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. Hampshire County Council (21 006 349) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's late issue of a new Education Health and Care Plan for her son's transition to post-16 study. Although it was late, the Council named the provision she wanted. The injustice caused by the delay was not sufficient to warrant investigation by us. West Sussex County Council (21 007 001) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to carry out a speech and language assessment. This is because the complaint concerns a matter about which the complainant appealed to a tribunal. Leicester City Council (20 003 935) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the contact Mr X has with his child and the Council's assessment of his family. The Court is considering the child's care and we cannot investigate the same issues covered by legal proceedings. North Yorkshire County Council (20 013 082) Summary: Ms X complains about the way the Council dealt with her as a foster carer eventually causing her to resign. We have found fault by the Council as it delayed starting the statutory stage 2 complaint investigation into her concerns. But this has not caused a significant injustice to Ms X so we have completed our investigation. London Borough of Southwark (21 006 758) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about that the Council failed to provide him with copies of all of his personal information. This is because the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider complaints about information handling. Isle of Wight Council (21 007 347) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council not keeping data from his childhood. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. A more appropriate body has already considered it. Staffordshire County Council (21 007 526) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a court report and court costs incurred during legal proceedings. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The law says we cannot investigate matters which have been considered in court. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (20 003 185) Summary: There was fault by the Council in failing to secure suitable full-time education including provision in an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan and during COVID-19. There was also delays in the EHC process and a flawed complaint investigation. This has led to a loss of education and caused the family unnecessary time, trouble and distress. The complaint is upheld. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (20 009 047) Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to ensure her son received the Speech and Language Therapy support set out in his Education Health and Care Plan from March to November 2020. We find there was some fault by the Council resulting in five missed sessions. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the injustice caused. Suffolk County Council (20 011 599) Summary: The Council failed to ensure some of the support in Miss Y's Education Health and Care plan was provided between November 2019 and February 2020. In addition, there were failings in the annual review process and the issuing of an amended plan for Miss Y in 2020. The Council should apologise and pay Miss Y £500 and Mrs X £250 for the injustice caused. It should also review its processes. Southend-on-Sea Borough Council (21 004 210) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about educational provision for Mrs X's son. This is because Mrs X has used her right to appeal to a statutory tribunal. Kent County Council (21 006 159) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision not to allow his son to sit the elven plus test in September 2021. This is because if Mr X's son is not offered a place at his preferred school he can appeal to an independent panel. It is reasonable for Mr X to use this appeal right. Nottinghamshire County Council (21 006 191) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's decision not to provide her son with free transport to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Royal Borough of Greenwich (21 006 848) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about school transport arrangements for a young person. This is because her mother has started a court action, so the complaint is out of our jurisdiction. London Borough of Redbridge (20 014 244) Summary: Ms X complains about the Council's actions following her disclosure of abuse to her school more than ten years ago. We propose to discontinue the investigation as we do not feel we will be able to reach a meaningful conclusion. Leeds City Council (21 004 721) Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Miss B's complaint about delays to a special guardianship assessment. The Council has already accepted fault and offered a satisfactory remedy. Nottinghamshire County Council (21 005 110) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's response to his request for information about his adult son. This is because we could not add to the response already provided via the Council's investigation. We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's failure to respond to correspondence in 2019. This lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now. London Borough of Lewisham (21 007 414) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about matters agreed in court. The law does not allow us to consider complaints about what happened in court. Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (21 006 343) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions in relation to Miss X's daughter. This is because part of her complaint is late and other parts relate to matters which happened in court. Miss X has raised some more recent issues but the Council has not had an opportunity to investigate and respond. London Borough of Sutton (21 006 391) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the way the Council's special education needs team delayed in holding an annual review. Nor her complaint about the information the Council gathered to create an Education Health and Care Plan. The Tribunal is considering the case. Oxfordshire County Council (21 006 696) Summary: On the evidence currently available, we should not investigate Mr X's complaint the Council decided to end his Education Health and Care Plan. It is reasonable to expect him to appeal to the Tribunal. Nottinghamshire County Council (21 006 742) Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X's complaint about what happened inside a school. We will not investigate her complaint about Council support whilst her child was out of school as it is unlikely we would find fault. London Borough of Ealing (20 014 462) Summary: Mr B complained about the Council's involvement when there were child protection concerns about his son. He complained about