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. Derby City Council (20 007 010) Summary: There was fault by the Council in failing to update an Education, Health and Care Plan in a timely way and in failing to resolve Mr X's concerns a school was not providing all the provision in the Plan. This was fault and caused unnecessary time, stress and frustration to Mr X. It also meant Mr X's son's Plan did not reflect the current needs for an extended period. Recommendations for an apology, financial payment and service improvements are made. Oxfordshire County Council (20 007 719) Summary: Miss B complains about the way the Council handled her daughter, C's, transition to post-16 education. We found fault with the Council. This caused injustice to Miss B and C. The Council agrees actions to remedy the injustice. Hampshire County Council (20 012 860) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about delays in producing an Education Health and Care Plan and the failure to provide education in the meantime. The Tribunal is currently considering the provision. Herefordshire Council (20 013 048) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs C's complaint that the Council failed to obtain necessary reports in its assessment of her daughter's special educational needs. This is because Mrs C has the right to appeal and it would be reasonable for her to do so. Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (20 013 644) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's child protection investigation. It is unlikely we would find further significant fault and we would not achieve a significantly different outcome. Middlesbrough Borough Council (20 013 659) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's children services team involvement with her family. The Court considered and decided the care of the child concerned and we cannot investigate matters contained in legal proceedings. Wright Robinson College (20 007 667) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint, about a school admissions appeal panel's decision not to allow the complainant's appeal. This is because the school is now an academy, which means it is outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. London Borough of Bexley (20 010 068) Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council's decision not to allow her summer born daughter, who has special educational needs and developmental delay, to start school at age 5 in Reception year rather than Year One. Mrs X complains the Council has not followed the correct process and its decision will mean her daughter will miss out on the Reception year. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council's decision-making process. The Council has agreed to review the decision, apologise to Mrs X, and pay her £100 for her time and trouble pursuing the complaint. South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (20 013 498) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about how the school handled a safeguarding matter regarding a child in his care and how it breached confidentiality during the complaint. This is because the law prevents us from investigating matters about what happens in a school including the Council's involvement. Cornwall Council (20 014 510) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint that her daughter was out of education between 2018 and 2019. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to consider it now. Warwickshire County Council (20 013 917) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint that the Council is at fault in treating him as an unreasonably persistent complainant and in restricting his contact. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault on the Council's part causing injustice to Mr B. London Borough of Croydon (20 014 191) Summary: We will not investigate Miss B's complaint that the Council was at fault in removing her daughter from her care, and in failing to provide her with services to which she was entitled. The complaint is late and there are no grounds for us to consider it now. This is because the law prevents us from considering matters which have been decided in court, and we cannot achieve the outcome Miss B wants. Cumbria County Council (19 018 931) Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council failed to monitor her son's placement at an independent alternative provision. The Ombudsman finds the Council acted without fault. However, there was fault in the actions of the Council following an annual review of the EHCP in March 2019 which meant Mrs X was denied her right to appeal. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment and service improvements. Essex County Council (20 001 360) Summary: Mr B complained about the actions of the Council associated with the annual reviews of Education, Health and Care plans for his disabled children. We found there was fault by the Council in this matter, causing injustice for which the Council has agreed to provide a remedy we recommended. Bath and North East Somerset Council (20 002 134) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the council provided Special Education Needs and Disability (SEND) support to Mr D. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (20 012 678) Summary: A parent complained that fault by the Council meant he did not receive a reminder about applying for a secondary school place for his daughter. The parent said this resulted in him making a late application which was turned down, so his daughter was denied a place at his preferred school. But we will not investigate this matter. This is because we are unlikely to find that fault by the Council caused the parent the injustice he suggests. London Borough of Brent (19 012 360) Summary: Mr C says the Council is at fault for delay in carrying out annual reviews of his son's education, health and care plan. He also says it delayed in informing him of the review results and in implementing the recommendations of those reviews. He says this caused him injustice in that it led his son to miss out on educational provision. The Council was at fault for a failure to inform Mr C of its decision following an annual review in 2018. This caused Mr C injustice. He was unable to pursue an appeal against the plan for a year. However, there is no evidence that his son missed out on education. The Council has agreed to pay Mr C a sum as a remedy. Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (20 008 996) Summary: We did not uphold Mr X's complaint that the Council failed to consider his complaint at stage two of the statutory complaint procedure. The Council was not required to consider the complaint because Mr X told it he intended to take legal action. However, the Council should have told Mr X he could resubmit his complaint within a year of any legal action ending. It agreed to do so. Hampshire County Council (20 012 674) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about Council delay in supplying minutes of a meeting, and delay in acknowledging inaccuracies. Mr X has a right to approach the Information Commissioner, who is better placed to consider this matter, and it would be reasonable for him to do so. London Borough of Camden (20 000 114) Summary: Ms B complained about the way an integrated health and social care service which includes a Council and four NHS Trusts completed assessments to decide whether her child had autism. She also complained about delays in the assessment process and a failure to make reasonable adjustments. We found no fault in the way the integrated service, Camden MOSAIC, completed an autism diagnostic assessment. There was a two-month delay in the assessment process which caused limited personal injustice but led to service improvements. Camden MOSAIC also failed to follow up on a referral for a second opinion. There was a delay agreeing reasonable adjustments by one of the