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. London Borough of Haringey (19 020 651) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's failure to meet his disabled son's needs by taking too long to carry out adaptations to his property. He also complained about being pressurised into accepting unsuitable adaptations. Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (20 002 809) Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council was at fault in issuing a Letter before Proceedings and in taking too long to decide that it was not going to issue court proceedings. The Ombudsman finds no fault on the Council's part. Wokingham Borough Council (20 012 748) Summary: There was fault by the Council in its handling of Ms B's complaint made under the statutory children's complaints procedure. The complaint took too long to complete the complaints process and the consideration failed to properly remedy the complaints that were upheld. The Council will take the action detailed in this decision statement to recognise the injustice Ms B was caused by these failings. Suffolk County Council (21 007 503) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint about the actions of a social worker and the Council's response to a subject access request. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault on the Council's part, and another body is better placed to consider complaints about access to information. Birmingham City Council (21 007 736) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the information provided by the Council and used in a family and friends carers assessment. This is because the information was used in a report considered by a court. West Northamptonshire Council (21 008 473) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's children services actions. We are unlikely to be able to achieve a significant outcome. And we could not accept a complaint from Ms X on behalf of her nephew and nieces. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (21 002 142) Summary: Mr A complains the Council delayed fulfilling the provision in his sons EHCP, and that this caused him to miss out on support he was entitled to. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for delaying implementing the provision in Child X's EHCP. This caused Child X to miss out on the correct support. The Council has agreed to make a financial payment to Mr A to remedy the injustice caused by this fault. Spen Valley High School (21 004 823) Summary: The Ombudsman exercised discretion not to investigate Ms D's complaint about the appeal panel failing to properly follow procedure when it rejected her appeal against the school's decision to refuse her son a Year 7 place. We could provide no worthwhile outcome to her complaint if we investigated and found fault. This is because Ms D confirmed she would not move him from the school he now attends. London Borough of Croydon (21 008 723) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the lack of special educational needs support for the complainant's son and his permanent exclusions from the schools because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from considering complaints about what happens in schools. We have no discretion to consider these matters. Lancashire County Council (21 007 387) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's failure to make payments to her whilst she cared for a child. She has delayed in complaining to us and it is reasonable to expect her to have complained earlier. Birmingham City Council (20 011 746) Summary: There was fault by the Council in failing to secure alternative education when a pupil was unable to attend school due to anxiety. There were also delays in the EHC process and consulting alternative schools. These faults caused unnecessary distress and uncertainty and a loss of education. Recommendations for an apology, financial payment and service improvements are made. Surrey County Council (21 000 377) Summary: There was fault by the Council as it did not tell Mrs X of her right to the review of a decision to refuse her request for a personal budget. The Council's apology and provision of training to officers remedies the injustice to Mrs X. Providing a further review in this specific situation would not be useful, as a Special Educational Needs Tribunal has denied Mrs X's appeal for a specific therapy which she asked for in her personal budget request. Lincolnshire County Council (21 000 759) Summary: Mrs H complains the Council failed to provide the appropriate educational support to her daughter (Child A) who has special educational needs. We found the Council failed to provide Child A suitable education for ten months. It also delayed in carrying out the EHCP process and failed to maintain effective contact with Mrs H. There was also a fundamental failing by the Council to properly recognise that Child A was not receiving elective home education. The faults identified caused Child A and Mrs H an injustice and so we have recommended several remedies. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (21 003 789) Summary: there is no fault in the Independent Appeal Panel's decision not to admit Mr F's son to the school. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault. Leagrave Primary School (21 003 874) Summary: there is no fault in the Independent Appeal Panel's decision not to admit Ms M's daughter to the School. