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. Devon County Council (20 011 165) Summary: Ms B complained about how the Council dealt with an independent school's decision to terminate her son's placement. She also said it failed to properly advise her about rights at independent schools and failed to provide enough school provision during the COVID-19 lockdown. As a result, she said both she and her son experienced distress, and her son had a loss of education. We found the Council was not at fault. This was because it acted appropriately and the School's decision was outside its control. We have not investigated the other matters of the complaint as these were late or the Council has not yet had the opportunity to respond. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (21 003 553) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's alleged failure to provide a full copy of an EHCP and appendices. This is because it is unlikely we will find the Council to have caused significant injustice. Birmingham City Council (21 004 615) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about educational provision for Ms B's son. This is because Ms B has used her right to appeal to a statutory tribunal. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (21 005 544) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint that the Council's Schools Admissions Appeal Panel failed to provide her child with a place at their preferred school. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused them to lose out on a school place. London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (20 005 559) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council failing to give financial and respite support in July 2019 when she cared for a relative's children. Mrs X complains late and could have complained sooner. Surrey County Council (20 013 216) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about lack of support for her as a foster carer. This is not warranted by the claimed injustice. Liverpool City Council (21 002 161) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement in Miss X's child being away from her care between 2018 and 2020. The matters complained of are not separable from the matter of where her child should live and who should have contact with the child, which has been decided by a court. Plymouth City Council (21 002 432) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the actions of a social worker in dealing with him. There is not enough claimed injustice to warrant investigation. Other matters would be for Mr X's daughter to complain of to the Information Commissioner's Office or the Council before returning to us. South Gloucestershire Council (21 003 273) Summary: I will not investigate this complaint about the Council's lack of support for the complainant during the past 10 years and its refusal to investigate the matter. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation. Cheshire East Council (19 007 422) Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed to respond to his requests to complete the social care sections of his son, B's, Education Health and Care Plan. We find that the Council was not at fault. It repeatedly offered to carry out an assessment of B's needs so that provision could be included in the Plan, but Mr X would not accept an assessment under the Council's procedures. Mr X also complained that the Council refused to take his complaint to stage 2 of the complaints procedure. There were some minor flaws in the complaint handling but these were not so significant as to amount to fault. Birmingham City Council (21 004 060) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint. The Council's actions have not caused Mr B so significant an injustice as to warrant investigation. By law we cannot investigate the content of Mr B's son's Education Health and Care Plan. Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (21 005 326) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X's complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault and so we cannot question the merits of the panel's decision. Leeds City Council (21 005 606) Summary: The Ombudsman 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 and so we cannot question the merits of the panel's decision. Sissinghurst Voluntary Aided Church of England Primary School (21 005 734) 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 that Independent Appeal Panel (IAP) which re-heard the appeals made its decision. Leeds City Council (21 006 659) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the refusal o admission to the complainant's preferred school for her child. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way the Independent Appeal Panel (IAP) hearing the appeal made its decision. Liverpool City Council (20 007 888) Summary: There was no fault by the Council in how it conducted an assessment of Mr B's child. It reflected the views of both the child and the parents in the assessment and amended this in light of Mr B's comments. It took reasonable steps to get a copy of the assessment to him in good time. Its complaint handling was more complicated than necessary but this did not disadvantage Mr B or his child. Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (20 013 167) Summary: Ms M complains about her dealings with the Council following a referral by the Police. An independent investigation identified faults in the Council's dealings with Ms M. The Council has acknowledged its mistakes, apologised to Ms M and taken action to improve its practice. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (21 003 183) Summary: We uphold Miss X's complaint, as the Council delayed considering a complaint in the children's statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to complete its stage three review panel without further delay. It will offer to make Miss X a payment to remedy the time and trouble its delay caused her. Kent County Council (21 003 879) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way in which the Council handled allegations made against the complainant in connection with his work at a school. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council's actions, but in any case, any alleged injustice to the complainant is caused by his employer's actions, not those of the Council. His employer is not a body within our jurisdiction. In addition, its actions relate to a personnel matter, which is also out of our jurisdiction. Southampton City Council (21 004 121) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the adoption of Miss B's son. This is because the law prevents us from considering decisions made in court, and actions relating to them. Staffordshire County Council (20 002 875) Summary: Mrs J complains about a delay by the Council in increasing the hourly rate it paid her for Speech and Language Therapy her daughter needed. And that it expected her to pay the costs and then claim them back. The Ombudsman upholds the complaint, because of a delay in increasing the direct payment. And faults in how the Council communicated to Mrs J about the direct payments. The Council has agreed to our recommendations. Cambridgeshire County Council (20 000 821) Summary: Mrs C says the Council went back on an agreement to assist with the care of her nephew, X, by paying fostering fees after it promised it would do so. She says this has caused her injustice in that she has incurred great expense and suffered stress. The Council denied it had made this agreement. The Council was at fault: The Council encouraged Mrs C to take care of X and said it would pay her. It has agreed to pay her backdated fostering fees. Birmingham City Council (20 007 084) Summary: Miss D complained about the Council's failure to provide appropriate social care support for her son. She also complained the Council delayed dealing with her complaint. We find the Council was at fault for its communication with Miss D about whether to reimburse her for the second carer she had employed. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss D for the injustice caused. Herefordshire Council (20 010 493) Summary: The Council was at fault for the way it handled Mr X and Mrs Z's fostering placement. Had the Council provided them with all the relevant information before the placement began they would not have agreed to proceed. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and Mrs Z and make a payment to recognise the distress caused. Manchester City Council (21 004 448) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about fake reports Miss X says the Council submitted to the family court. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is about matters that are being, or have been, considered in court proceedings. We have no discretion to consider complaints about such matters, and cannot do so. Norfolk County Council (20 003 718) Summary: Mrs B complains that the Council should not have refused her daughter, C, transport to her preferred school, because it was the nearest suitable school given her medical condition. The Ombudsman has found no fault in the way the Council decided to refuse Mrs B's request for transport and her subsequent appeals. However, the Council failed to set out the reasons for its decisions clearly and in detail following the second stage appeal. It has agreed to remind officers of the need to provide full and clear reasons for its decisions. London Borough of Croydon (20 005 449) Summary: Ms C complained about the Council's failure to ensure her child was provided with a suitable education when she was unable to attend school for health reasons. We find there were several faults in the Council's actions in this matter, leading to injustice for Ms C. A remedy has been agreed. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (20 003 483) Summary: Mr B says the Council coerced him into providing a social worker with a copy of a Cafcass report, gave his partner false information about him and failed to deal with his complaint properly. There is no fault in the Council's actions. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (20 009 613) Summary: the Council failed to complete an Asset Plus assessment initially as its policy requires and this amounts fault. However, this did not cause injustice so the Council is not required to take any action Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (21 000 083) Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's handling of its child protection intervention with his children. He says the Council failed to provide an objective assessment and this led to his children becoming subject to a child protection plan. We find fault with the Council for failing to consider Mr X's complaint at stage 3 of the statutory children complaints procedure. We have made recommendations. Lancashire County Council (21 000 095) Summary: Mr X, who is represented by his carer, Ms Y, complains that the Council failed to provide adequate support and supervision to him while he was in foster care. The Council has agreed to investigate this complaint. We will therefore discontinue our investigation. Hampshire County Council (21 003 066) Summary: We do not propose to investigate this complaint about the temporary removal of the complainant's children and their care during this time. This is because the complaint is made late and there are no good reasons to consider it now. Cambridgeshire County Council (21 003 515) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about how the Council handled concerns about him during child protection processes. This is because there is nothing we could add to the Council's investigation of his complaint. Mr X is also able to raise his concerns about data protection with the Information Commissioner. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (21 004 154) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about an assessment prepared by the Council's children services team. The assessment has been used in court proceedings which means it forms part of legal proceedings, which we cannot investigate. Worcestershire County Council (21 004 354) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about support provided to care leavers as there is also no evidence of fault in the Council's request for financial assistance from a charity. South Gloucestershire Council (21 005 651) Summary: The Council is at fault for delaying considering complaints at stage one of the children's statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to complete its stage one 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. Central Bedfordshire Council (20 000 663) Summary: The complainant alleged that the Council failed to deal properly with her adult son's special educational needs. The Council has accepted that there were faults and avoidable delay in its management of the case. We have recommended actions to resolve the injustice caused, which the Council has accepted. Devon County Council (20 009 394) Summary: The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for failing to secure provision for Child B. This has meant Child B has missed the provision in his Education, Health and Care Plan which has impacted his wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council actions in issuing the Education, Health and Care Plan after the tribunal or how it managed other parts of the provision for Child B. The Council has agreed to secure the provision and pay a financial sum in recognition of the lost provision. Kent County Council (21 003 915) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's failure to hold an Education Health and Care Plan annual review on time. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate as the Tribunal is currently considering the case. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (21 004 516) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has handled his son's Education, Health and Care Plan. Mr X has taken too long to come to the Ombudsman about delays in issuing his son's plan and he is able to appeal more recent decisions with the SEND Tribunal. Blackpool Borough Council (21 004 398) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's decisions regarding her child who is in care and its communications with her. We cannot achieve what Ms X wants and the courts have recently considered the case. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (21 003 571) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of his daughter's Education, Health and Care Plan as he has a right of appeal to SEND Tribunal. Parkside School (21 005 228) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint that the School's Admissions Appeal Panel failed to provide her child with a place at this school. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused her to lose out on a school place. 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