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. North Yorkshire County Council (21 002 079) Summary: The complainant, Mrs X, complained the Council failed to properly consider her application and appeal for a school place for her son. The Council says it followed the correct admissions and appeals procedures. Following the rejection of Mrs X's appeal, the Council offered a place at the school. We found the Council acted with fault but did not cause an injustice. Hertfordshire County Council (21 008 280) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the amount of funding the Council gives a school. This is because Mr X is complaining on behalf of the school and we cannot investigate complaints from public bodies. Warrington Council (20 007 463) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of Council officers and members in response to the complainant's concerns about bullying at his daughter's school, and the way in which the School responded to his complaints. This is because the matter is out of our jurisdiction, as part of it relates to the internal management of a school, and part to issues relating to court proceedings. Additionally case law states that we cannot consider complaints about the actions of councils in relation to matters that are out of our jurisdiction. London Borough of Newham (20 009 907) Summary: the Council is considering Mr and Mrs P's complaint under procedures that ensure independent scrutiny of its actions and G's voice is heard. However, the process has taken longer than it should and is not yet complete. I have discontinued my investigation to allow the Council to complete the complaints process. I ask the Council to take account of the delay in its response. If Mr and Mrs P remain dissatisfied once the Council has completed the complaints process, they can complain to the Ombudsman again. Oxfordshire County Council (20 011 424) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to remove Mr X's children. The matter was decided by a court and only a court could change that. London Borough of Haringey (20 013 993) Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council responded to two child safeguarding reports about his children in 2020. There was no fault in how the Council investigated Mr X's safeguarding reports, but there was fault in how the Council caused Mr X to miss part of a child in need meeting. The Council should apologise, review its procedures and issue reminders to its staff. Cambridgeshire County Council (21 007 982) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an assessment report written by the Council. This is not warranted by the claimed injustice, and we could not add to the Council's own investigation. Kent County Council (21 009 076) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Child and Family Assessment report issued by the Council. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to accept it now. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (21 000 351) Summary: Mr and Mrs P complain the Council refused to provide school transport for their daughter, G. There is no fault in the transport appeal panel's decision the Council should contribute to the cost of G's school transport. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault. St Hilda's C of E High School, Liverpool (21 002 660) Summary: there is no fault in the Independent Appeal Panel's decision not to admit Ms M's son to the School. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault. London Borough of Waltham Forest (21 004 826) Summary: The Ombudsman exercised discretion not to investigate Ms F's complaint about the appeal panel failing to properly consider her appeal against the decision to refuse her son a place in Year 7 this year at her preferred school. This is because we can achieve no worthwhile outcome for her as she would not transfer him from the school he now goes to even if we found fault and she had a successful new hearing. London Borough of Southwark (21 007 623) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B's complaint about the management of her adoption application. This is because Council has accepted that it was at fault and the complaint investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Wokingham Borough Council (21 007 777) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council's safeguarding investigation which took place in 2017. We cannot not consider matters which happened over 12 months ago. Bedford Borough Council (21 007 991) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to respond to correspondence. This is because the subject of the correspondence is not a matter the Ombudsman would consider. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (21 008 137) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's response to Ms X's complaint about access to her grandchildren. This is because the Council has no power to grant her access to the children and so she has not been caused an injustice as a result of the Council's actions. JCOSS (21 004 185) Summary: there were no faults which call the Independent Appeal Panel's decision not to admit Mr F's son to the School into question. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (21 006 471) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to ensure Z gets their educational needs met. The Tribunal is considering Z's educational needs. South Gloucestershire Council (21 006 787) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how schools responded to complaints, or about how the Council dealt with a concern about the conduct of a member of staff at one of the schools. This is because we cannot investigate what happens at schools and it is unlikely we would find fault in how the Council dealt with the complainants concerns. Hertfordshire County Council (20 005 251) Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide an education for their son while he was not at school suffering with mental ill health. We found there was fault by the Council that warranted a remedy. London Borough of Haringey (20 009 216) Summary: The Council failed to review B's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan in 2018 and 2019. Although councils, schools and parents faced new and difficult restrictions as a result of the pandemic, the delay of 12 months reviewing and amending B's EHC Plan in 2020 was fault. The Council made significant changes to B's Plan in 2021. The Council has offered to arrange extra tuition for B. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (20 010 573) Summary: The complainant alleged that, since November 2018, the Council failed to find her son a suitable special school and failed to provide suitable alternative education during this period. The Council had accepted some fault. However, the complainant considered the Council had not fully recognised all the faults and the adverse impact on her son and on her by its errors. The Ombudsman accepts that this is the case. The Council has agreed the recommended actions to remedy the injustice. