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. Central Bedfordshire Council (19 018 501) Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained that the Council failed to provide alternative education for their son (B) who was unable to attend school for medical reasons. Staffordshire County Council (20 009 187) Summary: Mr X complained about the content of a Council's Child Social Work Assessment report about a safeguarding matter. He said the report was inaccurate, disproportionate and was based on allegations, which caused him distress. Mr X also complained the Council did not properly consider his complaint. There is no evidence of fault by the Council. Dorset Council (20 010 593) Summary: Miss Y complains the Council disclosed to a family member that she had made a safeguarding referral about him without her consent. The Ombudsman has decided to discontinue the investigation into Miss Y's complaint. This is because the Council offered a resolution meeting to Miss Y aimed at resolving matters to her satisfaction. Miss Y has agreed to this meeting. London Borough of Ealing (20 014 455) Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's children services actions as they are covered by Court proceedings or connected to them. One other issue is late and there are no good reasons why we should now investigate it. Isle of Wight Council (21 000 690) Summary: We uphold this complaint. The Council delayed considering a complaint at stage two of the children's statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to complete its stage two investigation without further delay and will offer to make a payment to the complainant to remedy the time and trouble its delay has caused her. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (21 000 932) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a safeguarding investigation. This is because it is unlikely we could add to the Council's previous investigation. London Borough of Southwark (21 001 986) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint about where her children should live. This was decided by a court. We have no discretion to consider the matter. Lincolnshire County Council (21 001 991) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about misconduct and perjury by Council staff. This is because the issues Mr X raises cannot be separated from the matters before the family court. Kent County Council (21 002 471) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's decision not to issue a Blue Badge under the hidden disability rules. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Oxfordshire County Council (20 007 694) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take his views into account and failed to meet with him to discuss his child's draft Education, Health and Care plan. He says the final plan did not meet his child's needs and he was put to time and trouble collecting evidence he could not present. We have found fault by the Council and the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and make a payment to recognise the injustice caused. Kent County Council (20 011 952) Summary: Mr B complained the Council refused to provide school transport for his son. We find fault with the Council's decision making as it wrongly concluded Mr B's son does not attend the nearest appropriate school. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to our recommendations to arrange a fresh appeal with a new panel and apologise to Mr B. Wiltshire Council (21 001 686) Summary: The complainant says the Council has broken a verbal agreement to provide a 2-year transport contract for her son's college course. We will not investigate this complaint. It is unlikely an investigation will discover any meaningful evidence flowing from verbal discussions which took place 18 months ago. And I understand the Council continues to provide transport. Therefore, it is unlikely an investigation will lead to a different outcome. All Hallows R C High School (21 002 872) Summary: We will not investigate Miss B's complaint that the School was at fault in refusing her application and appeal for a place for her son. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault on the School's part. West Sussex County Council (21 003 750) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B's complaint that the Council was at fault in refusing her application and appeal for a school place for her daughter. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault on the Council's part. St Bede's RC High School, Blackburn (21 003 867) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B's complaint that the School was at fault in refusing her application and appeal for a place for her daughter. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault on the School's part. Hertfordshire County Council (20 006 177) Summary: Mr D complained about the way the Council dealt with a safeguarding referral in respect of his children in 2017 and the way it dealt with his complaint in 2020, which caused him significant distress and uncertainty. We found the Council was at fault for not informing Mr D of the referral and misleading him that it was dealing with his complaint for over six months. We also find this caused injustice to his daughter F. The Council has agreed to pay Mr D £1600, including an amount for F. Essex County Council (20 006 853) Summary: The Council acknowledged that it had made mistakes in its assessment of Miss B's family and how the Chair handled the Child Protection Conference. It agreed to apologise and amend the assessment and Conference records, and to share the corrections with other agencies who had been given incorrect information. However, it has taken too long to do so and this has compounded Miss B's distress. The Council has properly considered whether it should end the Child Protection Plans because of these shortcomings. I have recommended the Council complete the actions it promised within one month. Wiltshire Council (20 008 098) Summary: the Council has agreed to fund Mrs G's grandson B's nursery fees until his second birthday. The Council will adopt a policy for the provision of ongoing support to carers who have Child Arrangements Orders and assess B's eligibility for Child Arrangement Order Allowance. Trafford Council (20 002 177) Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to plan properly for support on home to school transport for her daughter when it changed its policy on passenger assistants for pupils with complex medical needs. She says this meant she did not know how her daughter would get home from school on the first day of term. The Council was not responsible for the breakdown of travel arrangements at the beginning of term. But there were failings in communications with Mrs X about what would happen following the policy change which caused her anxiety. The Council has agreed a suitable remedy. Leeds City Council (20 010 127) Summary: The