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. London Borough of Redbridge (19 010 390) Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed in July 2018 to conduct a proper annual review of his son's (B's) Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and delayed in issuing the Plan. Mr X says that because of the Council's fault, some aspects of B's health provision were removed wrongly from his Plan. Torbay Council (20 001 980) Summary: Mr B complains the Council has not dealt properly with his son's social care needs. The Council was at fault because it did not record its decision making about C's assessment and did not deal with Mr B's complaint properly. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B, backdate C's support to his original application date and provide guidance to staff. Essex County Council (20 006 635) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to follow the course of action it set out when a young person came to live with her. The Council was at fault in how it shared information with Mrs X and dealt with her complaints. This caused her uncertainty. The Council will apologise to Mrs X and remind staff they must give suitable information to potential informal carers. South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (20 008 050) Summary: Mr F complains about his dealings with his children's social worker and Independent Reviewing Officer. I have discontinued my investigation as it is unlikely I could add to the Council's response. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (20 012 793) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's child protection investigation, the handling of sensitive information, and the reply to her complaints. The Council has not caused Ms X injustice. Investigation will not achieve a worthwhile outcome or the one Ms X wants. Hertfordshire County Council (19 000 922) Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to investigate her concerns about safeguarding of her son, failed to provide support required by her son's EHCP and failed to provide an education while her son was not at school. We found there was no fault in regard to the safeguarding issue. However, the Council were at fault for not providing education and EHCP provision. There was also fault in the way the Council handled Miss X's complaint. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (20 004 230) Summary: Mrs B complains the Council has not dealt properly with her son X's Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP). The Council is at fault because it delayed reviewing X's EHCP and did not make some provision for X's Special Education Needs (SEN). The Council has agreed to pay Mrs B £6,800 in respect of C's missed SEN provision. Central Bedfordshire Council (20 009 007) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council's final educational health care plan on his son does not include preparation for adulthood. Mr X has a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal, which it is reasonable for him to use, if he disagrees with the Council's assessment or the provision in the plan. Suffolk County Council (20 009 295) Summary: Mrs C says the Council unreasonably refused school transport for one of her children and failed to tell her what she needed to provide for her appeal. I have not investigated the complaint as I do not consider it likely Mrs C has suffered any injustice because of any fault in the appeal process. West Sussex County Council (20 013 615) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's children services actions. A Court is considering her children's care and we cannot investigate the same issues. London Borough of Newham (19 007 558) Summary: Mrs J says the Council failed to provide her with important information about her adopted children prior to adoption. She says this caused her and her adoptive children injustice as they did not receive vital support. The Council has lost most of the relevant evidence and failed to keep documents it was required to keep but, on the available evidence, the Council was not at fault for withholding information from Mrs J. The Council has agreed to pay a sum to Mrs J and her adoptive children in recognition of the injustice caused. London Borough of Croydon (19 007 560) Summary: Mrs C says the Council has not adequately remedied injustice that the Council caused her daughter, X, while she was in its care. She also says the Council did not fully investigate some of her allegations against the Council. She says Council failures have caused injustice to X who was put at risk of exploitation and have also caused her injustice, in the form of distress. There was no fault with the way the Council investigated her complaints. The investigation was thorough but the remedy offered was inadequate. We have recommended a further remedy for the fault identified by the Council. London Borough of Hackney (19 017 937) Summary: Mr W complains the Council failed to treat him appropriately when it assessed him and his family's needs after receiving a referral raising concerns. He says its actions caused him distress and time and trouble. The Council has been asked to apologise, make payments and change procedures going forward. West Berkshire Council (20 006 290) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to allocate a new social worker to her family after she told the Council she did not want to work with them. She also complained the Council conducted a Child Protection Conference incorrectly and would not acknowledge her complaints about this. She said this situation has caused her and her child, Y, distress and upset. There was no fault in the Council's actions. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (20 013 367) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B's complaint that the Council's officer acted with bias in his involvement with her, preventing her from having contact with her son. This is because it is unlikely we would identify fault on the Council's part causing injustice to Mrs B. Suffolk County Council (20 000 627) Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed to ensure his son received all the support he should have had under his Education Health and Care Plan, including during the COVID-19 pandemic. We do not find the Council was at fault in the way it dealt with the special education provision, but it did not record or provide enough information to Mr X about what support would be provided. It has apologised to Mr X. This is a sufficient remedy. Devon County Council (20 001 224) Summary: Ms B complains the Council has not dealt properly with her son C's Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP). The Council is at fault because it didn't follow statutory timescales when it amended C's EHCP. Special Education Needs (SEN) provision for C was delayed. The Council should pay Ms B £900 in respect of C's missed provision. Isle of Wight Council (20 005 553) Summary: Miss B complained the Council failed to properly review and update her son's Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) and as a result did not provide complete information when consulting a proposed school placement. She said the Council failed to ensure the school could meet the requirements of the EHCP. She said that as a result the placement was unsuccessful and meant her son was traumatised as a result of the experience at the school. There was fault in the delay in issuing the decision following the annual review but it did not cause significant injustice. There was no other fault. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (20 007 760) Summary: There was fault in the way the Council considered an application for home to school transport when a child with an Education, Health and Care plan transferred to secondary school. This caused inconvenience and financial loss to the family. Recommendations for an apology, reimbursement of expenses, a time and trouble payment and service improvements are made. The complaint is upheld. Norfolk County Council (20 013 857) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's actions connected to a tribunal hearing as we have no jurisdiction to do so. North Somerset Council (19 014 414) Summary: The complainant alleged that the Council failed to regard her nephew, who she cares for, as a child in care and, if it had, the Council would have had to provide both financial and other support to her and to her nephew. We find fault in that the Council failed to recognise that it played a significant part in placing the nephew with the complainant and it did not give reasons for not exercising its discretion to investigate the complaint out of time. The Council has agreed the recommended actions to remedy the injustice caused. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (19 015 983) Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain that the Council failed to provide support when their daughter Y could not attend school due to anxiety and failed to provide education while she was out of school. The Council is at fault as it had an unbalanced focus on Mrs X, its early help team delayed in contacting her, delayed in carrying out a needs assessment for Y's EHC plan, failed to ensure the provision in Y's EHC plan was delivered, failed to carry out an interim review of the EHC plan and failed to provide education to Y for 18 months. This meant Y missed the opportunity to gradually increase her tolerance to education which will have disadvantaged her. The faults also caused distress and avoidable time and trouble to Mr and Mrs X. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice to Mr and Mrs X and Y. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (19 019 027) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's failure to provide an appropriate level of support to assist in caring for her disabled daughter. She says the Council should have offered an assessment and care package since 2007. We have found some fault in the assessment process. We have also found the Council failed to properly remedy faults that were identified during its complaints procedure. To remedy the injustice caused by these faults, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mrs X and her daughter and review its practices. Buckinghamshire Council (20 003 111) Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to tell him it had started to investigate concerns raised about his child's welfare. He also complains the Council failed to carry out a thorough investigation of these concerns. Mr X says the Council discriminated against him and its actions caused him unnecessary stress and financial loss. We have found fault in the Council's actions and the Council has agreed a remedy to address the injustice caused to Mr X. Northamptonshire County Council (20 011 220) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council ignored the complainant's request to be a contact supervisor. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Kent County Council (20 006 722) Summary: The Council delayed reviewing Mr C's son's education, health and care plan, delayed issuing a final plan and delayed referring his son for a mentor. Those failures caused Mr C frustration but likely did not affect the provision for his son. An apology is satisfactory remedy. Suffolk County Council (20 013 715) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has monitored the complainant's social media and shared personal information about his children between different Council teams. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the complainant could complain to the Information Commissioner. Suffolk County Council (20 001 876) Summary: Mr X complains the Council breached an undertaking on how it would describe certain events to third parties and shared inaccurate information about him. Mr X wants the Council to write to the third parties concerned to say that any information provided that contradicts the undertaking is inaccurate. The Council is not at fault and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks. London Borough of Ealing (20 009 341) Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council's failure to consider her complaints under the statutory procedure for children social care services. The Council was at fault for suspending stage two and three complaint investigations because of the COVID-19 pandemic. It has agreed to start the stage two statutory complaint investigation without delay. Hampshire County Council (20 000 537) Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council has failed in its duty to ensure her daughter received a suitable education. She also says the Council's communication has been poor. The Council is at fault, which has caused injustice to B. The Council has agreed to financial remedies and an apology. Sunderland City Council (20 009 665) Summary: The Council failed to provide the support detailed in an Education Health and Care Plan for a year. The Council has agreed make a financial payment and provide services to remedy the injustice caused to Ms X and her child. Lancashire County Council (20 011 532) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about schools' decisions to exclude his child. We will not investigate an Independent Review Panel's process as it is unlikely we could provide a significantly different outcome and there has been no significant injustice caused. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (20 013 887) Summary: We will not investigate Miss B's complaint that the Council is at fault in failing to provide her daughter with a suitable education. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault on the Council's part. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (20 014 082) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel, and so we cannot question the merits of its decision. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (21 000 313) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X's complaint about an unsuccessful school admission appeal. This is because the Council has now offered Mr X's child a place at his preferred school and so we could not achieve anything more. Portsmouth City Council (19 020 525) Summary: The complainant alleged that the Council had served school attendance orders on her unfairly in relation to her two children, who she had chosen to educate at home. She also complained about the detail the Council required to assess the suitability of the education. We do not find fault on the first part of the complaint. We will not continue to investigate the second because there are pending judicial review proceedings, brought by a group of parents, on this aspect of the complaint. Portsmouth City Council (20 010 896) Summary: The complainant alleged that the Council had served school attendance orders on her unfairly in relation to her two children, who she had chosen to educate at home. She also complained about the detail the Council required to assess the suitability of the education. We do not find fault on the first part of the complaint. We will not continue to investigate the second because there are pending judicial review proceedings, brought by a group of parents, on this aspect of the complaint. London Borough of Redbridge (20 001 201) Summary: We are issuing this report because the Council failed to comply with an agreed recommendation to provide one of the remedies from a previous complaint Mr X made to us. Hampshire County Council (20 010 663) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaints about reports and assessments used in Court proceedings. We will not investigate assessments in 2016 and 2017 as there are no good reasons why the late complaint rule should not apply. And the Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to consider Mr X's data protection complaint. 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