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (20 011 018) Summary: The complainant alleged that the Council failed to provide appropriate education and support to her son who has special educational needs and it failed to amend his Education, Health and Care Plan in a timely manner. We find some fault by the Council causing injustice. The Council has agreed the recommended ways to remedy this. We are therefore closing the complaint. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (20 013 905) Summary: Miss X and her mother, Mrs Y, complained about how the Council provided for Miss X's special educational needs. The Council accepted there was fault in how it helped Miss X plan for her post 16-education and that it paid Mrs Y direct payments she did not agree to. There were also further delays in the Council resuming responsibility for the personal budget and providing some of the support Miss X needed. The Council agreed to pay an improved financial remedy to both Miss X and Mrs Y. It also agreed to review how it plans for education transitions and arranges personal budgets. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (20 011 279) Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council responded to an allegation her husband, Mr X, hurt a child they were caring for. The Council failed to properly record how it decided not to temporarily place the children with their aunt. This caused Mr and Mrs X and the children in the household uncertainty. The Council will pay Mr and Mrs X £200 and place this decision on the children's records. The Council will also remind its staff they must make suitable records of its safeguarding decisions and how they are in a child's best interests. Cornwall Council (20 014 176) Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council has failed to provide an appropriate bed for her disabled son and failed to properly support her daughter. She also complains about the Council's complaint handling and that it has failed to remove an inaccurate social care assessment from the family's case file. Based on the evidence seen to date, the Council is at fault in that its communications over the bed were inadequate. It has also delayed in provision of the bed. This has caused injustice. It has agreed a financial remedy and an apology. London Borough of Hillingdon (21 006 637) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council produced an inaccurate and poorly written child and family assessment. This is because the assessment has been considered during court proceedings which places the matter outside of our jurisdiction. Essex County Council (21 007 936) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions concerning Mr X. The matters complained of are mostly not separable from decisions of a court. Investigation of the remaining matters is not warranted by the likely fault or injustice. Hampshire County Council (20 009 978) Summary: There was fault and delay in the way the Council responded to a request for a change of placement made at annual review. This led to a one-year delay in Y starting her new residential school and meant her parents had to provide a high level of care and home education for a year longer than would otherwise have been the case. The Council will apologise, make a financial payment, and make service improvements to address the injustice caused. Devon County Council (20 014 313) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council rejected her request for an interim review of her daughter's Education Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan). Mrs X also complained the Council failed to consider new reports available and failed include an educational setting when it did produce her daughter's EHC Plan. Mrs X says this delayed production of a suitable EHC Plan which has resulted in lost time to prepare for transition to secondary school. The Ombudsman found fault with the Council. The Council agreed with the Ombudsman's recommendation to apologise to Mrs X and provide her with a payment of £250 to reflect the distress, frustration and inconvenience caused by the Council's delays and fault. Kent County Council (21 006 437) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council managed an application for Free Early Education Entitlement. This is because there is insufficient fault in how the Council dealt with the matter. West Sussex County Council (21 002 018) Summary: Mr K complained the Council failed to properly investigate his safeguarding concerns about harm caused to his daughter by her mother. We found no fault the process the Council followed. It reached a decision it was entitled to make, and we cannot therefore criticise the merits of its decision. Gloucestershire County Council (21 006 582) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's views and actions in relation to the care of her children. The Court is considering their care and we cannot investigate the same issues. Cornwall Council (21 006 969) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a child in need assessment. The Council's assessment is being used in court. We cannot investigate matters being considered by the Court. Birmingham City Council (21 007 187) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council's Local Authority Designated Officer dealt with a referral about the complainant. This is because we cannot investigate what happens in schools nor can we investigate when someone has appealed to a tribunal. London Borough of Lambeth (21 007 449) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council informing other authorities about the standard of accommodation it found when carrying out an inspection. This is not warranted by the evidence of fault. Matters of defamation and slander are for a court. Nottinghamshire County Council (20 012 648) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's decision that she did not qualify for an offer to use Short Breaks funding for her daughter that could not be used because of the COVID-19 pandemic to buy equipment for her instead. The Council asked Mrs X to pay the money she spent back into the fund. We have found some fault in the information provided about the scheme and in the way the Council considered Mrs X's case. The Council has agreed to allow part of the payment she made to be covered by the scheme. Derbyshire County Council (21 007 710) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council dealt with assessment and issuing of an Education Health and Care plan. This is because the complainant has used their right of appeal to a tribunal. London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (21 009 834) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because Mr X's child has now been offered a place at his preferred school and so an investigation could not achieve anything more. Worcestershire County Council (21 007 366) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about incidents which happened to Miss X in 2012 and 2013. There are no good reasons the late complaint rule should not apply. 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