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. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (21 000 194) Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council's children social services. She says she asked the service for help and support for her children and the Council did not provide any. She also complains the Council refused to complete an EHC assessment for her youngest child. We find fault with the Council for failing to complete its child in need plans properly. We have made recommendations. North Yorkshire County Council (21 001 711) Summary: Mr X complained the Council has not ensured his son, Z, received provisions in his Education, Health and Care Plan. He also said it has failed to provide Z with a suitable education since April 2021 and has not provided the family with any social care support. The Council was not at fault. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (21 002 685) Summary: the Council has offered an appropriate remedy for the occupational therapy and specialist dyslexia support Ms M's son, B, missed. Ms M remains unhappy with the school named in B's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan following the most recent tribunal. The Ombudsman cannot consider matters decided by the tribunal. Gloucestershire County Council (21 006 357) Summary: Ms M complains an Independent Appeal Panel based its decision not to admit her son to a primary school on incorrect information. The Council has offered Ms M a new appeal because of a change in her circumstances, so there is nothing to be gained from investigating her complaint further. Manchester City Council (21 007 423) Summary: We will not investigate Ms Y's complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council concerning the implementation of an EHC plan and interim provision of education for Ms Y's daughter. Additionally, Ms Y had appeal rights regarding the content of her daughter's EHC plan. Shropshire Council (21 011 827) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to refuse the complainant's application for school transport assistance because there is no evidence of fault on the Council's part. Derby City Council (21 000 063) Summary: Miss B complained about how the Council dealt with her in relation to her daughter who is in local authority care. There is no fault in the majority of the complaint. There was a failure to provide Miss B with input into one review meeting and the Council has not provided a review date for the communications plan in place. The apology and change of procedure the Council has already put in place, along with an amended policy for unreasonably persistent complainants is satisfactory remedy. London Borough of Bexley (21 002 050) Summary: Mr B says the Council failed to properly consider a child protection concern he raised and, in investigating that referral, failed to properly involve him and produced a biased report. There is no fault by the Council. Hampshire County Council (21 010 907) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about a court ordered report because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from considering complaints about matters that have been considered in court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so. We will not consider Mr X's complaint about a previous social worker's actions in 2020. This part of the complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are not good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now. Nottinghamshire County Council (21 012 350) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the content of a court report. This is not separable from matters where Mr X had or has a right to go to court it would be reasonable to use. Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (21 012 390) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about actions the Council took after receiving a safeguarding referral. The matters complained of are not separable from matters that either have been or could have been raised in a court case. Birmingham City Council (20 012 611) Summary: Ms B complained about the Council's handling of her son's education, health, and care (EHC) plan annual review, and that it did not comply with the SEND tribunal's orders. She also complained the Council did not respond to her complaints. Ms B said the Council's failures negatively affected her son's mental health. We found fault with the Council causing injustice. The Council agreed to take action to remedy this injustice. Northumberland County Council (21 005 559) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council refused to provide school transport for her child after it made changes to the schools near where she lives. We stopped investigating Mrs X's complaint. During our investigation, the Council agreed to provide transport for Mrs X's child and for similarly affected children. If the Council reviews this decision in future, parents affected by any changes will have the right to appeal. No further action by the Ombudsman is needed. Northumberland County Council (21 007 709) Summary: Mrs Y complained the Council refused to provide school transport for her child after it made changes to the schools near where she lives. We stopped investigating Mrs Y's complaint. During our investigation, the Council agreed to provide transport for Mrs Y's child and for similarly affected children. If the Council reviews this decision in future, parents affected by any changes will have the right to appeal. No further action by the Ombudsman is needed. South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (21 011 150) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's alleged failure to provide suitable school placements for the complainant's son during his primary and secondary education. This is because the complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to consider it. Milton Keynes Council (21 003 600) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the provision of information to the complainant. This is because there is no indication of fault on the Council's part. Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (21 007 978) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the conduct of a social worker, whom Mr X alleges misled a fostering panel. This is because Mr X is able to raise his concerns about professional conduct with Social Work England. Additionally, Mr and Mrs X had the right to a review of the panel's decision to de-register them as foster carers, which is the main injustice caused by the alleged fault. North Yorkshire County Council (21 010 715) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions following the raising of an allegation. Who Mrs X's grandchild lived with was a matter for a court to decide. Investigation of poor communications and disrupted contact would be unlikely to add to the Council's own investigation or lead to a different outcome. Torbay Council (21 010 736) Summary: Mr X complains the Council has not paid him backdated direct payments. The Council is not at fault. Liverpool City Council (21 013 307) Summary: The Council is at fault for delaying considering a complaint at stage two of the children's statutory complaints procedure. However, it has now completed its stage two investigation and written to the complainants to inform them of the outcome. It has also apologised, and offered to make a payment to remedy the delay. Hertfordshire County Council (21 002 457) Summary: Fault by the Council put Miss X's disabled child at risk of harm on home to school transport. