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. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (21 004 623) Summary: Mr X complained the Council took too long to complete a sexual harm risk assessment which delayed court proceedings regarding contact with his son. We found the Council was at fault for the delay in completing the risk assessment and this caused Mr X avoidable frustration and uncertainty. We recommended the Council provide Mr X with an apology, pay him £350 and act to prevent recurrence. London Borough of Havering (21 009 552) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's handling of a court case involving her son and grandchild and the use of personal information. We cannot investigate actions which are part of court proceedings. Ms X can reasonably go to the Information Commissioner if she wants to pursue a complaint about the Council's information handling. London Borough of Sutton (21 010 640) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about his children being removed from his care as a result of care proceedings. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because the law prevents us from considering complaints about matters such as this which have been considered in court. We have no discretion to do so. London Borough of Croydon (21 012 438) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint the Council sent another council inaccurate information regarding a child protection case, that the Council failed to handle personal information properly, and failed to reply to his complaints. There is no fault in the Council sharing child protection information with another council. We cannot investigate how evidence was used in court proceedings. It is reasonable for Mr X to go to the Information Commissioner if he has concerns about the Council's handling of personal information or its accuracy. The Council has replied to the complaint and there is insufficient injustice to investigate. Kent County Council (21 011 758) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to provide school transport for the complainant's daughter. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault in the way the Council's decision was reached. Liverpool City Council (21 012 524) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about an Education Health and Care Plan. This is because the matter has been considered and determined by the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). Suffolk County Council (21 013 988) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council in relation to the evidence provided by a school at the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal (SENDIST). This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The complaint is out of our jurisdiction as we cannot consider issues connected with a court process Norfolk County Council (21 001 599) Summary: Mr X complained the Council's Local Authority Designated Officer improperly oversaw a safeguarding investigation into his conduct. He also complained the Council unfairly dismissed the complaint he raised about this. He said this matter negatively affected his professional reputation and caused him stress. There was no fault in the Council's actions regarding the safeguarding enquiry or in its response to Mr X's complaint. London Borough of Hackney (21 002 856) Summary: Ms X complains about the Council's failure to take action to protect and support her following several serious sexual assaults while she was a looked after child in the 1990's. We will not investigate her complaint because it has been brought to us late and it is not possible, so long after the relevant events, to reach a safe conclusion about what happened. Cambridgeshire County Council (21 003 293) Summary: Miss A complains the Council did not properly consider her needs and denied her application for a blue badge. The Ombudsman intends to find fault with the Council for not suitably considering the information provided by Miss A's family and professional network. The Council has reviewed its decision and awarded Miss A a blue badge. It has also agreed to pay her a financial remedy for the distress caused. Devon County Council (21 004 893) Summary: There was no fault by the Council. It has properly considered the needs and wishes of the children, and that they do not want contact with their grandmother. Kent County Council (21 009 629) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about what a social worker wrote in assessment. This matter is not separable from matters of contact with Mr X's grandchildren, which have been decided by a court. Only a court could vary those arrangements. London Borough of Merton (21 010 242) Summary: We uphold Mrs X's complaint, as the Council delayed considering a complaint at stage one and 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. Surrey County Council (20 006 194) Summary: Mrs D complains the Council did not do enough to provide her son with alternative education after he stopped attending school for medical reasons. And about a delay in completing an Education, Health and Care plan. The Ombudsman has not investigated some of the complaint. But we have found fault with parts of the complaint we have investigated. The Council has agreed to our recommendations. Norfolk County Council (19 013 672) Summary: Mr and Mrs P complain the Council did not pay fostering allowance when they cared for their grandchildren between August 2018 and October 2019. There was no fault by the Council. London Borough of Lewisham (20 003 805) Summary: Ms P complains about her dealings with the Council which she believes led to her daughter being taken into care shortly after her birth and later adopted. Although Ms P distinguishes her complaint from decisions made by the Court, they are inseparable. Further investigation would not add to the Council's response or lead to a different outcome. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (21 002 702) Summary: Miss X complained about the outcome of her complaint about a lack of support to safeguard her children which the Council considered under the statutory children's complaints procedure. Miss X said the Council failed to complete the actions it agreed at its conclusion. There was fault in the Council's actions when it failed to provide Miss X with consistent support she was entitled to. The Council agreed to pay Miss X £300 to recognise the distress and uncertainty that caused. There was no fault in the way the Council considered Miss X's complaint through the statutory children's complaint procedure and it has appropriately completed the agreed actions. Bedford Borough Council (21 012 198) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's response to Mr B's attempts to challenge statements made about him by Council officers. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome he is seeking. Kent County Council (20 012 090) Summary: Mrs D complained about the Council's delays in issuing her son's Education, Health and Care plan after her request for an assessment. We find the Council was at fault because it took too long to issue the final Education, Health and Care plan. It also delayed responding to Mrs D's complaint. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address Mrs D's injustice. Cheshire East Council (20 014 516) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to ensure her daughter, B, received certain special educational provision set out in her Education, Health and Care Plan. She complains the Council failed to complete the annual review of the Plan within the statutory timescales. The Ombudsman has decided to uphold Mrs X's complaint. Because of this fault, Mrs X was caused distress and uncertainty, and B missed out on certain provision. To remedy the injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise, make Mrs X and B a payment, and take action to prevent similar failings in the future. Dorset Council (21 005 874) Summary: The Council was at fault for refusing to provide home to school transport for Ms X's son to the only school named in his Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council has agreed to review its Special Educational Needs transport policy and pay Ms X £150 in recognition of the distress caused to the child and the impact on the family. Leicestershire County Council (21 006 347) Summary: the Council did not help Ms M to find a new school for her son, B, quickly enough, but the payment the Council has offered for the education B missed is a suitable remedy. Trafford Council (20 007 682) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about social services and a safeguarding investigation. This is because these matters have been considered by the Courts. South Gloucestershire Council (21 007 738) Summary: Ms C complained that the Council refused to progress her complaint about children's services to a stage three review panel against the requirements of the law and guidance. It also delayed in completing stage two of the procedure. On the evidence available we found the Council was at fault for not progressing the complaint to stage three, as the criteria for early referral to the Ombudsman had not been met. The Council has agreed to complete stage three now and pay Ms C £200 for the delay in completing stage two. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (21 011 767) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council in response to an incident involving Mr X's daughter. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant investigation. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (21 013 411) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in the statutory procedure for complaints about children's services. This is because the injustice caused is not so significant as to warrant investigation. Cambridgeshire County Council (21 001 193) Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to ensure her son, D, received the provision set out in his Education, Health and Care Plan. We have found that the Council was at fault and D missed out on support as a result. The Council has agreed a suitable remedy including putting provision in place, a payment for missing provision, and improved procedures. Royal Borough of Greenwich (21 001 956) Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to ensure Speech and Language Therapy provision and other support set out in her son's Education Health and Care Plan was put in place from September 2020. We find that the Council was at fault, resulting in a loss of special educational support. The Council offered a remedy. It has now agreed an increased remedy. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (21 001 981) Summary: I have discontinued this investigation about delay in issuing an Education, Health and Care plan as it has been resolved via the Council's own complaint process. London Borough of Wandsworth (21 003 111) Summary: Mr B complained the Council failed to provide his daughter with appropriate transport to and from school. He said that as a result she missed school as she was not been able to get there without the appropriate transport. There was fault and the Council will arrange a fresh appeal hearing to remedy the injustice to Mr B. It will also review its procedures. Buckinghamshire Council (21 012 555) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the suitability of the school named on an Education Health and Care Plan. Only a Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal can decide this. Middlesbrough Borough Council (21 002 324) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to listen to concerns she had about the care received by her sister, Ms S, from their parents. Ms X also complained the Council failed to accept her as Ms S's representative and restricted how she communicated with the Council. The Council was at fault when it failed to properly consider whether Ms X was a suitable representative for Ms S. It has agreed to reconsider the matter in line with the statutory children's complaints procedures. There was no fault in the communication plan the Council set up with Ms X. Sunderland City Council (21 008 759) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a child protection investigation and statutory children's complaint handling. The Council has agreed to pay £500 for the delay in the complaint handling. We cannot investigate what happened at court which dealt with the child protection case. It is reasonable for Mr X to go to the Information Commissioner if he has data protection concerns. Sunderland City Council (21 011 951) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about child protection action by the Council. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice to warrant investigation. Coventry City Council (21 012 483) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's refusal to change the social worker allocated to a case. This matter is not separable from the content of the report she wrote for a court case. Oxfordshire County Council (20 013 394) 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. Surrey County Council (21 001 012) Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed naming School A in her daughter's Education, Health and Care plan resulting in unfair treatment and missed provision. We did not investigate the Council's decision to name a type of school on the EHCP because Miss X had the right to appeal. However, we found the Council at fault because it did not address Miss X's concerns of missed provision. We recommend the Council provide an apology, payment for distress and take action to prevent recurrence. Birmingham City Council (21 001 611) Summary: We found fault with the Council for failing to provide child C with alternative provision when they were out of school for nearly 12 months. We also found fault with the Council's complaint handling. The Council agreed actions to remedy the injustice. Archibald First School (21 004 912) Summary: The Ombudsman found fault on Mr M's complaint about the school governors failing to properly consider his request for his summer born son to start reception in September 2022 instead of year 1. The school failed to keep records showing what it considered, what it discussed, and the reasons for its decision. The decision letter failed to give full detailed reasons showing the decision met government guidance. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused. Holy Family RC & C Of E School (21 005 538) Summary: The Ombudsman had discontinued its investigation into Miss X's complaint about the decision to refuse her appeal for a school place. The school has offered her daughter a place and there is no injustice to remedy even if we had gone on to find fault. Staffordshire County Council (21 007 984) Summary: there was no fault by Staffordshire County Council in relation to its consideration of Ms B's appeal against the decision to refuse home to school transport for her children West Sussex County Council (21 010 786) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council applied its transport policy, and its decision not to amend it. This is because there is no evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. London Borough of Barnet (21 011 865) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about late completion of amendments to an Education Health and Care Plan. The period was short, and investigation would not be warranted by the likely injustice caused by any delay. Surrey County Council (19 003 134) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide therapy for her adult son following a SEND tribunal decision. She says this has affected his education and his confidence. The Council is at fault and has agreed our remedy. 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