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault. London Borough of Camden (21 004 439) Summary: The Ombudsman exercised discretion to discontinue the investigation of Miss L's complaint about the appeal panel's failure to follow procedure and consider her evidence when it rejected her appeal against the Council's decision to refuse her daughter a place at her preferred school. Had our investigation continued and found fault, we could not remedy any injustice it caused. This is because Miss L accepted the Council's recent offer of a place at the school. Warwickshire County Council (21 007 711) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs C's complaint about the assessment of her son's special educational needs. This is because she has used her right to appeal to a tribunal and this places the matter outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. London Borough of Bromley (20 006 595) Summary: Miss X complains about the Council's handling of a child protection investigation. She says the Council did not explain the process to her or explain what the accusation was, forced her to have a mental health assessment, and unnecessarily highlighted her disabilities during the process. We find fault with the Council for not providing information about the child protection process. We have made a recommendation. Worcestershire County Council (21 000 126) Summary: Mr F complains about a child protection investigation. He says the social worker prejudged the allegations. He is unhappy with the Council's response to his complaint. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not add to the Council's response or lead to a different outcome. London Borough of Haringey (21 000 897) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's discriminatory conduct during a meeting about SEN matters. We have not found the Council to be at fault. Norfolk County Council (21 008 479) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's children's services involvement with the care of the complainants son. This is because the matter is subject to court proceedings which are ongoing and will decide upon the care of the child. Cheshire East Council (20 002 969) Summary: Mrs X complains about how the Council dealt with a Education, Health and Care Plan for her son. The Council is at fault as it delayed in assessing and issuing an Education and Health Care plan for Y, failed to ensure his school made the provision set out in his Education, Health and Care Plan and delayed in complying with a consent order. This disadvantaged Y as he did not receive support for his special educational needs. Mrs X was also caused significant distress and put to avoidable time and trouble. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice to Mrs X and Y by making payments of £300 and £1000 respectively to them. Cornwall Council (20 007 885) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide the special educational provisions set out in her child's education, health and care (EHC) plan between November 2018 and March 2020. We find fault with the Council for failing to secure all the special educational provisions as set out in the child's EHC plan. We have made recommendations. Surrey County Council (21 000 225) Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed in issuing his son's Education Health and Care plan and that its communication with him was poor. The Ombudsman finds the Council was at fault. That has caused Mr X avoidable frustration and distress. The Council has already agreed to pay Mr X £400 which is an appropriate financial remedy. It will also apologise for any failings in its communication with him. Buckinghamshire Council (21 003 113) Summary: We will not investigate Ms M's complaint that the Council failed to properly consider her concerns regarding the content of an Occupation Therapy (OT) report for her son. There is no evidence of fault to warrant investigation into the matters within our jurisdiction. London Borough of Wandsworth (20 000 775) Summary: Miss B complained about the actions of the Council in respect of her complaint about the delay in finding respite care for her children. This had caused her significant distress and frustration over a prolonged period. The Council had apologised, started overnight respite care and offered a financial remedy. The Council has agreed to increase the payment to £2750. Derby City Council (21 003 894) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of a safeguarding concern. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault with the way the Council assessed the concerns. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (21 007 764) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's court report on the future of Ms Y's child. We cannot lawfully investigate what happened in court including the social worker's report and recommendations. Swindon Borough Council (20 001 016) Summary: We found fault by the Council: a delay in reviewing Y's Education, Health and Care Plan and a failure to deal fully with her mother Mrs X's complaint. This caused them avoidable distress, time and trouble and uncertainty about Y's education provision. The Council will apologise and make payments set out in this statement. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (20 010 479) Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council has failed to provide her daughter, D, with a full-time education for over three years. She also complained that the Council delayed providing D's Education, Health and Care plan. She says this has caused D and the family immense distress with D becoming suicidal. Mrs X also has health problems and she says the Council's approach has had a detrimental effect on her. She asks that the Council compensate D for its failing to support her education and for the impact on the family's mental health that its approach has had. The Council is at fault for delaying issuing D's EHC plan and for its approach in other ways. However, it is not at fault for failing to provide D with an education. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (20 010 940) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's school transport decision for her son. The Ombudsman found no fault in the Council's decision-making process. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (20 011 955) Summary: Mrs B says the Council failed to advertise the availability of short breaks transport, wrongly said a child needed an education, health and care plan to access transport and forced her to accept direct payments when she wants the Council to provide transport. There is no evidence the Council knew of any concerns about provision of a direct payment to fund transport and the current information on the Council's website does not say a child needs an education, health and care plan to access transport. The Council failed to properly advertise the availability of short breaks transport and delayed dealing with Mrs B's request. An apology and changes to the Council's website, which has already taken place, along with a payment to Mrs B is satisfactory remedy. Surrey County Council (20 012 066) Summary: X, Mr W and Ms Y complained the Council failed to fulfil its statutory duty to safeguard and promote X's welfare. The Ombudsman has not found fault by the Council in the action it took to safeguard and promote X's welfare but has found fault with its complaint handling. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising and making a payment to reflect the time and trouble this caused. Manchester City Council (20 009 927) Summary: Mr X complained about lack of support for his daughter under her Education, Health and Care Plan during the first COVID-19 lockdown from March to July 2020. The Council failed to make 'reasonable endeavours', as required, to put the provision in place. We do not know what support might have been available if the Council had considered the matter properly but Mr X paid for some support himself. The Council has agreed a remedy including a payment for his reasonable expenses. Buckinghamshire Council (20 010 415) Summary: Mrs B complained the Council did not provide suitable school transport for her daughter and she missed education. Mrs B also complained the Council used a shoulder strap connector when transporting her daughter which caused her distress. We found fault with the Council for a delay in its complaint handling. However, this delay did not cause Mrs B significant injustice. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (20 012 472) Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council has dealt with her son, Mr Y's Education, Health and Care plan and educational provision since 2016. She said this caused her distress and negatively affected Mr Y's mental wellbeing. The Council was at fault for not following the statutory procedure during the two most recent annual reviews for Mr Y. The Council agreed to complete the recommendations set out to remedy the injustice its actions caused to Mrs X and Mr Y. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (21 004 020) Summary: The complaint was about a failure to arrange special educational provision for Y in January and February 2021 and about a failure to obtain advice from an occupational therapist. We did not uphold the complaints because Y's provision was available for him in school and the Council arranged an NHS occupational therapy assessment. London Borough of Bromley (21 007 723) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about school transport and a period when her child was out of school. There is unlikely to be sufficient injustice to warrant investigation. Dorset Council (21 007 790) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to provide a suitable education to Mrs X's child, B. The Tribunal is deciding what B's educational provision should be. London Borough of Waltham Forest (21 009 286) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint that the school admission appeal panel refused her appeal for a school place for her son. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the appeal panel dealt with matters. London Borough of Bromley (21 009 732) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about school transport and a period when her child was out of school. There is unlikely to be sufficient injustice to warrant investigation. Surrey County Council (21 008 802) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of a school. This is because we cannot investigate any complaint concerning the internal management of schools. Such matters are out of our jurisdiction. London Borough of Lambeth (20 012 738) Summary: We find fault with the Council for failing to record the full details and outcomes of a meeting with Miss B about contact arrangements for her children. We also find fault with the way the Council considered Miss B's complaint during the statutory complaint process. This caused Miss B an injustice. The Council agrees actions to remedy the injustice. Redcar & Cleveland Council (20 011 669) Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not appropriately investigate her complaint about its refusal to supervise contact between her grandchild and their father. The Council was at fault. This caused Ms X uncertainty about whether the Council's decision that it could not supervise the contact was taken correctly. The Council has agreed to appropriately investigate Ms X's complaint under the children's statutory complaints procedure. Lancashire County Council (21 003 038) Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council failed to consider her complaint about an adoption support assessment under the statutory children's complaints procedure. This has caused her distress and time and trouble, and her children have missed out on access to support. The Council has agreed to consider the complaint through the statutory procedure. St Barnabas & St Paul C of E Primary School (21 005 767) Summary: We will not investigate the complaint about the refusal of admission to Mrs X's preferred school for her daughter. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way the Independent Appeal Panel hearing the case made its decision. Oxfordshire County Council (20 008 770) Summary: We uphold Mr X's complaint, that 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 has offered to make Mr X a payment to remedy the time and trouble its delay caused him. 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