NHS Trust and this caused Ms B injustice when accessing the service, but it has since improved. We recommend the NHS Trust apologise to Ms B. All the authorities within Camden MOSAIC should work together to improve the way referrals are followed up and monitored. Leicestershire County Council (20 001 211) Summary: Miss Y complains about the process followed by the Council when it conducted enquiries and an assessment under Section 47 of the Children Act. We find fault in the Council's initial assessment of the referral it received. This is because the Council failed to seek permission from Miss Y when it was required to do so, did not explain the process to her and failed to provide a rationale for proceeding with enquiries. On balance, we are satisfied the outcome would have likely been the same based on the retrospective rationale provided by the Council. However, the fault identified caused Miss Y some avoidable frustration, time and trouble which the Council will apologise for and pay £300. South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (20 013 784) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint about children services actions which a Court is considering. There is another body better placed to consider her complaint about a social worker's personal behaviour. Suffolk County Council (19 019 102) Summary: Mr and Mrs J complain they were caused distress and uncertainty because of the Council's failure to issue an Education, Health and Care Plan promptly for their daughter K. The Council also failed to offer alternative provision even though K was too ill to attend her school. The investigation found evidence of fault and the Council has agreed to apologise and to ensure it meets the requirements of the law and statutory guidance going forward. It had already agreed to provide a financial remedy in line with our guidance. London Borough of Camden (19 019 667) Summary: The complainant complains about the Council's handling of his son's Education, Health and Care Plan and says the Council has failed to comply with a decision by the court. The Council says it has paid for support for which the complainant has provided invoices. The Council and the complainant have also agreed to settle the outstanding payments. We find the Council at fault and that it has provided a suitable remedy. We are not investigating other parts of the complaint for jurisdictional reasons. The complainant's appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal and judicial review proceedings against the Council removes those other issues from our jurisdiction. Leicester City Council (20 003 951) Summary: Ms C complained about the Council's delays in providing her son with education as set out in his Education, Health and Care plan. We find the Council was at fault when it delayed providing Ms C's son with alternative education when he was out of school. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused to Ms C and her son. East Sussex County Council (20 005 617) Summary: Mrs B complains about the Council's decision not to award transport assistance for her daughter's college. She says her daughter has not been attending college because the family cannot afford the transport costs. The Ombudsman finds fault in how the appeal panel considered the issues involved. Salford City Council (20 007 016) Summary: Mr C complained that the way the Council managed the waiting list for the school of his choice meant his child, B, lost out on a place. He wanted an independent appeal panel to consider this but felt it failed to properly appreciate the case he was making. I have found no evidence of fault by either the Council or the independent appeal panel. The Council has said it will ask applicants for proof of address when they apply for schools from 2022. Plymouth City Council (20 000 871) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council wrongly reduced her Special Guardian Allowance and failed to provide her family with support. She also says it caused delays and failed to correct its errors after she complained. The Council's independent investigation found significant faults and it took action to remedy the injustice caused. Mrs X believed the remedies were inadequate. The Ombudsman finds the Council's faults caused Mrs X and her family an injustice. The Council has agreed make payment to acknowledge the distress, uncertainty, loss of opportunity and time and trouble they experienced. It also agreed to review its current support to the family. In addition, it will also review its procedures for Special Guardians and ensure its staff are aware of these. Bracknell Forest Council (20 002 618) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to properly consider an application she made for a blue badge for her son. We found the initial explanation of the Council's decision was lacking in detail, but we found the decision the Council ultimately made not to grant a blue badge was one it was entitled to reach. We recommended the Council should improve the way it documents its approach to considering applications. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (20 006 575) Summary: Miss X complains about the Council's actions during its involvement with her and her children. She complains the Council failed to assess her children's needs fully, failed to assess her needs as a carer, failed to ensure assessments were accurate, and failed to provide her children with adequate support. We find some fault with the Council's actions. We have made recommendations. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (20 010 467) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaints about the Council's actions regarding her appeal to the SEND Tribunal, a child in need/child protection case and personal information. Investigation will not add to the Council's complaint replies or be a good use of limited public resources. We cannot lawfully investigate actions relating to the Tribunal. Ms X may go to the Information Commissioner if she is concerned about the handling of personal information. Coventry City Council (20 013 704) Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X's complaint about court orders concerning her children in the Council's care. Wiltshire Council (20 013 775) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's view of her as this formed part of Court proceedings which decided her children's care arrangements. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (20 013 909) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr B's complaint that the Council's social worker was at fault in how she produced a report for the Court. This is because it concerns the content and production of a court report, and the law says we cannot investigate such matters. London Borough of Lewisham (19 014 855) Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to protect her from harm when she suffered significant and repeated incidents of abuse while in its care. Hertfordshire County Council (19 019 598) Summary: Miss M complains about her granddaughter G's post-16 education. G has an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan maintained by the Council. Miss M says anxiety has prevented G from regularly attending college. Miss M complains the Council failed to deliver the special educational provision in G's EHC Plan which she believes should have been delivered even when G did not attend college. Miss M complains that G is under-occupied as a result, and this is having a negative effect on her wellbeing. The Council does not have a duty to make alternative arrangements for G's education when she is unable to attend college, and there is no 'standalone' provision the Council could have arranged outside college. Miss M does not agree and appealed the provision to the Tribunal. The Ombudsman cannot consider Miss M's complaint once she appealed. 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