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. Hertfordshire County Council (20 010 003) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has failed to secure the provision in her son, Y's, education, health and care (EHC) plan. Luton Borough Council (21 004 897) Summary: Mrs M complains on behalf of her son who has special educational needs. She says the Council has not provided specialist education provision which is set out in her son's Education and Health Care Plan (EHCP). Further, Mrs M is unhappy with the Council's decision to amend her son's EHCP. We have not identified any fault by the Council in satisfying the requirements of the EHCP. In addition, we have no jurisdiction to investigate any part of Mrs M's complaint insofar as it relates to the provision contents of the EHCP. This is because Mrs M could reasonably have exercised her right of appeal to a statutory tribunal. St. Annes C Of E School (21 004 980) Summary: We did not uphold Mr X's complaint about an admission appeal panel's decision to refuse his appeal for a reception place for his daughter. There was no fault in the way the panel considered the appeal. Royal Borough of Greenwich (21 009 787) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the level of support provided for the complainant's daughter who has special educational needs. This is because we should not investigate matters which can be appealed to a tribunal. In the remaining part of the complaint there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (21 010 754) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the refusal of admission 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) made its decision, and the alleged injustice would not warrant investigation. London Borough of Enfield (21 013 626) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X's complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because while there was some fault by the Council and appeal panel, it was not significant enough for us to become involved. There is also not enough evidence of significant personal injustice to warrant an investigation. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (21 002 237) Summary: there was fault by the Council in that it delayed in its consideration of Ms C's complaint under the statutory children's complaints procedure. The consideration of the complaint was thorough and agreed action was taken on some of the upheld complaints but the Council will now take further action to remedy some parts of the complaint for which no remedy was previously offered Manchester City Council (21 011 934) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker. These matters are not separable from those that were or could have been raised in court. Mr X has a right to return to court it would be reasonable to use. Durham County Council (21 012 654) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alleged date breach. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to consider the complaint. Blackpool Borough Council (21 013 476) Summary: The Council was at fault in delaying the consideration of Mrs B's complaint at Stage 2 of the statutory procedure for children's services complaints. It has agreed to begin Stage 2 and to offer to make a payment to Mrs B. Coventry City Council (21 000 337) Summary: Ms X complains about the Council's decision-making in relation to a child protection investigation that she says was not justified. The Council is at fault. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her a financial remedy. Manchester City Council (21 002 282) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to issue her son, Y's, Education, Health and Care Plan in line with the statutory timescales and failed to secure Y's education from December 2019 to July 2021 and the provision in his Plan from February 2021 until July 2021. Our investigation was limited to the period March to July 2020 as Ms X used her appeal rights for the other periods. The delays in issuing Y's draft Plan did not cause him an injustice. There was no fault in the Council's actions in relation to securing Y's educational provision. London Borough of Waltham Forest (21 010 446) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint against the Council regarding an Education and Health Care Plan (EHCP) which was not completed within the relevant time scale. This is because the Council acknowledged fault during its complaints process and there is nothing that we could add to its investigation. The complainant can now further amend the EHCP if she wishes, and if her further amendments are not agreed by the Council, she has the right to go to the Special Needs and Disability (SEND) Tribunal. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (21 000 997) Summary: Mr X complains that the Council failed to safeguard his children from their mother, facilitated his child's removal from him and wrongly advised him to lie to his son. He also complains that his complaint was not handled adequately. The Council is at fault and has caused injustice. It has agreed to apologise and provide a financial 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