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. Birmingham City Council (21 003 535) Summary: Ms X complains on behalf of Y, that he was not provided with any education specified within his Education, Health and Care plan between January 2020 and April 2021. She says the Council missed an opportunity to secure a placement for him at a suitable school as it did not agree to fund it in time. Ms X also says that complaints that were made to the Council were responded to with inaccurate information. We find fault with the Council for the delay in funding the education placement for Y and for its complaint handling. The Council has suggested remedies during this investigation which are sufficient to remedy the injustice caused to Y, and to improve its services for the future. London Borough of Haringey (21 015 344) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a telephone call about school attendance. Investigation would be unlikely to lead to a worthwhile outcome. Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (21 005 508) Summary: Ms D complained the Council failed to follow the correct procedures when it removed a foster child from her care. She says the Council made a flawed decision and it failed to communicate with her and her family. We find the Council was at fault for its lack of transparency and its communication with Ms D. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (21 014 903) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the contents of a report written by the Council's children's services. This is because the report has been considered during court proceedings, which places the contents outside of our jurisdiction. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (21 015 151) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council wrongly shared the complainant's personal information. This is because the Information Commissioner's Office is best placed to consider such complaints. It is also unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman could add anything to the Council's response. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (21 015 288) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council failing to risk-assess contact between Mr X's sons and their birth parents and take appropriate safeguarding action. There has been court action concerning both sons and the matters complained of are not separable from matters that either were or could have been raised in court. London Borough of Brent (21 015 676) Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about Miss X's care when she was a looked-after child. She could have complained sooner and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate her complaint now. Wiltshire Council (21 003 573) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide his daughter, Z, with appropriate transport to school and respite care between January and July 2021 after it could not provide a suitably trained passenger assistant to carry her medication. We found fault in the Council's failure to provide appropriate transport for Z and in the way it considered its duty to provide suitable transport. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £600 to recognise the inconvenience and distress caused, and to remind relevant staff of its statutory obligations when providing transport. Kent County Council (21 004 641) Summary: We upheld a complaint about a delay in issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan. The delay caused avoidable distress, a delay in appeal rights and a loss of education provision for Y who has autism. The Council will apologise, make payments and take action described in this statement. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (21 006 581) Summary: Mrs D complains about the Council's handling of her son F's Education, Health and Care plan. She says it did not adhere to the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Code of Practice. Mrs D says she had to pay for privately arranged therapy and F missed education due to the Council's failures. We find fault by the Council for how it managed F's Education, Health and Care plan. However, the Council has already offered Mrs D an apology and proportionate payment for the distress its actions caused. Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (21 006 985) Summary: Ms M complained about disabled children's access to the the holiday activities and food programme. The Council responded to Ms M's concerns and agreed to work with Ms M to improve the scheme in the future. There is nothing more the Ombudsman can add by investigating the complaint further. London Borough of Lewisham (21 007 956) Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed to provide his disabled son, Mr P, with an educational placement for up to two years. He says this has caused Mr X and his wife, Mrs X an injustice as the family have had to care and educate Mr P themselves. He considers Mr P has suffered an injustice as he has had little education, his mental state has deteriorated and he has been unable to exercise in the way his condition requires. The Ombudsman does not intend to investigate as the Council has not been given an opportunity to resolve the complaint by going through the full complaints process. Suffolk County Council (21 009 677) Summary: there were problems with the evidence the Council presented at Ms M's appeal for a place at a school, but the problems do not call the Panel's decision not to admit Ms M's son into question. Hampshire County Council (21 014 410) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to obtain necessary reports in its assessment of a child's special educational needs. This is because the complainant has the right to appeal to a tribunal and it would be reasonable for her to do so. Redcar & Cleveland Council (21 014 909) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council assessed a child's special educational needs, including the actions of an Educational Psychologist, this is because the complainant has appealed to a tribunal which places the matter outside of our jurisdiction. London Borough of Camden (21 002 568) Summary: Miss X complained the Council has failed to provide alternative provision for her son, Y, who has been unable to attend school for medical reasons since May 2021. Miss X has had to pay for a private tutor but is unable to continue to fund this. We have discontinued our investigation on the basis the issues complained of are inextricably linked to the matters considered by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal, and are therefore outside our jurisdiction. Durham County Council (21 006 764) Summary: there is no fault in the Council's decision to end Ms G's Special Guardianship Order allowance. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault. Hampshire County Council (21 016 248) Summary: The Council is at fault for delaying consideration of this complaint at stage two of the children's statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now allocated the complaint to an independent person and will complete its stage two investigation. It has also agreed to offer to make a payment to the complainant to remedy the time and trouble its delay has caused her. Nottinghamshire County Council (21 000 697) Summary: Miss Y complains the Council failed to follow the correct process when carrying out an annual review of her Education, Health and Care Plan. She complains the Council failed to provide her special educational provision in full while it finalised her Plan. She says this caused her significant distress and uncertainty. We have decided to uphold Miss Y's complaint because there was fault causing injustice. To remedy this, the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss Y and her parents and make Miss Y a payment. The Council has also agreed to make several service improvements. Suffolk County Council (21 005 081) Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council's failure to name a secondary specialist school placement in her grandson's education, health, and care plan. We find fault with the Council for delays in issuing a final amended EHC plan in 2020. We also find fault with the Council for not issuing a final amended EHC plan in 2021. London Borough of Hackney (21 015 429) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council