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 Brent (20 013 093) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to include Mrs X in and initial child protection conference. The remedy offered by the Council is sufficient for the injustice caused. West Sussex County Council (21 000 972) Summary: Mr X complains that the Council failed to adequately safeguard his son. He also says the Council's complaint handling was poor. Based on the evidence seen to date, the Council is at fault in respect of its complaint handling. The Council has agreed to apologise for this and provide a financial remedy for the injustice caused by a delayed risk assessment. London Borough of Lewisham (21 005 621) Summary: We uphold Mr X's complaint, as the Council failed to consider his complaint within the children's statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to complete its stage two investigation without further delay. London Borough of Croydon (21 007 267) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to move his complaint on to stage two of the children's statutory complaint procedure. We have found the Council at fault. The Council has now agreed for Mr X's complaint to be considered at stage two. Kent County Council (21 008 087) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's safeguarding actions regarding her grandchildren. The Council has agreed to deal with the complaint. Cheshire East Council (21 009 790) Summary: We will not consider this complaint about the Council spreading false information about Mr X. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify our involvement. Dorset Council (21 010 099) Summary: We will not investigate Mr C's complaint about the Council's response to his concerns about his children's welfare. This is because, by law, we cannot consider the content of the assessment submitted to the Court, and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr C wants. South Gloucestershire Council (21 010 808) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's regulation of contact between Mrs X and her grandchild. Only a court can decide what contact arrangements should be. King David High School (21 004 034) Summary: The Ombudsman found fault by the school on Mrs Y's complaint about the appeal panel failing to properly consider her appeal against the school's refusal to give her son a Year 7 place. The clerk's notes of the hearing do not explain how the panel reached its decision. What the decision letter said about how the panel reached is decision is not supported by the clerk's notes. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused. Buckinghamshire Council (21 009 569) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's role in the administration of 11+ testing for the selective secondary schools. This is because the Council's actions have not caused any personal injustice to the complainant. Cumbria County Council (21 009 794) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council imposing restrictions on her contact with it. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence the Council's actions have caused the complainant a significant personal injustice. Harvills Hawthorn Primary School (21 012 142) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel, and so we cannot question the merits of its decision. The Latymer School, Edmonton (21 002 628) Summary: Ms B complained about the way in which the School's Appeal Panel considered Ms B's appeal against the refusal of a place at the School for her son C. We found no fault in the actions of the School. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (21 010 159) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about whether a social worker lied about contacting Miss X about the need for a safety agreement. The matters complained are not separable from the issue of where Miss X's grandchildren should live, which has been decided by a court. Central Bedfordshire Council (21 010 823) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an assessment the Council carried out for a court case. Staffordshire County Council (20 014 181) Summary: there is no fault in the Council's consideration of Ms B's stage 2 appeal against its decision to withdraw free home to school transport for her son Kent County Council (21 004 335) Summary: Mrs G complains the Council delayed in completing an Education and Health Care Plan annual review for her daughter (Child X) who has special educational needs. Mrs G says the failure meant Child X did not receive suitable educational support for an extended period of time. We found the Council was at fault for delays in completing an annual review of Child X's EHCP. These failings delayed Child X receiving specialist educational provision which was appropriate for her needs. Further, the failings caused Mrs G serious distress and uncertainty. We have therefore recommended a remedy. London Borough of Ealing (21 004 834) Summary: Mr F complains following his unsuccessful appeal for a place for his son at a primary school. There is no fault in the appeal. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault. Bedford Borough Council (21 012 500) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions relating to Mr X's son's special education needs. Most of the matters complained of are not separable from the content of the child's Education Health and Care Plan, which was a matter for a Special Needs and Disability Tribunal. The remaining matters are either late, or there is insufficient evidence of fault or injustice in a short period to warrant investigation. Surrey County Council (20 003 273) Summary: Mrs X complained about the adequacy of the Council's handling of her complaints about a lack of social care and support for her disabled son, F, at stage 2 of the children's statutory complaints procedure. The Council fettered its discretion to consider Mrs X's late request to progress the complaint to a stage 3 review panel. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X for the distress and uncertainty this caused. It agreed to arrange and hold a stage 3 review panel within one month of the final decision. City of Wolverhampton Council (20 003 733) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's child protection investigation into his children's welfare. The Ombudsman found no fault in the Council's investigation or decision-making. Kent County Council (21 000 919) Summary: There was fault by the Council in how it handled child protection matters. It failed to keep Mr B, the father, properly informed of its actions, and it failed to forward plan for his contact with his children. The Council also shared information with the wider family without first agreeing this with Mr B. However, it was appropriate for the Council to stay alert to the risk to the children based on information from the Police, and it did not refuse to support Mr B's referral for specialist treatment. The Council has already apologised to Mr B for its shortcoming and changed its practices. This is an appropriate way to remedy the