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. Manchester City Council (19 021 158) Summary: The complainant, Ms X, complained that the Council delayed in issuing her grandson's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and it failed to provide alternative education for him when he was unable to attend his primary school. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (21 001 905) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the handing of the complainant's application for school transport for her daughter. The Council held a fresh appeal hearing which she attended. It has now agreed to provide school transport and refund the school travel costs incurred since the application was refused. We are satisfied with the Council's action, so there is no need for an investigation. Essex County Council (21 002 342) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about inaccurate information provided to the courts and about breaches of data protection. This is because we cannot investigate matter subject to court proceedings and because the Information Commissioner is better placed to investigate complaints about data protection matters. Leicestershire County Council (21 002 375) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the contents of a report written by the Council's children's services. This is because the matter has been subject to court proceedings. Royal Borough of Greenwich (21 004 004) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaints about assessment reports used in court. This is because the issues Mr X raises cannot be separated from matters decided in the family court. Leeds City Council (21 004 255) Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council breaching her confidentiality when she alerted it to a possible child protection issue. She also has concerns about the way it dealt with her request for information on data breaches under the Freedom of Information Act. We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs X to complain to the Information Commissioner's Office as the most appropriate authority for her complaint. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (20 008 210) Summary: There was excessive delay by the Council in updating an Education, Health and Care plan, completing an annual review and obtaining external advice. This was fault and caused unnecessary frustration, uncertainty and inconvenience to the family. Recommendations for an apology, time and trouble payment and service improvements are made. The complaint is upheld. Surrey County Council (20 010 854) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide education and the other provision in her son's Education Health and Care plan between July 2020 and March 2021. The Council accepted it failed to provide that provision during September and October 2020. It apologised to Mrs X and offered her a financial remedy. We were satisfied the Council's proposed remedy was suitable and proportionate, so we completed our investigation. Our Ladys & St. Josephs RC Primary School (21 004 191) Summary: We will not investigate Miss B's complaint that the school is 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 school's part. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (21 004 002) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint concerning a report used in court. This is because the issues Miss X raises cannot be separated from the ongoing matters before the family court. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (20 005 201) Summary: Ms X complains that the Council failed to provide adequate support for her son. She also complains about the Council's assessment of her son's needs. She says this caused stress and distress. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the way the Council investigated and responded to this complaint through the statutory complaints process. Lancashire County Council (20 012 543) Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council has failed to act in the interests of their daughter, Y, and failed to involve her and her wife in Y's life while she has been in the Council's care. The Ombudsman finds the Council failed to consider the complaint at Stage two of the statutory complaints procedure. This denied Mrs X the opportunity for independent oversight of her complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and carry out a Stage two investigation without delay. South Gloucestershire Council (21 000 540) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the way the Council treated him when deciding his children should be subject to child protection plans. Investigation is not warranted by the injustice caused by the faults in the Council's actions. Leeds City Council (21 001 449) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's investigation of a complaint he made about a risk assessment. Mr X has not suffered sufficient injustice caused by fault to warrant our involvement, as the Council's decision was one it could make based on the evidence it received. Oxfordshire County Council (21 001 561) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker. This is because it is unlikely any further investigation would lead to a different outcome. Lincolnshire County Council (21 001 876) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about children services support to her extended family. She does not have the consent of the people on whose behalf she is complaining. London Borough of Barnet (21 002 077) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the involvement of the Council's children's services with the complainants family in 2018. This is because the events happened too long ago and there is no good reason for investigating the complaint out of time. West Sussex County Council (21 002 180) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's child protection services. This is because we do not have the power to investigate what happened in court or what information the Council provides in a report to the court in future proceedings. Swindon Borough Council (21 002 418) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a data breach by the Council. This is because the Information Commissioner is better placed to deal with complaints about data protection. London Borough of Bexley (20 005 041) Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council dealt with provision under her son's EHC Plan before, during and after the COVID-19 lockdown period. We have not found fault by the Council. Kent County Council (20 005 372) Summary: Mrs B complained about the Council's failure to provide suitable education for her child, C, when they were unable to attend school because of anxiety and about delay in reviewing C's education, health and care plan (EHCP). The Ombudsman found the Council was at fault in failing to make alternative provision when C was unable to attend school. It was also at fault in that it delayed in reviewing the EHCP and in responding to Mrs B's complaint. The Council has agreed to issue an up-to-date EHCP, put in place alternative provision for C, apologise and make a payment in recognition of C's lost education and SEN provision and the distress and frustration caused. