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. Lincolnshire County Council (21 001 744) Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council delayed finalising amendments to Ms Y's Education, Health and Care plan and failed to tell them its intention to cease the plan. They say this meant it did not progress her transfer to a new school and Ms Y was out of education for a year. They also say the Council has not provided the provision in Ms Y's plan. The Council was at fault for failing to cease Ms Y's plan when it meant to and for delays in sending the amended plan. This caused Mr and Mrs X and Ms Y avoidable frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise, make symbolic payments, and send the Ombudsman an action plan detailing how it will reduce its annual review backlog. East Sussex County Council (21 002 947) Summary: Ms C complained the Council failed to make arrangements to provide suitable alternative education otherwise than at school for her son, X, who was not able to attend school. She said the school where he was on role was not able to meet his needs. As a result X did not receive any education for a year. There was fault which caused injustice to Ms C and X. The Council will apologise, make a payment and review its procedures. Somerset County Council (21 006 493) Summary: Miss V complained about a school admissions appeal hearing for her son, who I will call B. We have discontinued our investigation because Miss V has withdrawn her complaint for the reasons explained in this statement. East Sussex County Council (21 011 395) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in issuing an amended Education Health and Care Plan. The delay was short and unlikely to have caused sufficient injustice to warrant investigation. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (20 001 708) Summary: Ms X complained about the Council's handling of her son Mr Y's education, health and care plan. There was some fault by the Council, but this did not cause an injustice to Mr Y or to his mother. Reading Borough Council (21 012 039) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alternative educational provision. Mrs X has appealed to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal against the Council's refusal to assess her daughter for an Education Health and Care Plan and the matter complained of is not separable from that. A court ruling means we are unable to say what education should be provided in such circumstances, even where a child is not in education. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation of the short period before the Council decision that gave rise to the right of appeal. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (21 002 612) Summary: Mr X complains that Council's decision to escalate its child protection investigation was wrong and that it delayed in holding a meeting and cancelled another. He says the Council also breached his confidentiality, threatened him, and did not handle his complaint correctly. The Council is at fault in its complaint handling only, has caused injustice and has agreed a financial remedy. Warrington Council (21 009 036) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council has applied to the courts for a Special Guardianship Order. This is because the law does not allow us to investigate complaints about the start of court action. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (21 011 838) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to act in the interests of the complainant's family. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome she is seeking. Hampshire County Council (21 011 912) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the care of the complainant's daughter, and her allegation that the Council withheld significant information from the Court. This is because the law prevents us from investigating matters which have been decided in court. Surrey County Council (19 012 447) Summary: Mrs C complains about the Council's delay in meeting her son's special educational needs, including a delay in carrying out an EHC assessment. She also complains the Council delayed providing suitable education when her son was not medically fit to attend school. The Ombudsman view is that large parts of Mrs C's complaint is outside our jurisdiction, partly because Mrs C has used her right of appeal. But the Ombudsman has found fault with some of the complaint we have considered – in particular a failure to provide Mrs C's son with alternative education. Devon County Council (20 002 784) Summary: We found fault by the Council as it failed to secure full-time educational provision for Mr K, a young person with complex needs. We also found the Council failed to arrange regular overnight respite care for Mr K. This placed significant pressure on Mr K's relationship with his mother, Ms J, and caused them both significant distress. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr K and Ms J and pay a financial remedy in recognition of the impact of this fault on them. We found no fault with the care provided to Mr K by the Mental Health Trust. Northamptonshire County Council (20 011 542) Summary: The Council was at fault because there was delay of 2 months in issuing an Education and Healthcare plan. The delay caused stress and uncertainty for Mrs X, but her son was already receiving provision through high needs funding in school. To remedy the injustice, the Council will apologise and make the payment set out in this statement. Wakefield City Council (20 001 094) Summary: We 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 without further delay and make a payment for the delay so far. Isle of Wight Council (21 008 894) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council holding inaccurate information about him. The Information Commissioner's Officer is better placed. Gloucestershire County Council (21 000 535) Summary: Mr X and Ms Y complained about failings in the EHC Plan Annual Review process and delay in determining their application for school transport. They also complained the Council failed to investigate their complaint in an independent or objective manner. The Council's failure to issue a decision within four weeks of the annual review, and its amendment of the plan without first obtaining evidence to support the proposed changes amounts to fault. As does the delay in processing Mr X and Ms Y's application for school transport. This fault has caused Mr X and Ms Y an injustice. Cardinal Langley RC High School (21 004 380) Summary: The Ombudsman found fault on Miss F's complaint about the appeal panel failing to properly consider her appeal against the school's decision to refuse her children a place. The statement of case lacked important information and some of the information it contained was irrelevant. The clerk's notes failed to properly record the decision-making process. The decision letter failed to contain correct information. