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. Durham County Council (20 006 125) Summary: The Council was at fault for refusing home to school transport for Y, to the only school named in his Education, Health and Care plan. It has since offered to provide the transport. It will make changes to its processes and review the information it gives to families. Essex County Council (21 000 234) Summary: A parent complained that the Council had mishandled his application for a school place for his son and that, as a result, his son had not been put on his preferred school's waiting list. But we have no reason to start an investigation of this matter. This is because the child has now been offered a place at the school in question. Gloucestershire County Council (20 002 935) Summary: Mr X complained the Council told his ex-wife to stop all contact between him and his daughter. Mr X complained the Council failed to follow through on the actions outlined in the Stage 2 response of February 2020. Mr X also complained the Council failed to make accommodations for his Autism Spectrum Disorder. Mr X says the Council's actions meant he did not see his daughter for three months and he needed to take legal action to regain access which came at a financial cost. The Ombudsman found fault with the Council. The Council has already carried out recommendations from its Stage 2 independent investigation. The Council should also provide training to its staff about making accommodations for people with disabilities and completing balanced investigations. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (20 003 139) Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's actions in relation to concerns about his son, Y. There is fault by the Council, which has caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise. Suffolk County Council (20 006 235) Summary: Ms J has made a complaint about the Council's children services team. Mainly, she says there was a lack of support by the Council before her grandchildren became looked after children. Among other issues, Ms J says the Council has not promoted regular contact between her and her grandchildren. The Ombudsman has not found any evidence of fault by the Council. Kent County Council (21 000 291) Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X's complaint about a court report completed by the Council because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating matters that are being considered in court proceedings. Durham County Council (21 000 398) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the content of a Section 7 report and the conduct of the social worker involved in her case. This is because we cannot investigate what happens in court. This includes the content of court reports. It is reasonable for Mrs X to raise her concerns in court, and she has the option of contacting the regulatory body for social workers in England. Kent County Council (21 000 022) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to decline the complainants application for a Blue Badge for her son. This is because there is no evidence of fault in how the Council carried out its assessments. West Sussex County Council (21 000 285) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council spent money to obtain childcare services. This is because the matter has been subject to court proceedings, and we do not consider that the complainant is suffering from any outstanding personal injustice. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (21 002 085) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B's complaint that the Council's school admission appeal panel failed to properly consider her appeal for a school place for her son. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault on the Council's part. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (20 009 751) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the involvement of the Council's Children's Services in a man's case. This is because part of the complaint has been made late, and there is no sign of fault by the Council regarding other matters which has caused the man a significant injustice. Plymouth City Council (21 000 052) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council assessed the complainants suitability to continue as a foster carer. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault, and the complainant had the opportunity to challenge the contents of the assessment. Essex County Council (21 002 095) Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X's complaint about a report written by the Council for court proceedings. This is because the issues Ms X raises are not separable from the matters before the family court. London Borough of Bromley (20 005 587) Summary: the London Borough of Bromley avoidably delayed in completing a reassessment of Ms B's daughter's education, health and care needs for three months in 2019. This caused injustice and the Council will now take the action recommended to remedy this. Surrey County Council (20 007 451) Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about delays in holding their appeal for a place for their child at an infant school and how the appeal panel considered their appeal. The Council is not at fault for the time taken to hold Mr and Mrs X's appeal. There is also no evidence of fault in how the appeal panel considered Mr and Mrs X's appeal. However, the Council is at fault for the delay in providing the appeal panel's detailed reasons for its decision and for not notifying Mr and Mrs X of the delays in holding their appeal. But these faults did not cause significant injustice to Mr and Mrs X to warrant further action from the Council. Surrey County Council (20 008 388) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's delay in issuing his son's Education Health and Care plan following an annual review and the lack of Occupational Therapy Sessions. We have discontinued our investigation as it is unlikely that we would achieve any additional outcomes for Mr X. Brighton & Hove City Council (20 001 244) Summary: Mr X complains that the Council wrongly considered his and Mrs X's care of their grandchildren to be a family arrangement. The Council is at fault for wrongly considering Mr and Mrs X's care of their grandchildren to be a family arrangement. As a result Mr and Mrs X suffered financial loss as the Council did not pay foster carers allowance to them. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by paying a foster carers' allowance to Mr and Mrs X for the six month period they looked after their grandchildren. London Borough of Barnet (20 005 525) Summary: Ms X complains that social workers were biased against her and failed to recognise she was a victim of domestic violence. The Council is at fault as it failed to consider if Ms X was a victim of domestic violence which caused distress to Ms X. The Council has agreed to remedy Ms X's injustice by apologising to her and making a payment of £300 to acknowledge the distress caused. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (20 005 972) Summary: there was fault by Kingston Upon Hull City Council in relation to Ms B's complaint about delay in referring her for suitable support following the completion of legal proceedings in late 2019. There was also avoidable delay in the consideration of her complaint under the statutory children's complaints procedure. These faults caused Ms B injustice and the Council will take the recommended action to recognise this and ensure that such fault does not occur in future North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (20 013 316) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B's complaint that the Council has failed to safeguard her and her daughter and has failed to act in their best interests. This is because it is unlikely we could add anything to the investigation the Council has carried out, and we cannot achieve the outcomes Mrs B is seeking. Northumberland County Council (21 000 344) Summary: We will not investigate Ms B's complaint that the Council has refused to uphold all parts of her complaint about the actions of social workers. This is because we cannot achieve anything significant by doing so. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (20 001 263) Summary: There was fault by the Council in the Education, Health and Care needs assessment and planning process for Y. This fault caused Y a loss of special education provision. It also caused Mrs X, his mother, a financial loss and avoidable distress. The Council will apologise and make payments described in this statement. Wokingham Borough Council (20 007 688) Summary: A parent complained about the way the school admission appeal panel dealt with her case when it decided to reject her appeal regarding the refusal of a place for her son at her preferred primary school. But we cannot investigate this matter because the school in question is an academy school and we have no jurisdiction to consider complaints about appeals for academies. London Borough of Bromley (20 006 390) Summary: Miss P complained about the way the Council handled child protection matters relating to her children and how it responded to her complaint about those matters. She said it caused her considerable distress. There was fault by the Council that caused injustice to Miss P. The Council will apologise to her and make a payment. Staffordshire County Council (20 007 616) Summary: Miss X complains about the Council's response to child protection concerns. The Council is at fault, has caused injustice and has agreed financial remedies. Herefordshire Council (20 007 894) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to attend his son's Mental Health Tribunals or prepare a report for them. The Council was at fault. This caused unnecessary distress to Mr X and his son. The Council will make a payment and remind staff they must attend Tribunal hearings where requested and prepare reports according to the guidance. Peterborough City Council (21 000 256) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint that the Council wrongly removed her children. A court decided where her children should live, and we have no discretion to consider the matter. 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