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable as we are unable to investigate some of the issues raised, and cannot add to the Council's response or achieve the complainant's desired outcomes in relation to other issues. London Borough of Croydon (20 011 668) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council should not have deregistered him as a foster carer or remove a child from his care. It is unlikely we would find the Council's fault caused the injustice Mr X claims. Middlesbrough Borough Council (20 013 246) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's assessment of him contained in a viability report. The report will be used as part of court proceedings and is therefore outside our jurisdiction. East Sussex County Council (20 011 178) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the advice provided to the complainant by the Council's Children's Services regarding her application to become the carer of a child. This is because there is no fault in the Council's actions. Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (20 005 676) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has wrongly refused to provide free school transport for her son and wrongly rejected her appeal against its decision. The Council is at fault as it has not properly considered the impact of her son's special educational needs on his ability to walk safely to school. This is fault by the Council which has caused injustice. The Council has agreed to reconsider the case. 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