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay £1,500, and take action to improve its service. Somerset County Council (21 012 337) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of a school. There is an absolute bar that prevents us investigating complaints about the actions of schools. Wakefield City Council (21 011 028) Summary: We uphold Mrs 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. Oxfordshire County Council (21 011 436) Summary: We uphold Mr X's complaint, as the Council delayed considering a complaint at stage two and stage three of the children's statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to complete its stage three without further delay and make a payment for the delay so far. Durham County Council (21 011 465) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to deal with Ms X's complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify our involvement. East Sussex County Council (20 008 003) Summary: Miss Y complains about the Council's decision not to provide taxi transport for her son, Mr Y, to attend college. We find the Council's decision making was flawed because there is no evidence to show the appeal panel considered all relevant factors in Mr Y's case. The Council should retake its decision, apologise and pay £200 in recognition of the avoidable time and trouble caused by fault. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (21 001 084) Summary: the Council was at fault in its handling of Ms B's complaint under the children's complaints procedure because it failed to offer her a review panel at stage 3 of that process. It also failed to provide her with copies of her social care records which it agreed to after stage 2 of that procedure. These failings caused her injustice. The Council will take the action recommended to acknowledge and remedy this injustice. London Borough of Merton (21 001 651) Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to properly investigate safeguarding concerns raised by himself and others about his daughters' mother. His daughters were subsequently abused by their mother's partner. He feels this could have been prevented if the referrals had been taken more seriously. He states he was made to feel like a nuisance by the Council and this attitude has continued in respect of his complaints, causing him distress. Some of his complaints were made late. The Council is at fault in respect of its complaint handling and has caused injustice, for which it has agreed an apology and financial remedy. It is also at fault in its record keeping, but this did not cause injustice. Kent County Council (21 010 137) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council delayed considering a complaint at stage two of the children's statutory complaints procedure. This is because a response has now been sent and the Council has provided an appropriate payment to remedy the time and trouble its delay has caused the complainant. Therefore, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Kent County Council (21 011 676) Summary: Miss X complained to the Ombudsman after the Council refused to investigate her complaint it had failed to safeguard her grandchild. We will not investigate this complaint because the Council has now agreed to investigate. Suffolk County Council (20 000 747) Summary: Mrs Y complained the Council failed to provide her son with suitable education. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council, causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising, making payments to acknowledge the impact of the loss of education and time and trouble caused to Mrs Y, and a service improvement. Lincolnshire County Council (21 008 990) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council's policy of school transport for selective schools is unfair and inequitable. We will not investigate this complaint as we are unlikely to find fault. Central Bedfordshire Council (21 011 234) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays by the Council in holding a review of an Education Health and Care Plan. Investigation by us would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome. Camms C Of E Voluntary Aided Primary School (21 012 854) 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 and so we cannot question the merits of the panel's decision. City of Wolverhampton Council (21 008 835) Summary: we discontinued our investigation into Mrs X's complaint that the Council did not offer her suitable fostering placements for a year. Mrs X also complained the Council failed to communicate with her when a child placed in her care went missing. The Council has offered a remedy which Mrs X has accepted, and the other part of her complaint is late. London Borough of Newham (21 011 485) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of social workers in deciding Ms X's child should be subject to a Child Protection Plan. This is not warranted by the claimed injustice. Isle of Wight Council (21 013 499) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council passing information to the health service. The Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to consider this issue. Kent County Council (21 011 476) Summary: We have no reason to investigate this complaint from a parent that the Council had not done enough to find a school place for her son. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council regarding this matter. Holy Trinity C Of E Primary School Dartford (21 011 207) Summary: A parent complained about the school admission appeal panel's decision to turn down her appeal for a place for her son at her preferred primary school. But we have no reason to investigate this matter because there is no sign of fault by the panel. Buckinghamshire County Council (19 020 843) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's actions to support the educational needs of her son Y from September 2018. We find the Council was at fault for a delay in issuing Y's Education Health and Care plan and for failing to consider whether he needed alternative provision when he stopped attending school because of anxiety. That caused Mrs X avoidable distress and meant Y went a short period without suitable education. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and make a payment to remedy any injustice caused. Essex County Council (21 003 287) Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council has been paying a taxi firm for transport for her son, which he did not require. She also complains about aspects of his education. I have discontinued this investigation. This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice in relation to the transport payments, while the education complaints are largely out of our jurisdiction or have been remedied. 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