Thursday, June 3, 2021

New children and education complaint decisions

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.


Summary: On the evidence currently available, we will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's children's services team refusing to correct inaccurate information on her fostering record. This is because the Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to consider it.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint that the Council was at fault in managing his requests for contact with his nephew. This is because there is nothing significant to be achieved by doing so.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's failure to provide her disabled son with suitable education and therapy identified in his Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP). She also complained about the Council's refusal to pay professional fees incurred during the ECHP process. We have agreed with the Council's own assessment that there was fault. In addition to the remedy already provided under its complaints procedure, the Council has agreed to refund some of Mrs X's legal costs and make an additional payment for distress. We are satisfied with the other actions taken by the Council.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint the Council failed to include the findings of an Educational Psychologist's report in her son's Education Health and Care Plan. This is because Mrs X has appealed to the Special Educational Needs and Disability tribunal and so her complaint is not one we can investigate.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to ensure the special educational provisions in her child's education, health and care (EHC) plan were implemented. She also complains the Council took child protection action in retaliation to her complaints. We find fault with the Council for not securing the special educational provisions set out in Ms X's child's EHC plan. We have made recommendations.

Summary: Miss X complained about the delay in the Council dealing with her complaint about a Social Worker. Miss X stated this caused her inconvenience and stress. We will not investigate this complaint because we cannot investigate the complaint procedure if we are not looking at the substantive matter.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint that the Council used inaccurate information in carrying out a child protection investigation in 2019. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to consider it now.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's provision for his son Y's education and how it dealt with Y's Education Health and Care Plan. The Council is at fault because it delayed issuing Y's EHCP and did not meet Y's entitlement to a full-time education. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and Y, pay Y £5,200 for lost provision and pay Mr X £500 for his time and trouble.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council's handling of her daughter, Y's special educational needs and delay in carrying out an annual review of her Education, Health and Care Plan and post -16 placement transfer review. We have found fault by the Council as it delayed in carrying out the post -16 placement transfer review, but this did not cause significant injustice to warrant a personal remedy. So, we have completed our investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his grandson, Mr Y, about how the Council dealt with the transfer of his Education Health and Care Plan after he moved into the Council's area. He also complained about the Council's communication and delays in its complaint handling process. We find the Council delayed in reassessing and issuing Mr Y an ammended Plan, however that did not cause a signficant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss B's complaint that the admission appeal panel for a Voluntary Aided school was at fault in refusing her appeal for a place for her daughter. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault on the school's part.

Summary: Mr and Mrs B complained that the Council incorrectly calculated their adoption support allowance by including their child's Employment and Support Allowance in the calculation. We find no fault in the Council's decision to include ESA in the calculation.

Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his grandson, Mr Y. He said the Council failed to issue an amended Education Health and Care Plan following the annual review in March 2018. It then failed to transfer Mr Y's Plan after he moved to live in a different local authority area. We find the Council was at fault. That has caused Mr Y avoidable uncertainty and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment of £200 to remedy any injustice caused.

Summary: The Council was at fault for delaying in producing an education, health and care plan for Mr X. We cannot say whether this caused him injustice as Mr X has appealed the content of his plan to the Special Educational Needs Disability Tribunal and has not received a decision. The Council was at fault for Mr X not having a school placement which caused him to miss out on a term of special educational provision. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and make a payment to reflect the period of lost special educational provision.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to share her son's final EHC plan with his education and health care providers. The Council's failure to send a copy of Y's EHC plan to Birmingham Children's Hospital amounts to fault. The Council will apologise for this error.

Summary: Ms X complains about delays in the Education Health and Care (EHC) plan process and in providing services for her daughter which had a significant impact on her daughter's health and wellbeing and led to a breakdown in her relationship with her daughter. We have discontinued our investigation on the basis we could not achieve a worthwhile outcome for Ms X, and we do not have appropriate consent to investigate a complaint on behalf of her daughter.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to properly consider information about her daughter's mental health before it decided to prosecute her for her daughter's non-attendance at school. We find the Council was not at fault.

Summary: Mrs D complained about the Council's involvement with her when her grandchildren were removed from their parents' care. She also complained the Council did not meet its own timescales when responding to her complaint. We find the Council's remedy from its statutory complaints investigation does not adequately remedy the injustice Mrs D suffered. The Council has agreed to our increased recommendation to reflect Mrs D's injustice.

Summary: I will not investigate this complaint about Child Protection procedures. This is because the complaint is made late and there is no good reason to investigate it now.

Summary: We should not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the content of a report as this concerns matters not separable from the contact arrangements for her children. Such matters are for a court, and it would be reasonable for Mrs X to use her right to return to court to change or maintain contact arrangements.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council arranged for his daughter to move out of the area following allegations of domestic abuse by his ex-wife. He complains the Council failed to investigate the situation, passed on false allegations about him, deliberately misconstrued and withheld information. We find some fault with the Council's actions. We have made recommendations.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed in sending her a copy of the final Education Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) for her son following the Tribunal's decision, and wrongly removed agreed provision from Section G of the final EHC Plan.

Summary: Miss K has made a complaint for her son who has special educational needs. The Council was at fault for failing to provide an Education and Health Care Plan in compliance with the statutory code timetable. This caused a period of distress to Miss K and arguably delayed the date her son was able to undertake full-time education. However, Miss K had a right of appeal about the naming of a school placement. This means that by law, the Ombudsman cannot remedy any injustice beyond the date the right of appeal occurred. Also, the Ombudsman cannot remedy any fault by reason of the Council not providing suitable education to Child A.


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 GovDelivery logo

No comments:

Post a Comment