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. Cambridgeshire County Council (20 009 280) Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Miss X's complaint that the Council would not let her complain about the welfare of her nephews. Since making the complaint Miss X has become a foster carer for her nephews, and therefore has a statutory right to complain. This means further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. East Sussex County Council (19 003 256) Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council's handling of an Education, Health and Care plan for her son. There was a delay in issuing the plan which caused avoidable distress to Mrs X. The Council agreed to a financial remedy for the injustice. Suffolk County Council (21 001 767) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint regarding safeguarding concerns that the Council reported to Ofsted about the school that the complainant worked at. This is because it is made on behalf of a public body. Torbay Council (18 001 382) Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council's handling of her special guardianship of her nephew, Child Y. We find the Council at fault for failing to secure Child Y's legal status in Spain (where he now lives with Mrs X) and for its handling of her complaints. The Council has agreed to remedy the significant injustice caused to Child Y and Mrs X, and work to resolve all issues around his legal status as soon as possible. The Council will also review its procedures to embed recent caselaw. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (19 020 634) Summary: Mr X complains about the lack of support he and his wife have received from the Council since adopting their three children and when they started having difficulties with their eldest child. Mr X also complains about the Council's decision to place his children on child protection plans. There was no fault in the Council's decision-making in this case. While there was fault in the Council's complaint handling, this has not caused sufficient injustice to warrant a remedy. Buckinghamshire Council (20 007 158) Summary: The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council for its response to safeguarding concerns for Child X. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for not providing conference reports within the appropriate timeframes. The Council has agreed a service remedy for this. As Mr A has died the Ombudsman is not able to provide a personal remedy for the fault. Wiltshire Council (20 007 812) Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to inform her that a Child in Need plan is a voluntary programme, harassed her and wrongly disclosed her phone number to her former partner. She also says the Council failed to provide a copy of an assessment report in good time for a court hearing. The Council is at fault, has caused injustice and has agreed a financial remedy and an apology. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (20 014 135) Summary: We cannot and will not investigate Miss X and Ms Y's complaints about the Council's children services actions. We cannot investigate actions and reports involved in legal proceedings and there is another body better placed to consider the accuracy of documents. Surrey County Council (19 009 228) Summary: The Council acknowledged it was at fault for the way it managed the process for amending and maintaining Y's SEN statement and for the delay in transferring it to an Education, Health and Care plan. The Council has agreed to provide a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused to Y. It has also agreed to undertake the recommended service improvements. Liverpool City Council (20 002 304) Summary: Miss B complained the Council delayed excessively in completing an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) for her son, C. She also complained it failed to provide appropriate alternative education or to communicate with her properly and delayed in dealing with her complaint. We found that the Council delayed for approximately a year in completing C's EHCP and led to him missing out on a year in a specialist setting. The Council has agreed to pay £2700 towards educational support for C and £300 to Miss B for her time, trouble and distress. West Sussex County Council (20 004 913) Summary: Mr Y complains the Council placed unreasonable restrictions on his contact with children. There is no evidence of fault by the Council. The Council appropriately responded to a safeguarding referral about the children of Mr Y's ex-partner. Following this, both Mr Y's ex-partner and his sisters decided to stop unsupervised contact between their children and Mr Y. The Council has no control to influence these parental decisions but has agreed to assess Mr Y's risk should the parents want contact with Mr Y to resume. Essex County Council (20 007 384) Summary: Mr E complained the Council has failed to properly investigate his concerns about his daughter's wellbeing. We find the Council was not at fault. Surrey County Council (20 010 834) Summary: We find fault with the Council for failing to investigate Mr B's complaint using the statutory complaint process. This denied Mr B the opportunity for an independent investigation. The Council agrees actions to remedy the injustice. North Yorkshire County Council (20 013 853) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council has failed to protect his children from harm. The matters complained of are not separable from the issue of where his children should live and who should have contact with them, which has been decided by courts recently, and it would have been reasonable for Mr X to raise his concerns in court. Hampshire County Council (20 003 245) Summary: Mrs Y complains the Council incorrectly refused her application for home to school travel assistance for her son, B, to attend the school named in his Education, Health and Care Plan. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault. The Council's failure to properly apply the relevant law when refusing Mrs Y's application caused her frustration and uncertainty. To remedy the injustice caused to Mrs Y, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mrs Y and consider her application again. Leeds City Council (20 006 129) Summary: We upheld Mr X's complaint about an unsuccessful school admissions appeal for his son. There was fault in how the panel considered Mr X's appeal which created uncertainty about how it decided his case. To remedy the injustice, the Council agreed to offer Mr X a fresh appeal with a different panel and clerk. London Borough of Barnet (20 000 688) Summary: Mr F complains about the Council's actions following an allegation by his ex-partner he harmed their daughter. There is no fault in the Council's actions. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (20 006 869) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about the opinion of an NHS doctor. The actions of the NHS are not an administrative function of the Council. Birmingham City Council (20 013 885) Summary: Ms X complained about the Council's decision to refuse her application for home to school transport for her child and the delay in carrying out her appeal. There was no fault in the way the Council reached its decision to refuse the application. It was at fault for the delay in holding the appeal. It has already apologised for this which is a sufficient remedy for the frustration this caused. Wiltshire Council (19 018 002) Summary: The Council was not at fault for withdrawing family support from Ms B, her partner and their children, because Ms B had stopped engaging with the support. And it was not at fault for inviting professionals who had not met the children to a child protection conference, because its guidance allowed them to attend and to contribute. However, it was at fault for putting unsupported claims about Ms B into a child protection report, and for a significant delay in answering her father's complaint. It has agreed to apologise, update its records, train its staff, and make symbolic payments to Ms B and her father to recognise their injustice. Cheshire West & Chester Council (20 009 704) Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about a lack of support from the Council leading up to and following an adoption breakdown. They are unhappy the Council has refused to investigate their complaint at stage two of the statutory complaints procedure. The Council's refusal to consider their complaint at stage two of the statutory complaint procedure is fault. This denied Mr and Mrs X the opportunity for independent oversight of their complaint. Durham County Council (20 012 510) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council not following its complaints' procedure properly. We would not investigate Ms X original complaint to the Council and therefore we will not investigate how it replied to it. Leeds City Council (19 010 497) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide her son with suitable education and that he had not been in school for long periods. This caused her distress and Y missed an education he was entitled to. The investigation found evidence of fault in failing to provide Y with a suitable education from December 2018 to July 2019. It also found evidence of fault in the final EHC plan causing uncertainty to Y. The Council has already accepted some fault and offered a financial remedy. The Council has agreed to apologise and make additional financial payments. Cornwall Council (19 019 712) Summary: There is fault in the Council's policy in relation to elements of the transport support it will provide for students attending post 16 educational establishments. This fault did not affect the complainant's son but the Council will amend its policy. 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