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused. Kent County Council (21 011 476) Kent County Council (21 011 476) Surrey County Council (21 011 557) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about home to school transport for the complainant's son. This is because it would be reasonable for the complainant to complete the Council's school transport appeal process. Leicester City Council (21 012 272) 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 by the panel, and so we cannot question the merits of its decision. Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (20 012 701) Summary: Mr B complained the Council did not provide financial support when he took on responsibility for his granddaughter shortly after she was born in 2005. He said he suffered financial difficulties in providing care for her. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Mr B. The Council will make a payment to him. London Borough of Lambeth (21 010 461) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's engagement with the complainant's family because investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Norfolk County Council (21 012 843) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's actions which will affect family court proceedings. This is because the issues Miss X raises are not separable from the matters before the family court. Suffolk County Council (21 003 276) Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to deal properly with her son's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan from when she moved into the area, resulting in loss of education. We have found that the Council was at fault in delaying reviewing the EHC Plan and failing to provide education and support. The Council has agreed a suitable remedy, including a payment for the loss of education. St Paul's School for Girls, Edgbaston (21 003 408) Summary: Mrs X complains about the way the appeal panel dealt with her appeal for a place at the School for her daughter. We find there was some fault in the appeal arrangements and information provided to Mrs X. The School has agreed to offer her a fresh hearing. Reading Borough Council (21 008 948) Summary: We will not investigate Ms P's complaint about the Council's decision to not carry out an Education Health and Care needs assessment. This is because it would have been reasonable for Ms P to have used her appeal rights. East Sussex County Council (21 012 418) 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 by the panel. Derby City Council (21 009 061) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's Children's Social Care team. This is because it is a late complaint and there are no good reasons to consider it now. Cumbria County Council (21 009 640) Summary: The Council has unreasonably delayed considering Mr B's complaint at Stage 2 of the statutory procedure for children's services complaints. It has agreed to initiate Stage 2 and to offer to make a payment to Mr B to reflect the delay and the uncertainty this has caused. London Borough of Newham (21 010 275) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint that the Council has discriminated against him on the grounds of sex. This is because we cannot achieve anything significant by doing so. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (21 010 335) Summary: We will not and cannot investigate Miss X's complaint about children services' actions. She does not have parental responsibility for the child concerned and the courts have decided the child's care arrangements. Leeds City Council (21 011 829) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about court reports and what a social worker said in court. Peterborough City Council (20 009 552) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to ensure her son, G, received a suitable education in line with his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan between October 2018 and September 2019 when he was out of school for medical reasons. The Council was not at fault. The Council met its duty by putting tuition in place for G in October 2018 which continued into 2019. I did not investigate the period January to September 2019 because Mrs X had appealed G's EHC Plan to the SEND Tribunal. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (21 001 673) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's refusal to consider his request to admit his summer born child to school outside of his normal age group, into reception, instead of year 1. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council causing injustice. It has agreed to remedy this by apologising, making a payment to reflect the distress, time and trouble caused and a service improvement. Cardinal Heenan Catholic High School, Liverpool (21 003 050) Summary: Miss X complained about how an independent appeal panel considered her case for a school place for her son, Y. The panel failed to properly consider Miss X's case, which caused her uncertainty. The School has agreed to apologise to Miss X. The School has also agreed to remind the panel clerk of the proper process for holding and recording appeal hearings. Derbyshire County Council (21 005 242) Summary: there is no fault in the appeal panel's decision not to admit Mrs M's son, B, to the school. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault. Runnymede St Edwards Catholic Primary School (21 005 499) Summary: there is no fault in the appeal panel's decision not to admit Mrs M's daughter, G, to the school. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault. Bracknell Forest Council (21 009 081) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council carried out an EHC assessment. This is because the complainant concerns a matter which the complainant has appealed to a tribunal. Cumbria County Council (20 013 250) 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 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. Cambridgeshire County Council (21 000 176) Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly reduced the amount of his Residence Order Allowance in 2016 and continued to pay the wrong amount until 2020. He complained the Council failed to carry out means testing during this period and declined to backdate his allowance. Mr X says the Council's actions caused him a lot of avoidable distress and financial hardship. Following our enquiries, the Council agreed to make a backdated payment to Mr X. We found the Council to be at fault. It has agreed to apologise to Mr X and make a payment to recognise the injustice caused. Sunderland City Council (21 002 343) Summary: Mr C complained the Council failed to follow Child Protection procedures, wrongly shared information with his children and was biased toward his children's mother. As a result, Mr C said he and his children experienced distress due to their loss of contact. The Council agreed it was at fault on parts of Mr C's complaint and apologised. We found its apology was not enough to remedy the injustice caused to Mr C and his children. The Council should make payment to Mr C to acknowledge the distress its faults caused. London Borough of Bromley (21 010 182) Summary: On the evidence currently available, we should not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's child protection decisions. It is unlikely we could add to the Council's reply. 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