Council delayed slightly in issuing a decision on Ms B's request for an assessment of her son's education, health and care needs in Autumn 2020. This did not cause sufficient injustice to justify any remedy by the Council. Bristol City Council (20 000 972) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr C's complaint about the contents of a social work assessment. This is because this matter has been subject to court proceedings. North Yorkshire County Council (20 003 417) Summary: the Council refused Ms P's request for a review panel at the final stage of the children's complaints process because Ms P said she was going to court. Ms P has not begun legal proceedings, so she can resubmit her request to the Council. London Borough of Newham (20 005 132) Summary: Mr D complains about an assessment of need carried out by the Council's children's services which contained a series of negative statements about him. We uphold the complaint finding numerous flaws in the content of the assessment. While these did not affect the outcome they did cause Mr D distress. The Council accepts these findings and at the end of this statement we explain the action it has agreed to remedy that injustice. Manchester City Council (19 012 491) Summary: The complainant alleged that the Council had not managed his daughter's annual reviews of her Education, Health and Care Plan properly and did not provide alternative education when his daughter was out of school. We find fault by the Council in that it delayed in issuing a final amended Plan, after the first annual review, and the Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused. But we do not find fault in respect of the second annual review, and we do not consider the Council's duty to provide alternative education was triggered. Salford City Council (20 008 975) Summary: There was delay by the Council in issuing a decision following an annual review meeting. This meant that a reassessment and replacement of an Education, Health and Care plan took four months longer than it should have. This in turn delayed the School being able to implement all the up to date recommendations and interventions and caused injustice to the child. Recommendations for a financial payment and service improvements are made. Ermysteds Grammar School, Skipton (21 003 211) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful schools admissions appeal. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the appeal was considered. Medway Council (20 006 989) Summary: Mr and Ms X complain that the Council failed to support them adequately as foster carers and wrongly removed children from their care. They also say the Council's complaints handling and remedy offer is inadequate. The Council is at fault and has agreed to a stage 3 review of the complaints. Manchester City Council (20 009 703) Summary: Mr X complains that the Council failed to respond appropriately to his concerns about his former partner's abusive behaviour and harm she had caused to their baby son and his own daughter. He says it discriminated against him because he is a man reporting abuse by a woman. The Council is not at fault. Nottinghamshire County Council (21 000 210) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about children services officers' actions. It is unlikely we could achieve a significantly different outcome than the Council's response to her complaint and there are other bodies better placed. Bracknell Forest Council (21 001 425) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's children services actions in relation to an Initial Child Protection Conference. It is unlikely we would find any fault which has caused Mrs X a significant injustice. Leicestershire County Council (20 007 114) Summary: Ms D complains on behalf of her adult son, Mr F, about the Council's actions in relation to ceasing his Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council has accepted there was fault. We have found there was also delay in arranging a social care placement. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Ms D and discuss with her options for using a communication device in Mr F's current placement. Herefordshire Council (20 011 562) Summary: Mrs M cannot take up her children's Free Early Education Entitlement at a nursery in Wales because the nursery is not eligible. There is no fault by the Council. Halton Borough Council (20 010 017) Summary: the Council has not responded to Mr F's complaint because it has not been able to establish he made the complaint. There was no fault by the Council. Lincolnshire County Council (21 001 029) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the contents of a social work assessment because the matter is subject to court proceedings. It is also reasonable for the complainant to raise her concerns about a data breach with the Information Commissioner. Isle of Wight Council (21 003 265) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint the Council has refused to deal with his complaint about a 'section 7' court report under stage 2 of the statutory children's complaint procedure. There is no fault by the Council in closing the complaint and nothing we can achieve. Lincolnshire County Council (20 004 546) Summary: Mrs B complained the Council delayed telling her of its intention following a review of her son's education, health and care plan and failed to act to ensure her son received education when the school sent him home and then placed him on a part-time timetable. There is no fault in how the Council dealt with provision of education. The Council failed to identify the school had not provided the annual review paperwork which delayed the overall process but likely did not affect the education provided to Mrs B's son. An apology and payment to Mrs B, introduction of a process for managing annual reviews and training for officers is satisfactory remedy. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (20 009 557) Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain of delay by the Council in amending their son's Education Health and Care Plan, failure to provide a personal budget and poor complaint handling. The Council is at fault and has caused injustice. It has agreed to provide financial remedies and to take action to improve its services. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (21 002 773) Summary: We will not investigate Miss B's complaint that the Council was at fault in refusing her application and appeal for a school place for her son. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault on the Council's part. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (21 003 496) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint that the Council was at fault in refusing his application and appeal for a school place for his son. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault on the Council's part. 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