forcing Mr X to approach the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal to challenge the school it named on his child Education Health and Care Plan. The key issue is the school the Council named, which was decided by the Tribunal, which we cannot investigate. The involvement of the Tribunal means investigation by us of the inability of the Council to offer mediation about the school named would not lead to a worthwhile outcome. London Borough of Hounslow (21 003 804) Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council supported him while leaving the Council's care. The Council failed to arrange a personal adviser for Mr X when it should have done and unnecessarily delayed investigating Mr X's complaint. This caused Mr X avoidable uncertainty, frustration, time and trouble for which the Council agree to apologise and pay him a financial remedy. It also agreed to review the training and guidance it provides to its social workers. Surrey County Council (21 013 258) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council delaying in sending her minutes of a meeting. There is insignificant injustice caused to her. Suffolk County Council (20 009 660) Summary: the Council failed to follow the code of guidance when reviewing Mrs B's daughter's education, health and care plan, failed to ensure the school made all the provision available in the plan, delayed naming a secondary school, failed to put in place alternative education provision and failed to communicate effectively with Mrs B. Changes to procedures already agreed by the Council along with an apology and payment to Mrs B is a satisfactory remedy. Essex County Council (21 002 413) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's failure to promptly reinstate school transport for his disabled child and poor complaint handling. We have found the Council was at fault because it did not carry out a proper assessment of risk and did not respond to his complaint properly. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr X to acknowledge the distress caused and review its practices. Central Bedfordshire Council (21 004 072) Summary: There was fault by the Council. There was delay in reviewing, finalising and specifying a suitable school in an Education, Health and Care plan after a child was excluded from school. The Council provided alternative educational provision but this was online and did not provide all specified in the Education, Health and Care plan. A payment to Mr X for loss of educational provision and the impact on the family remedies the injustice, along with a recommendation to improve the service to prevent delays in future. Manchester City Council (21 006 297) Summary: Mrs E complained about how the Council handled her application for home to school transport for her son. We find fault with the way the Council considered Mrs E's application and appeal. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault. London Borough of Bexley (21 006 983) Summary: Mr X complains that the Council has failed to make the provision listed in his son's Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP). The Council has accepted that some provision was missed and has offered a financial remedy and apology. It has advised that other aspects of the complaint have been addressed. Mr X has declined to discuss his complaint with us. We have discontinued our enquiries as Mr X has not engaged with us and on the basis of the Council's comments, nothing would be achieved by further investigation. Bracknell Forest Council (21 011 617) Summary: The complainant said the Council significantly delayed issuing her son's Educational and Health Care Plan (EHCP) and failed to communicate with her throughout the process. The Council has accepted it was at fault and has agreed to remedy the injustice. Kent County Council (20 011 326) Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to properly assess Mr B's allegations that his ex-partner was a risk to their children. However, it has since done an assessment and found the risk to be limited, so it has remedied any injustice. It was also at fault for delaying a proper consideration of Mr B's discrimination allegations. It has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment of £150 to recognise his injustice. Leicestershire County Council (21 013 470) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the council dealt with safeguarding concerns because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. We cannot investigate the contents of a social work assessment because it has been considered in court. Buckinghamshire Council (21 001 964) Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council failed to give adequate notice of changes to its post-16 transport policy so she had to pay for her son's transport to college during the 2019/20 academic year. She also complains that, in the following academic year, the Council failed to arrange transport for her son until January 2021. The Ombudsman found the Council properly notified parents of changes to its transport policy. However, it was at fault in failing to provide transport between September and December 2020 and in failing to keep Mrs B informed. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs B's son in recognition of his lost education provision and social contact. Brighton & Hove City Council (21 004 803) Summary: Mrs X complains that an appeal panel did not properly consider her reasons for wanting a place at a school for her son. There is no fault in the appeal panel's decision to hold Mrs X's appeal by written submission or in its consideration of her appeal. There is fault in the panel's decision letter as it did not give sufficient information to Mrs X for her to be satisfied the panel had considered her reasons for her appeal and for her to understand the basis of its decision. This did not cause sufficient injustice to Mrs X to warrant a remedy from the Council. Essex County Council (21 014 270) Summary: We will not investigate Ms M's complaint about the Council's failure to provide speech and language therapy and a delay in telling Ms X the result of an annual review. The Tribunal is considering the education provision. Kent County Council (21 015 111) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision not to provide his daughter with free transport to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (21 013 972) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about family and friends' allowances to her for caring for two children. It is unlikely we would find fault. Cornwall Council (21 014 525) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's social worker's court report and actions relating to his application for a child arrangements order at court. We cannot lawfully investigate actions which are part of court proceedings. Lincolnshire County Council (21 014 736) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's treatment of Ms X. The matters complained of are not separable from the opinions of her formed by a social worker and given in court, which we cannot investigate. Investigation by us would not lead to a worthwhile outcome. Staffordshire County Council (21 015 311) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about safeguarding a child. Who will care for the child and have contact with him is a matter for a court, and the matters Mrs X complains of are or could form part of the court case. Devon County Council (21 015 346) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker when Mr X wished to obtain a special guardianship order for a child. The matters complained of are not separable from a court process. Lancashire County Council (21 015 354) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about child protection action taken by the Council and who it deemed suitable to care for Mrs X's grandchildren. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. An absolute bar prevents us investigating matters that have been or could have been raised in court. Gloucestershire County Council (21 016 404) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about evidence given to a Court as it forms part of those legal proceedings. Social Work England is better placed to consider her complaint about a social worker's professionalism. 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