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. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council ( (19 014 589) Summary: Ms X complained that the Council failed to consider her and her partner, Ms Y, and her sister, Ms D, as family foster carers and therefore they have missed out on appropriate financial and other support from the Council when caring for their nephew and niece. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (20 002 462) Summary: Miss X complained about the Council's decisions and actions between November 2018 and November 2020 when the Council refused and then delayed issuing her son, G with an Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council did not issue G's draft and final EHC Plan in line with statutory timescales following a tribunal order. It also issued Miss X with a flawed complaint response. The faults meant G did not have his plan in place for the start of the school year in September 2020. However, evidence shows this did not cause G a significant injustice. The Council agreed to pay Miss X £300 to acknowledge the frustration and time and trouble the matter caused her. North Yorkshire County Council (20 005 157) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to act when his child's school terminated the placement at short notice. He also complained about procedural errors and delay in finalising his child's amended Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council was at fault. There were errors in its contractual arrangements with the school which affected decision making and caused uncertainty. There were also errors in the EHC Plan process and in its complaints handling. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, pay him £250 as an acknowledgement of the distress and uncertainty caused and review its procedures. Royal Borough of Greenwich (21 000 242) Summary: We will not investigate Miss B's complaint that the Council was at fault in refusing her appeals for places for her son at three schools. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault on the Council's part. Salford City Council (20 005 197) Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with a safeguarding referral and child protection enquiry, and its handling of his complaint about this. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council in its complaint handling, and in raising an issue about the children's care in their presence, causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this by making payments to reflect time and trouble and distress caused by these faults and providing evidence of service improvements. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (20 013 296) Summary: We cannot and will not investigate Mr X's complaint about delays in a step parent adoption assessment. We cannot investigate the Council's production of reports for Court proceedings. And there is no significant injustice or fault by the Council's conduct needing a further remedy, than the apologies already given. Surrey County Council (20 013 572) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about what a social worker wrote in a report for a court. Surrey County Council (20 013 629) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about a social worker creating a set of minutes of a meeting that did not take place. The Council's actions in response to Miss X's complaint are sufficient for the injustice caused and an investigation by us would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome. Milton Keynes Council (20 008 192) Summary: Ms X complains about how the Council evaluated her organisation's proposals for free schools. The Ombudsman has discontinued our investigation as Ms X's complaint is not within our jurisdiction. This is because the Council is acting on behalf of the Secretary of State when evaluating proposals for free schools. Warwickshire County Council (20 012 925) Summary: We will not and cannot investigate Mr X's complaint the Council breached the Data Protection Act and failed to provide him with information. We cannot investigate the Council's action on behalf of a school and the Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to consider his Data Protection complaint. Warwickshire County Council (20 012 926) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about a letter the Council sent him about his communication with a school. We cannot investigate the way a school manages its communication with parents, nor the Council's involvement in that. West Berkshire Council (20 000 570) Summary: We upheld Mrs X's complaint because the Council delayed in considering her complaint at stage two of the statutory complaints procedure. This denied Mrs X the opportunity for independent oversight of her complaint. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X for the delay. London Borough of Hounslow (20 006 048) Summary: An advocate complained about the Council's delay reopening Ms X's case when she asked for leaving care support. We cannot investigate the complaint because the events complained about happened too long ago and there are no good reasons for investigating the complaint out of time. Kent County Council (20 006 870) Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council, when considering her application for a blue badge, failed to properly consider the impact of her son's disability on his behaviour when outdoors. We cannot find fault with the action the Council took. Derbyshire County Council (20 012 893) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's response to the complainant's request for her records from when she was a child in care. This is because it is a late complaint and because the complainant could complain to the Information Commissioner. Derbyshire County Council (20 013 225) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to consider a complaint about its child protection involvement with the complainant's grandchildren. The is because there is no sign of fault with the Council's decision and the substantive matter is subject to court proceedings and is therefore out of the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. London Borough of Hackney (20 013 261) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr C's complaint about the contents of a social work assessment. This is because this matter is subject to court proceedings. Isle of Wight Council (20 014 062) Summary: We cannot lawfully investigate Mr X's complaint because the Council's report he complains about was part of court proceedings. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (20 009 126) Summary: Ms X complained about the remedy the Council offered for failing to arrange the Speech and Language Therapy specified in her son's Education Health and Care plan. While the Council accepted fault, it had not proposed a suitable remedy. The Council has now agreed to apologise to Ms X's son and arrange Speech and Language Therapy to make up for the therapy he missed. This is a suitable remedy, so we completed our investigation. Bedford Borough Council (20 012 413) Summary: Ms X complained about the Council's assessment of her child's special educational needs, the content of an Education Health and Care Plan and the Council's consideration of a suitable alternative school. We cannot investigate the complaint because Ms X has already appealed to the SEND Tribunal. Northumberland County Council (20 005 184) Summary: Mr Y complains about various aspects of the Council's involvement in his life as a young person in care. The Ombudsman will not consider the complaint Mr Y brings because it is being investigated under the Council's statutory children's complaints procedure. Mr Y is entitled to approach the Ombudsman again once he receives a final response from the Council. Leicestershire County Council (20 004 237) Summary: Miss X complained the Council has failed to ensure the provision set out in her daughter, Y's Education, Health and Care (ENC) Plan has been delivered. She also complained there has been an unacceptable delay in completing the annual review, and that a multi-agency meeting agreed in January 2019 has still not taken place. The Council's failure to ensure Y received the specified special educational provision in her EHC Plan amounts to fault. As does the failure to complete annual review process. These faults have caused X and Miss Y an injustice. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (20 004 794) Summary: The Council delayed in completing Ms B's son's education, health and care plan with the result that he lost a place at his preferred school for September 2020. Its communication with Ms B was also poor. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Ms B in recognition of the injustice caused. Surrey County Council (20 013 239) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council issued a final Education Health and Care Plan for his child without consultation and ignoring what had been agreed after the draft Plan. Investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome as the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal decided what the child's needs were. Liverpool City Council (20 005 906) Summary: Liverpool City Council was at fault in its handling of several issues related to Ms B's time as a looked after child and in its handling of her complaint about these. The Council will take the recommended action to recognise the injustice this fault caused. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (20 011 772) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council took a photograph of the complainant's child without permission. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice, and it is unlikely as investigation would lead to a different outcome. Devon County Council (20 001 162) Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council dealt with her request for an Education Health and Care Plan for her son, Y and the failure to provide Y with suitable alternative educational provision while he was unable to attend school. The delays in the EHC process and in issuing a final EHC plan amount to fault. As does the Council's failure to properly consider and review the alternative provision offered to ensure it was appropriate and provided a suitable education. These faults have caused Mrs X and Y an injustice. Oxfordshire County Council (20 006 220) Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council issued her son, Z, with an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan, the information it provided her about her appeal rights to the Tribunal and its refusal to provide transport to Z's play programme. The Council was at fault when it delayed in carrying out a needs assessment and failed to provide clear information about Mrs X's appeal rights to the Tribunal. This caused Mrs X uncertainty that Z may have been able to start at his special school earlier if the faults had not occurred. Mrs X also lost her chance to appeal. The Council has agreed to make Mrs X a financial payment and make service changes. The Council was not at fault in the time it took to finalise Z's EHC Plan, its consideration of Mrs X's preferred school or its decision not to pay for transport to Z's play programme. Benton Dene Primary School, Newcastle (20 010 553) Summary: Mrs X complained the admission authority did not properly consider her request for her summer born son to delay starting school into reception until after he reaches compulsory school age. We have found fault with the admission authority's decision-making process. It has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and reconsider her application. Surrey County Council (20 012 691) Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X's complaint about the information the Council gave a Court nor the parenting support it provided her. The Court decided her child's care arrangements and we cannot investigate matters involved in Court proceedings. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (20 013 217) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint that the Council wrongly failed to ensure she had an abortion almost 20 years ago when she was in foster care. The complaint is historic and there is no good reason to consider it now. Wiltshire Council (20 013 218) Summary: We will not investigate Miss B's complaint that the Council's social worker has acted with bias in favour of her sons' fathers in the course of child protection action. This is because the matters she has raised cannot be separated from those considered in court, and we cannot achieve what she wants. Surrey County Council (19 018 109) Summary: The Council were at fault in how it dealt with a review of Mrs Y's daughters Education Health and Care (EHC) plan. The Council has now agreed to make a payment that recognises the injustice this caused. 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