the communication about the child protection conference. He also said the Council prevented him having contact with his son. We do not find fault with the Council. Staffordshire County Council (21 003 055) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint about a children services assessment and its views on her. They have been used in Court proceedings. Cambridgeshire County Council (21 006 405) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's actions in relation to his daughter. This is because this matter has been to court. We cannot investigate complaints related to court action. Staffordshire County Council (20 000 770) Summary: Ms B complained the Council: failed to review and update C's Education and Health Care (EHC) Plan; and refused their request for a personal budget. Ms B says the delays meant they could not appeal the Council's decision about who should provide speech and language therapy, or whether C should have occupational therapy (OT) input; C lost access to speech and language therapy and OT; the lack of therapies caused C distress. Her mental health declined. A move to a post-16 college was affected; and they had to pay for a private OT assessment. London Borough of Redbridge (19 017 140) Summary: Ms C complained that for several years the Council failed to provide suitable education for her child who is severely disabled. We have upheld the complaint finding Ms C and her child suffered a loss of service and avoidable distress. Raising this issue has also put Ms C to unnecessary time and trouble. The Council accepts these findings and at the end of this statement I set out the action it has agreed to remedy this injustice. The Latymer School, Edmonton (21 003 166) Summary: there was no fault in the way the Independent Appeal Panel made its decision not to admit Mr F's son to the School. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions made without fault. West Sussex County Council (20 013 869) Summary: We found fault with the Council for the way it provided special guardianship support in relation to contact sessions. It also failed to use the statutory complaint procedure to consider Ms B's complaint. This caused Ms B an injustice. The Council agreed actions to remedy the injustice. Buckinghamshire Council (21 006 308) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to consider a complaint at stage two of the children's statutory complaints procedure. This is because the Council has now completed stage two of the process and it would have been reasonable for the complainant to have requested a review at stage three of the process. Somerset County Council (21 006 941) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council treated Mr X following an accusation made against him. This is because the events complained of happened too long ago for us to be able to carry out a fair investigation. Kent County Council (21 009 563) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a potential delay in the Council considering a complaint at stage three of the children's complaints procedure. This is because the Council has agreed to conclude the process within the statutory timescale. Bristol City Council (20 012 152) Summary: Mr F objects to a nursery's charge of £1 per hour for "consumables" when his children access their free early education entitlement. It is for the nursery to decide how to respond to parents who cannot or do not want to pay the charge; Mr F could take his business elsewhere. The Council is working with the nursery to ensure its charges are clear, transparent and itemised. There is no fault by the Council. London Borough of Sutton (20 013 198) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's delay in issuing an Education Health and Care Plan. This is because the delay did not cause his son any injustice in the form of lost provision and Mr X has not needed to appeal to get the provision his son needs. Liverpool City Council (20 014 235) Summary: Ms X complains that the Council failed to safeguard her son when she reported her concerns. Ms X says this had a significant emotional impact on her and the family. The Ombudsman does not find the Council at fault. Essex County Council (21 005 996) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the involvement of the Council's children's services with the complainants granddaughter. This is because as a grandparent with no parental responsibility for the child she is not a suitable person to complain. Surrey County Council (21 006 580) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to reassess the complainants family and about the way the assessment was conducted. This is because the Council is dealing with the complaint and whilst there has been a delay in it providing a response, I do not consider this has caused the complainant an injustice. Wokingham Borough Council (20 011 402) Summary: there is fault by the Council in its delayed response to the complaint but that this did not cause injustice so no remedy is justified. The other parts of the complaint have either been put before the SEND Tribunal or are inextricably linked to the Tribunal process and they are not therefore matters that this office can address now Hampshire County Council (21 004 346) Summary: The Council is at fault for delaying considering a complaint at stage two of the children's statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to start its stage two investigation within two months and will offer to make a payment to the complainant to remedy the time and trouble its delay has caused him. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (21 003 333) Summary: We uphold Ms X's complaint, as 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. It will make Ms X a payment to remedy the time and trouble its delay caused her. Surrey County Council (20 005 881) Summary: The Council is at fault in failing to escalate Mrs B's complaint to Stage 2 of the statutory children's services complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to begin Stage 2 without further delay. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (20 001 250) Summary: We will uphold Mr X's complaint, as 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. It will offer to make Mr X a payment to remedy the time and trouble its delay caused him. Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (21 000 150) Summary: We will uphold Mr X's complaint, as the Council delayed considering a complaint within 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 Mr X a payment to remedy the time and trouble its delay caused him. London Borough of Enfield (21 005 056) Summary: We will uphold Miss X's complaint, as the Council delayed considering a complaint at stage three of the children's statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to complete its stage three investigation without further delay. 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