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 Barnet (21 001 633) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint that the Council failed to assess her child's special educational needs properly and issued an inadequate Education Health and Care Plan. Ms X has appealed to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal and these matters are not separable from its work. London Borough of Waltham Forest (18 016 503) Summary: Ms B complained about how the Council handled various matters in relation to her grandson who was accommodated by the Council. The Council failed to follow the right process when investigating the concerns about one of the placements and did not investigate the concerns about the second placement, made decisions about contact without involving Ms B when she retained parental responsibility for her grandson, gave Ms B misleading information about the options the Council was considering and when a placement planning meeting would take place, failed to properly document its decision-making, produced inaccurate documents and failed to properly consider her complaint. An apology, payment to Ms B and training for officers is satisfactory remedy. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (20 001 983) Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the way the Council acted after it received a safeguarding referral for their children, H and K. The Ombudsman finds the Council's failure to tell Mr and Mrs X the safety plan was a voluntary agreement was fault. That meant they did not understand their rights when Mr X moved out of the family home. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr and Mrs X and amend its safety plan documentation to remedy the injustice caused. Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (20 008 175) Summary: Mr D complains about the quality of care whilst he was a looked after child, in particular that he did not receive a suitable education and arrangements for contact with his family were inadequate. The Council has accepted there was fault and has apologised. The fault caused Mr D to lose the opportunity to achieve GCSEs and has damaged his relationships with his family. The Council has agreed to make a payment to remedy those injustices. Sheffield City Council (21 000 632) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about children services actions. It is unlikely we would find the fault he alleges has caused the injustice he alleges, nor could we achieve the outcome he seeks. And there are other bodies more suited to some aspects. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (21 001 025) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr and Mrs X's complaint about the Council's children services consideration of their concerns about their grandchild's care or the Council's views and decisions on care. The Court is currently considering the child's care. London Borough of Brent (21 001 600) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about what happened in court. This is because the issues Mr X raises cannot be separated from the matters before the family court. London Borough of Bromley (19 008 961) Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with an EHCP review and a request for a social care assessment in the context of a young person's transition to adulthood. We found there was fault that warrants a remedy. Derbyshire County Council (19 017 296) Summary: Mr C complains the Council delayed issuing D's Education and Health Care Plan (EHCP). He also complains the Council failed to provide the provision set out in the plan. We find fault with the Council. This caused an injustice to D and Mr C. The Council agrees actions to remedy the injustice. Portsmouth City Council (20 009 414) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's actions in respect of the elective home education which she is providing to her son. We are discontinuing our investigation because a group of parents have leave to pursue a judicial review of the Council's policy and procedures. Mrs X's complaint is inextricably linked to this legal action. Lancashire County Council (20 011 139) Summary: Mr R has a brought a complaint about the school admissions appeal panel's decision to refuse Child Z admission to his preferred school. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Panel for failing to record its deliberations properly. However, we do not consider the fault caused Mr R an injustice because if the decision had been properly recorded, it is likely the Panel's decision would have been the same. Dorset Council (20 013 537) Summary: There was fault by the Council, as it did not arrange alternative provision when it was clear a child would be absent from school for health reasons. Although the Council offered a remedy for this, it has now increased its offer at the Ombudsman's recommendation. London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (20 004 109) Summary: the Council was entitled to reclaim the special guardianship allowance overpayment for Mrs G's eldest child. However, the Council should have made age-related increases to the special guardianship allowance it paid. The Council has re-calculated the payments and reduced the amount Mrs G owes. The Council has offered to write off the remaining balance, so Mrs G now owes nothing. The Council will also review the payments of other families to check they have received the correct allowance. Kent County Council (20 009 774) Summary: Miss C complained about failures by the Council relating to the care of three of her children who are looked after children in foster care. We find the Council is at fault for failing to deal with Miss C's complaint through the statutory children's complaints process. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault. Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (20 010 224) Summary: An independent investigation upheld some of Ms M's complaints about contact with her children. The Council accepted the findings and recommendations. Contact has still not taken place, but this is not the result of fault by the Council. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (21 000 193) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint that a Council officer, who was visiting her neighbour, called her a nosy neighbour. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would add to the response already provided by the Council. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (21 000 608) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's actions in response to a safeguarding referral about her children. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the matters complained of to warrant an investigation. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (21 001 113) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint that the Council lied about her in court, because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating matters that have been considered in court. Essex County Council (21 001 274) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the contents of a report. This is because the matter has been subject to court proceedings. Staffordshire County Council (20 014 382) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint that a social worker disclosed information about his family to other people and was responsible for him being sentenced. The Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to deal with the data matter. We cannot investigate a matter that has been subject to court action Warrington Council (21 000 984) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement in child protection proceedings in relation to the complainant's grandchildren. This is because the events happened too long ago, and I see no reason why they could not have complained sooner. Furthermore, some of the issues raised have been subject to court proceedings. London Borough of Redbridge (19 018 482) Summary: Mrs C says the Council was at fault for errors around her son's education, health and care plan and, having commissioned an investigation into the events, for failing to act on the investigation's findings. She says this caused injustice to her son who lost education and to her family as they suffered distress and financial loss. The independent investigation found the Council to have been at fault. The Ombudsman agrees with the independent investigation. The Council has agreed to pay a sum in recognition of the injustice caused. Birmingham City Council (20 008 518) Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide her son, G, with appropriate education in line with his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan during 2020. The Council was at fault when it failed to provide G with provision in line with his EHC Plan between January and June 2020. The Council agreed to pay Miss X a total of £1,200 to acknowledge the loss of education and social development it caused G and the uncertainty and time and trouble it caused her. Lancashire County Council (19 018 981) Summary: Miss X complains that while her children were on a child protection plan the Council repeatedly missed pre-arranged appointments, wrongly disclosed information about her and failed to make necessary enquiries about her children. The Council is at fault. It has agreed an apology and a financial remedy. London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (20 013 402) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's involvement in his children living with extended family for a month. It is unlikely we could find the Council's actions directly caused the injustice he claims. London Borough of Hackney (21 001 516) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of the complainant's Subject Access Requests (SARS). This is because she has taken the complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), which is the body set up by parliament to consider such complaints. Surrey County Council (19 012 846) Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to provide a school place for her son and its communication was poor. We found there was fault by the Council in its communication with Mrs B. It has offered a suitable remedy. Kent County Council (20 006 718) Summary: the Council delayed completing a review of an education, health and care plan, delayed issuing the final plan and failed to properly consider what education to put in place at home for Mr C's son. An apology, payment to Mr C and his son, discussion about education plans going forward and a reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy. London Borough of Newham (21 000 891) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B's complaint about her son's educational provision and his Education Health and Care Plan. The law prevents us from investigating what happens in schools, and it would have been reasonable for Mrs B to use her appeal rights. Telford & Wrekin Council (21 001 857) Summary: We will not investigate Miss 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. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (19 018 961) Summary: Miss X complains that the Council wrongly shared information about her with her violent ex-partner then failed to respond appropriately to her complaints about this. We have discontinued the investigation as Miss X is pursuing legal action against the Council. Durham County Council (20 010 126) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's actions when it started a child protection investigation in respect of his child. The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint because the matters complained about are too closely related to those considered by the court. 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