injustice to Mr B. Cumbria County Council (21 009 926) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the disclosure of information. This is because we cannot achieve what the complainant wants. Norfolk County Council (21 010 684) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint about information the Council provided to the court in family court proceedings because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from considering matters that have been considered in court. We have no discretion to do so. Manchester City Council (21 010 862) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions regarding where Mr X's daughter should live. The residence of children can only be decided by a court and Mr X has a right to go to court it would be reasonable to use. Surrey County Council (21 009 867) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about an education health and care needs assessment. The complainant has used her right to appeal about the outcome and this places the matter outside our jurisdiction. Manchester City Council (20 008 618) Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council carried out its child protection duties for his daughter. The Council was at fault for failing to ensure Mr X received timely information following child protection meetings and telling him his daughter was safe when he raised urgent welfare concerns. These failings caused frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and remind its staff they must provide parents timely information about child protection cases and in response to urgent concerns. Essex County Council (21 010 248) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about incorrect information given to Mr X by the Council. This is unlikely to have caused sufficient injustice to Mr X to warrant investigation. Essex County Council (21 010 512) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about an alleged conflict of interest created by a social worker giving evidence in court. The complaint concerns what happened in court. Cheshire East Council (20 008 527) Summary: We upheld Miss X's complaint about the Council's handling of her son's education, health and care plan. Her son, Mr Y, lost out on provision he was entitled to. Miss X and Mr Y also experienced frustration and uncertainty due to faults by the Council. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr Y and Miss X and make a payment to recognise their distress and time and trouble. Leicestershire County Council (21 000 575) Summary: Ms B complained about the Council's handling of her son's (Child X) special education needs provision. She said it failed to assess his needs properly, failed to address the high number of tutors he had, and it caused delays in completing its reviews of his EHC Plans. As a result, she said Child X missed out on educational provision and she experienced distress. We did not find the Council at fault for the number of tutors Child X had, and how it assessed Child X's needs. However, it was at fault for the delays it caused in completing Child X's EHC Plan. This did not cause Child X an injustice, but Ms B experienced some distress due to the uncertainty. Essex County Council (21 010 666) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the administration of the payroll of a school. The complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. Mr X is complaining on behalf of a public body. Manchester City Council (20 008 516) Summary: The complainant alleged that the Council delayed in taking her into its care when she was homeless and at risk. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council's actions, causing the complainant an injustice. The Council has agreed to provide the recommended remedy. Therefore, we have completed our investigation and are closing the complaint. Dorset Council (20 011 027) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's failure to conduct a proper safeguarding enquiry into serious concerns raised about the welfare of her two grandchildren. We find the Council properly responded to her concerns and so we do not find fault with how it dealt with this matter. Mrs X's complaint about an inaccurate court report is outside of our jurisdiction. Her other complaints have previously been investigated by us and are out of time. Suffolk County Council (21 005 800) Summary: The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation into Mrs X's complaint about support for her daughter, Miss Y, on the basis that the key issues have been considered separately and there is no worthwhile outcome that could be achieved in relation to the other matters. Cambridgeshire County Council (21 006 868) Summary: We will 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 and make a payment for the delay so far. West Northamptonshire Council (21 008 551) Summary: We uphold Miss 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 three investigation without further delay and make a payment for the delay so far. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (21 009 890) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to consider again matters already considered by the Ombudsman. There is no fault in the Council's refusal. Warwickshire County Council (20 013 120) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not follow its own process when it refused her application for a personal budget to find tuition for her son Y. She said the Council then failed to reassess her application after it was instructed to do so and did not issue an amended Education Health and Care Plan in line with a Tribunal order. She said the Council's actions have caused her stress and Y has lost out on his education and development. The Council was at fault when it refused Mrs X's personal budget application without explanation and delayed providing Y with an amended EHC Plan. The Council took action to address its failure to properly consider Mrs X's application and this fault is already remedied. The Council should remind its staff of the importance of carrying out recommendations within a timely manner to address the fault caused by the delay. Oxfordshire County Council (20 014 250) Summary: Ms X and Y complained about errors during Y's Education, Health and Care Plan annual review process and of delay in arranging suitable educational provision. They say Y missed out on education as a result and the errors caused Ms X and Y distress. The Council was at fault. It will pay Ms X £800 to remedy Y's lost provision and a further £200 in recognition of the distress caused. It will also review its procedures. London Borough of Ealing (20 011 837) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council's social services as the matter is linked to issues currently subject to court proceedings. London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (21 006 846) Summary: 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 and will offer to make a payment to the complainant to remedy the time and trouble its delay has caused her. Manchester City Council (21 008 500) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to reassess financial support for an adoptive parent, and its failure to provide mediation after the complainant informed the Council that the complainant and his ex-partner were separating in 2015. This is because the events happened too long ago, and I see no good reason to exercise discretion and investigate these matters now. Salford City Council (21 009 944) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the support the Council has offered the complainant's daughter. