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. Wolverhampton City Council (19 011 134) Summary: The complainant, who we shall refer to as Miss B, complained the Council declined her request to register as a potential adopter. Torbay Council (19 014 888) Summary: the Council delayed liaising with the college named on an education, health and care plan, which delayed its consideration of alternative provision for Miss C's son. The Council also delayed responding to a complaint. A payment to Miss C to reflect the lost education provision and her time and trouble pursuing the complaint, along with a reminder to officers about complaint response timescales, is satisfactory remedy. Essex County Council (20 004 360) Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council dealt with assessing her son's Education Health and Care needs during the COVID-19 pandemic and says he missed out on education and support as a result. The Council followed national advice and guidance on carrying out assessments and so it was not at fault. There was some fault in the way it communicated with Mrs X. The Council has agreed a suitable remedy. Telford & Wrekin Council (20 004 287) Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council managed a disruption meeting. We find fault by the Council which caused avoidable distress and uncertainty to Mr and Mrs X. The Council has already identified a number of service improvements and has agreed to apologise and make a financial payment to remedy the personal injustice caused to Mr and Mrs X. London Borough of Sutton (20 006 932) Summary: We find fault with the Council for failing to carry out all the agreed actions from a statutory complaint process. This caused Ms B and her daughter an injustice. The Council agrees actions to remedy the injustice. Devon County Council (20 007 938) Summary: Mr X complains the Council has not dealt properly with care arrangements for his son Y. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X's complaint because we cannot look at what happened in court and the complaints process was not flawed. London Borough of Hillingdon (21 000 201) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the accuracy of information the Council holds. The Information Commissioner's Office is better placed. London Borough of Ealing (21 000 228) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's management of its children's services. This is because part of her complaint is invalid because the Ombudsman has already investigated it. The complainant has not sustained a personal injustice in relation to the other matters she raised. Somerset County Council (20 014 495) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint that the Council's post-16 education transport policy fails to meet its statutory duties. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault on the Council's part. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (20 010 620) Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's decision to start a section 47 child protection enquiry. He says the Council considered historic allegations that it should not have. We find fault with the Council for failing to consider Mr X's complaint under its corporate complaints procedure. We have made recommendations. West Sussex County Council (20 014 247) Summary: We cannot and should not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's children services caring of his child and attitude towards his family. The Court is currently considering the child's care and welfare and we cannot investigate the same issues. It is not appropriate to investigate any separable issues during the Court proceedings. Lancashire County Council (21 002 048) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's failure to support her in caring for a foster child with disabilities between 2012 and 2019. The complaint is historic and there is no good reason to investigate it now. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (20 001 990) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to ensure her granddaughter, D, received appropriate education from October 2019 to December 2019. She also said the Council failed to provide the provision outlined in the EHCP. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council which has caused D to miss out on special educational provision. The Council will apologise, make a financial payment and service improvements. Birmingham City Council (20 007 685) Summary: Mr F complained his son B's school transport was unreliable and the journey took too long. The Council upheld his complaint and addressed the problems. Cheshire West & Chester Council (20 008 690) Summary: Mrs M complains the Council refused her application for school transport for her daughter, G and has not properly considered her concerns about the safety of the proposed walking route. The Council has agreed to arrange a completely impartial second stage appeal so Mrs M can challenge the decision on G's eligibility for school transport. Birmingham City Council (20 002 776) Summary: Ms B complains the Council's decision to hold a child protection conference without informing her and with a male chairperson. She says the Council did not consider the history of the case and this caused distress. The Ombudsman finds fault but does not find this caused a significant injustice to Ms B. Royal Borough of Greenwich (20 007 200) Summary: The Council made false or misleading comments during a strategy meeting. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs B, direct readers of the minutes to information about Mrs B's complaint, including this decision statement, and take action to prevent similar failings in future. Cumbria County Council (20 014 025) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint the Council has refused to treat her grandson, child A, as a looked after child and pay allowances from 2018. Also, that it has delayed pursuing the possibility of a special guardianship order. Ms X complains late about the history of the case and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate. Ms X should take her own legal advice about applying to court. Dorset Council (21 000 123) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has committed a data breach and has failed to properly respond to the complainants requests for information about their time in care. This is because the Information Commissioner is best placed to investigate these matters. We also cannot investigate how the complainant was cared for a child, because these events happened too long ago and we are therefore unable to achieve the outcome he wants. Worcestershire County Council (20 002 509) Summary: Mr X complains the Council gave incorrect information about a safeguarding matter to a voluntary organisation in which he held a senior position. He says this led to his membership being cancelled. I find no fault with the way the Council carried out its role. The voluntary organisation decides whether to use Mr X's services and whether to make a referral to the DBS if it is concerned about Mr X's suitability to work with children. These decisions are outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. West Sussex County Council (20 006 409) Summary: Miss X complained about the Council's refusal to investigate her complaint about the involvement of Children's Services with her family, on the basis that it was out of time. We find that the Council was at fault. It did not properly consider her reasons for the delay or whether the complaint could be investigated under the statutory children's social care complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to now investigate the complaint at stage 2 of the statutory process, after deciding whether some parts of the complaint should be included. This is a suitable remedy. Worcestershire County Council (20 007 119) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's involvement in Court proceedings about her child's care. And we will not investigate her other complaints about the Council's actions as it is unlikely we could significantly add to the Council's response to her complaint. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (19 020 206) Summary: Mrs B complains about the Council's failure to provide sufficient support to her family since they started caring for two children and for its handling of her complaints about this. The Council was at fault for not completing support plan annual reviews for special guardians for at least five years, which has caused significant injustice to Mrs B and her family. The Council was also at fault for failing to complete recommendations following Mrs B's stage two complaint and arranging a stage three complaint review. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused to Mrs B and her family. London Borough of Islington (20 002 246) Summary: The Council failed to follow its own procedures when Mrs X disputed its decision not to offer her a blue badge for disabled parking. It has now agreed to review her application using the correct process. Birmingham City Council (20 006 131) Summary: The Council was not at fault for raising its concerns about Ms X to the Local Authority Designated Officer, nor for the information it provided in the referral. The Council was at fault for telling Ms X's employer it had no concerns about her when she commenced employment when this was not the case. This did not cause significant injustice to Ms X. London Borough of Haringey (20 013 421) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about the accuracy of a 2018 child and family assessment. The report was used in Court proceedings and we cannot investigate reports which form part of legal proceedings. Royal Borough of Greenwich (20 014 218) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's refusal to reply in detail to her complaint. This is because we cannot investigate Miss X's complaint to the Council about legal proceedings. Cambridgeshire County Council (21 000 177) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council holds inaccurate information about him. It is unlikely we could achieve the outcome he seeks, and the Information Commissioner's Office is better placed. 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