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. Devon County Council (20 008 832) Summary: Ms B complained that Devon County Council failed to make arrangements for her daughter's transfer to post-16 education. This is despite her daughter having special needs detailed in an Education, Health and Care Plan and the Council therefore being responsible for making these arrangements. Ms B said that as a result of the Council's failings her daughter missed out on education and specialist support. Ms B also said it resulted in her losing her tax credits which were withdrawn because her daughter was not in school. Worcestershire County Council (20 013 656) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has not dealt with her daughter Miss Y's education properly. The Council is at fault because it did not make alternative education provision, did not consider Miss Y's special educational needs properly and did not follow its complaints procedure. Mrs X suffered distress and Miss Y missed educational provision and special educational needs provision. The Council should apologise and pay Mrs X £500 for distress and £1200 in respect of missed provision. Essex County Council (21 013 661) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to concerns raised about bullying at a school. This is because the matter relates to the internal management of a school, which falls outside of our jurisdiction. The law says we cannot consider complaints about the actions of councils in relation to matters that are out of our jurisdiction. Sheffield City Council (21 014 327) 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 and so we cannot question the merits of the panel's decision. Lancashire County Council (20 012 709) Summary: Mr X complained about errors in the Council's management of his children's care since August 2019. He says it excluded him from the children's looked after review process and failed to consider whether it could discharge the care orders. He also complained about poor complaint handling. There was no fault in how the Council reviewed the care orders at each child's review. However, the records do not show the Council's reasons for not inviting him to each meeting or that it reviewed how to include him in the process from March 2020, when its long-standing arrangement was disrupted. This was fault which caused Mr X frustration and uncertainty. There were also errors in the complaint handling. The Council will write to Mr X to apologise for the faults and make a payment to acknowledge any distress and uncertainty caused. It will also review how it completes looked after reviews with Mr X's children and review its complaints handling. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (21 002 189) Summary: St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council properly took the action it agreed to as a result of its findings when it completed its consideration of Ms B's complaint under the children's statutory complaints procedure. However, it should offer a higher payment to recognise the impact of those faults on Ms B. Dorset Council (21 009 322) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decisions concerning Mrs X's parenting and the contact arrangements and residence of her children. The matters complained of are not separable from those subject to court action and in respect of which it would be reasonable for Mrs X to return to court. Medway Council (21 010 819) Summary: Ms X complained the Council's children's services harassed her around the time of her child's birth and forced her to attend a meeting she was not well enough to attend. She says this caused her significant distress. She also said there were inaccuracies in a professional report. I have ended our investigation into this complaint. The Council has not completed all three stages of the children's statutory complaints procedure and the complaint does not meet the criteria for an early referral to us. The Council has agreed to re-make its offer of a stage 3 panel to Ms X. Leeds City Council (21 013 036) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about children services actions. We cannot investigate issues involved in Court proceedings and Social Work England is better placed to consider a complaint about professionalism. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (21 013 420) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's potential responsibility for a data breach. The Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to consider responsibility for the breach. We cannot investigate court action. Portsmouth City Council (21 013 931) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about a court report. This is not separable from the court action for which it was written, and Mr X has a right to return to court it would be reasonable to use. Dorset Council (21 008 537) Summary: We have not found fault by the Council regarding Ms X's complaint that the Council unfairly refused to provide a school bus pass. Lincolnshire County Council (21 012 516) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's assessment of Miss X's child's special educational needs. The matters complained of are not separable from the content of the child's Education Health and Care Plan, as appealed to a Tribunal. London Borough of Waltham Forest (21 012 795) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a permanent exclusion because there is no evidence of fault in the way the Independent Review Panel (IRP) reached its decision to uphold the exclusion. East Sussex County Council (21 013 466) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's response to an appeal to a Tribunal. This is because the fact that the complainant appealed places the matter outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. Surrey County Council (20 003 450) Summary: Mrs M complains the Council has not paid Special Guardianship Order allowance at the correct rate. There is no fault in the Council's calculations. Durham County Council (21 001 390) Summary: Ms M complains about her dealings with the Council in connection with the care of her children. Ms M's children are cared for by their paternal grandparents who hold a Special Guardianship Order. Decisions about the care of Ms M's children, including the suitability of the carers and contact, have been made by the Court. Ms M could have raised her concerns in Court. Ms M's complaint about an alleged incident in 2017 is out of time. Leicester City Council (21 005 916) Summary: Mr Y and Mr and Mrs X complain about the actions of Council staff members, which they feel were racially motivated, and about the Council's complaints handling. The Council had accepted fault and offered a financial remedy before the Ombudsman's involvement. It has agreed a further financial remedy and apology. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (21 012 044) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's assessment of Y's family. This is because this relates to matters which were before a court and the law does not allow us to investigate these complaints. We will also not investigate Y's complaint about data protection as the Information Commissioner is the body set up in law to deal with these complaints. London Borough of Haringey (21 013 764) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's response to Ms X's subject access request. The Information Commissioner's Office is better placed than us to consider this matter. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (21 013 986) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about what a social worker wrote in a report for a court. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We cannot investigate matters that have been or could have been before a court. Mr X has a right to challenge the report in court it would be reasonable to use. Kent County Council (21 002 970) Summary: the complainant Ms X complained the Council failed to provide suitable educational provision for her child or offer any alternative provision once he reached compulsory school age. The Council says it provided suitable educational provision but did not issue an amendment as early as it should. We found the Council at fault. The Council agreed to apologise, pay £200 in recognition of the distress caused and to share the decision with staff to improve services. East Sussex County Council (21 014 689) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X's complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place for her son. This is because the Council has now offered a place and so an investigation could not achieve anything more. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (21 014 859) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to refuse the complainant's appeal for a school place for his daughter. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council's part. Bedford Borough Council (21 013 096) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to deal with Mr X's complaint. The matters complained of are not separable from matters that have been before a court, which we cannot investigate. A complaint about the handling of data is for the Information Commissioner's Office, not us. Claims for compensation are also more appropriately dealt with through the courts. Middlesbrough Borough Council (21 013 435) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about Mrs X's suitability to supervise or care for a child in her family. This matter is not separable from court action. St Hilda's C of E High School, Liverpool (21 003 642) Summary: Mrs B complains an independent school admissions appeal panel did not properly consider the details of her appeal. She says the School did not properly consult on changes to its admissions arrangements, which disadvantaged her son. She says the appeal panel did not make any findings about this. The Ombudsman finds fault in how the panel considered Mrs B's appeal. Kent County Council (21 010 789) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an invoice from the Council for an overpayment of a Personal Transport Budget. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. London Borough of Havering (20 006 042) Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's actions after something that happened at his son's school. Based on the evidence seen to date I propose to discontinue my investigation. This is because we cannot investigate what happens in schools and there is no evidence that the Council's investigation and assessment or complaint handling caused significant injustice to Mr X. Devon County Council (21 004 445) Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to respond to her concerns about the care of her two children, who were in foster care. We found the Council at fault for failing to tell Miss X she could return to the complaints process after concurrent investigations were complete. We recommended the Council provide an apology and payment to Miss X and act to prevent recurrence. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (21 013 222) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to provide the complainant with information about what it has said to his ex-wife. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council's part. Telford & Wrekin Council (21 013 523) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about why a social worker wrote what she did in a report for court. This is not separable from the matters before the court. London Borough of Lewisham (21 013 602) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about where children should live and who they have contact with. A court has decided these arrangements and only another court could vary them. London Borough of Merton (20 010 409) Summary: Mrs B complained the Council did not secure the provision in her son's educational, health and care plan. Mrs B says this negatively impacted her son's academic progress and contributed to a decline in his well-being. We found fault with the Council because it did not secure provision in Mrs B's son's plan. The Council will secure the missed provision and make a financial payment to remedy the injustice to Mrs B and her son. London Borough of Barnet (21 012 993) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about where and how the Council makes provision in an Education Health and Care Plan. This is a matter for the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. Derbyshire County Council (21 006 607) Summary: Miss X complains of the Council's actions following a visit from a social worker which led to a child protection investigation. The Council has accepted fault in relation to a number of Miss X's complaints. Miss X feels the remedy it has offered is inadequate. The Council has agreed an enhanced financial remedy. Herefordshire Council (21 011 650) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions when members of the complainants' family were taken into care. This is because the Council has agreed our recommendation to provide a remedy for part of the complaint. It is reasonable for Mr & Mrs X to raise the remaining issues with Social Work England, which is better placed to consider concerns about an individual social worker. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (21 013 008) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about complaint handling. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant this. Coventry City Council (21 013 085) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a safeguarding referral in 2014. This is because this happened too long ago, and I see no reason why the complaint could not have been pursued with the Ombudsman sooner. North Northamptonshire Council (21 013 461) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's actions in removing Miss X's baby. The complaint is not separable from matters that have been subject to court proceedings. Hertfordshire County Council (21 001 911) Summary: Mrs B complained the Council's special educational needs and disability department failed to make reasonable adjustments for her during her daughter's education, health and care assessment. Mrs B said this caused her distress and impacted on her ability to engage with the Council. There was no fault with the Council's actions. Liverpool City Council (20 012 558) Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council failed to make provision set down in her son's Education, Health & Care Plan (EHCP). She says the Council wrongly refused to make direct payments so she could commission it herself and that the Council's policy on direct payments is unlawful. She also says the Council wrongly refused to consider her complaint under the statutory process for complaints about children's services. The Council is at fault and has caused injustice. It has agreed a financial remedy, service improvement and a review of the decision on direct payments. 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