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Nottingham City Council (21 010 156) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's response to the complainant's concerns for her children's welfare. This is because we cannot achieve what the complainant wants, and it is open to her to raise the matters in court. Bristol City Council (21 010 233) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the decision to place the complainant's daughter for adoption. This is because we cannot investigate matters relating to a decision of the Court. West Sussex County Council (21 010 333) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about child protection. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant investigation and we cannot investigate the content of reports prepared for courts. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (21 011 952) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's involvement in care and adoption proceedings for his children. This is because the issues Mr X raises cannot be separated from legal proceedings decided in the family court. Hertfordshire County Council (20 010 858) Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of S, her child, about the way the Council has dealt with his Education, Health and Care plan and educational provision since July 2019. The Council was at fault for the delay in issuing S's amended Education, Health and Care plan after the annual review in July 2019. This has caused Mrs X distress, uncertainty and put her to avoidable time and trouble. The Council agreed to remedy the injustice its actions caused to Mrs X and S. I have now completed my investigation. Lincolnshire County Council (21 001 775) Summary: Mrs B complains the Council has not dealt properly with her son T's Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP) and his Special Educational Needs (SEN). The Council is at fault because there was a lack of communication and it delayed making a decision about a personal budget. Mrs B had to spend more time than necessary chasing the Council. The Council has agreed to pay Mrs B £100. London Borough of Havering (21 009 173) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the refusal of entry 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) hearing the appeal made its decision, and any procedural fault in the handling of the case has not caused injustice. Hampshire County Council (21 009 720) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council while Mr X's son was not in school as they are not separable from the content of the child's EHC Plan, which was a matter for a Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. We cannot consider complaints about the actions of schools. London Borough of Bromley (20 013 677) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a social worker building a dossier of unfounded allegations against Mr and Mrs X. The matters complained of are unlikely to be separable from the assessments and opinions given in court regarding where and with whom Mr and Mrs X's daughter should live. Warwickshire County Council (21 001 852) Summary: We uphold Mrs X's complaint. The Council delayed in considering Mrs X's complaint at stage two of the children's statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now completed its stage two investigation and agreed to make a payment for the delay. Kent County Council (21 004 115) Summary: I have not investigated Mr B's complaints about how the Council facilitated contact with his children, how it assessed the family, and the contents of its assessment. This is because these matters are subject to court proceedings and the law says we cannot investigate them. I also do not intend to investigate Mr B's complaints about a data breach, or its handling of his requests regarding information. This is because the Information Commissioner is best placed to deal with these matters. Medway Council (21 008 004) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about events involving the Council's children services team. We cannot investigate issues which are part of legal proceedings. And there is a lack of significant injustice to Mr X in issues separable from the Court proceedings. West Sussex County Council (21 009 931) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a social worker's assessment of a safeguarding risk. The matters complained of are not separable from that of contact, about which Ms X has a right to go to court it would be reasonable to use. South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (21 009 522) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to assess the complainants daughter for an Education, Health and Care plan. This is because the complainant has appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. London Borough of Wandsworth (21 000 726) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's children's services involvement with the complainant and his family. This is because we cannot add to the investigation already carried out by the Council. London Borough of Islington (21 009 417) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to issue Child Y a Blue Badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Birmingham City Council (21 009 777) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint about information a social worker provided to the court in family court proceedings because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from considering matters that have been considered in court. We have no discretion to do so. Leicester City Council (21 010 072) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council wrongly identified the complainant's son as the subject of a child protection allegation. This is because investigation by the Ombudsman would not achieve anything significant. Bracknell Forest Council (21 003 933) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about how the Council handled a safeguarding investigation about her conduct as a registered child minder. This is because the complaint is still going through the Council's complaints procedure. Essex County Council (21 006 341) Summary: Mr B is a solicitor who is trying to contact Mr C – a former looked-after child – to tell him about his entitlement to an inheritance. The Council was at fault for failing to respond to Mr B's letters, and for failing to take any steps to facilitate communication between Mr B and Mr C. It has agreed to now take reasonable steps to remedy this. London Borough of Brent (21 008 102) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's response to Ms B's concerns about her son's welfare. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council's part. Durham County Council (21 008 826) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about inaccurate information given to a Court. And Social Work England is better placed to consider complaints about an officer's unprofessionalism. Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (21 009 986) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the child protection actions of social workers. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant this. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (20 011 296) Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed in completing an Education, Health and Care Plan for her son and failed to meet the statutory guidelines that resulted in missed provision for her son. She also complained it failed to deal with her complaints properly. We find the Council at fault for delay meaning it failed to meet statutory timeframes. The Council were also at fault for failing to deal with Miss X's complaint properly. This put Miss X to the time and trouble of complaining multiple times and caused her frustration. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused. Manchester City Council (20 012 215) Summary: the complainant, Rev X, complained the Council refused an application for home to school transport without considering the correct grounds. The Council says the family did not show exceptional circumstances to support the application. We found the Council at fault for failing to apply the correct test to the application and the Council agreed to our recommended remedy. Essex County Council (21 001 120) Summary: Miss X complained the school transport the Council provided for her son is not suitable for his needs. Based on the information I have seen, there was fault in how the Council decided the transport provided for Y was suitable. It agreed to review its decision and give Miss X the opportunity to speak to the decision maker. It also agreed to review its practices for driver training. Redcar & Cleveland Council (21 009 368) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a school transport application and appeal. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council's part. Suffolk County Council (21 009 623) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's faults in the process of issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) for the complainant's son. This is because the complainant appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (SENDIST) and any shortcomings of the EHCP would have been rectified by the tribunal order. Kent County Council (21 001 676) Summary: Ms B complained that the Council failed to take action to support her relationship with her daughter, C, failed to act in C's best interests as a result of which she is currently living with her father. The Ombudsman found no fault on the Council's part. Durham County Council (21 005 963) Summary: Ms X complained the Council has refused to investigate her complaint at stage 2 of the children's statutory complaints procedure. The Council was at fault. It will now begin a stage 2 investigation and pay her £150 in recognition of the delay caused by its refusal and the distress this caused. Bristol City Council (21 008 888) Summary: We will not investigate Miss B's complaint about the Council's management of child protection action. The complaint is late and there are no grounds to consider it now. Manchester City Council (21 009 658) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement with the complainant's family. This is because the complaint is about matters considered and decided in court. It is therefore outside our jurisdiction. It is reasonable for Mr X to return to court if he is unhappy with his children's living arrangements. The actions of the Council's staff cannot be separated from matters we have no jurisdiction to consider. Kent County Council (21 009 715) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of social workers before a court case that decided where Mr X's child should live. These matters are not separable from those heard in court and Mr X has a right to return to court it would be reasonable to use. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (21 009 802) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about what social workers wrote in a court report. A court has decided where Miss X's children should live, and only another court can vary that. Hampshire County Council (21 009 893) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an omission from a child protection report. The matter is not separable from the consequent decisions of courts about contact between Mrs X's daughter and the child's father. Birmingham City Council (20 007 731) Summary: Ms X complains about how the Council dealt with Mr Y's Education, Health and Care plan. The Council is at fault as it failed to consider if it should hold an interim review of Mr Y's plan following his discharge from hospital, failed to issue a final plan between early 2019 and November 2020, failed to ensure Mr Y received the provision in his plan from November 2020 and caused Mr Y to miss some home tuition. The Council's record keeping was also poor. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice to Ms X and Mr Y by making a payment of £3000 to them plus the refund of gym fees paid by Ms X. Madani Girls' School (20 013 691) Summary: Mr X complains that an appeal panel did not properly consider his appeal. There is no evidence of fault in how the appeal panel considered Mr X's appeal for a place for his daughter at the school. The panel's decision letter did not contain sufficient information for Mr X to understand why his appeal was refused which is fault. However, this did not cause sufficient injustice to Mr X to warrant a remedy. Devon County Council (21 000 781) Summary: Ms B complained there was delay and inaction by the Council following the review of her daughter's education, health and care plan (EHC plan). She said that as a result her daughter (X) missed out on full-time appropriate education. It caused her and her daughter stress and worry. And Ms B had to give up some work so that she could take her daughter to school on part-time hours. There was fault which meant that X missed out on full-time education for five months. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Ms B. London Borough of Lewisham (21 008 728) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint how the Council handled the complainant's travel assistance application. This is because the Council has now agreed to the complainant's request and an investigation could not achieve anything more. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (21 009 432) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in amending an Education Health and Care Plan. This is because there is insufficient injustice to warrant investigation. 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