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (20 007 707) Summary: Mrs B complains the Council has not dealt properly with her son C's Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP). The Council is not at fault. Cardinal Heenan High School, Leeds (21 002 556) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the refusal of admission to the complainant's preferred school for her daughter. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way the Independent Appeal Panel (IAP) made its decision. North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (20 010 397) Summary: Mrs X said the Council failed to inform her or involve her in a child investigation and child in need assessment involving her son, F following a referral from his school. The Council was at fault. It carried out a robust stage 2 investigation under the statutory children's complaints procedure which upheld all of Mrs X's complaints about the matter. It has already apologised and paid her a total of £1300 to remedy the distress and time and trouble caused. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not achieve anything more for Mrs X. Hampshire County Council (21 002 831) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the refusal of admission for the complainant's son to her preferred school for him. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way the Independent Appeal Panel (IAP) hearing the appeal made its decision. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (20 007 360) Summary: We find fault with the Council for delays carrying out an assessment for Mrs C. There were also delays handling her complaint. Mrs C missed out on support and experienced distress, time and trouble pursuing her complaint. The Council agrees actions to remedy the injustice. London Borough of Bexley (20 011 941) Summary: investigation of this complaint has been discontinued because the Council is currently considering the subject of Mr B's complaint at stage 2 of the children's statutory complaints procedure and he can ask for consideration at stage 3 of that procedure if he is dissatisfied with the outcome of stage 2. This process may resolve Mr B's complaint without the need for the involvement of the Ombudsman's office. London Borough of Waltham Forest (21 000 863) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint regarding the Council's involvement with the complainant's family when it initiated Child Protection procedures. This is because we cannot achieve the complainant's desired outcomes. London Borough of Wandsworth (20 004 802) Summary: Mr X complained about delays in the Education Health Care Plan process and that the Council failed to ensure his daughter, Y, received appropriate education and maths provision. The Council has already accepted fault and recognised the poor service received by the family. It has made significant service improvements and offered financial payments for the injustice caused to Mr X and Y. The Council has agreed to the Ombudsman's further recommendations. East Sussex County Council (20 011 241) Summary: Miss X complains about the Council's decision not to provide home to school transport for her son. We do not find fault in the way the Council reached its decision on Miss X's application and appeal. St Hilda's C of E High School, Liverpool (21 002 720) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the refusal of admission to the complainant's preferred school for his daughter. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way the Independent Appeal Panel (IAP) hearing the appeal made its decision. Cheshire East Council (21 003 311) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint that the Council is 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. George Stephenson High School (21 003 340) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about a school admission appeal panel. There is not enough evidence of fault in the panel's actions to warrant this. Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (21 003 528) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint that the Council's Schools Admissions Appeal Panel failed to provide her child with a place at her preferred school. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused her to lose out on a school place. London Borough of Newham (21 003 857) 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 daughter. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault on the Council's part. Milton Keynes Council (20 011 080) Summary: The Ombudsman finds fault with how the Council managed the complainant's assessment for adoption allowance payments. The Ombudsman also finds fault with the Council for failing to advise the complainant of his appeal rights. This caused uncertainty and distress to the complainant. The Council has agreed to provide a financial remedy to the complainant and reinstate the support until a new assessment is completed. Northumberland County Council (21 001 716) Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X's complaint about the information the Council gave a court and reports it prepared. We cannot investigate events which a Court has considered. Buckinghamshire County Council (20 000 605) Summary: Mr and Mrs B complained about the Council updating their daughter's EHCP following a decision by the tribunal and delay in making the provision. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Mr and Mrs B and their daughter. The Council will remedy this by apologising and making a payment. 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