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. London Borough of Wandsworth (20 007 935) Summary: The Ombudsman found fault on Ms D's complaint against the Council. It failed to bring her case back to the adoption panel promptly and did not pursue one of its recommendations. It failed to provide her with a copy of her file as it said it would. She was given incorrect information about missing documents. It communicated poorly with her, failed to give her clear information about its role with the new regional adoption agency, failed to give her support, and delayed dealing with her complaint and case. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused. Bath and North East Somerset Council (20 010 005) Summary: Miss D and Mr E complained about the Council's statutory complaint investigation. They said the Council did not take their complaint seriously or deal with it professionally. Miss D and Mr E said this left them distressed and without a financial remedy. The Council was at fault for a short delay in stage two of its complaint investigation. We do not consider this caused Miss D and Mr E significant injustice. Central Bedfordshire Council (20 011 925) Summary: Mrs B complained about how the Council dealt with the assessment and support of her daughter. The Council has completed the statutory children's complaints process, which means the issues have been independently investigated, and a Panel has reviewed the investigation. The Council has acknowledged there was fault and agreed a means to remedy this. There is no fault in the investigation and no basis for me to recommend that the Council take further action. Royal Borough of Greenwich (21 015 281) Summary: The Council is at fault for delaying paying savings to two children previously in care. The Council has agreed to make payments to the complainant for the time and trouble its delays have caused and to the children for the frustration caused. Leicestershire County Council (21 018 764) Summary: The Council is at fault for delaying consideration of this complaint under the children's statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to complete its investigation without further delay and to make a payment to the complainant for the time and trouble its delay has caused. Somerset County Council (21 006 153) Summary: Ms G complains the Council did not complete an occupational therapy (OT) assessment or complete a thorough educational psychology (EP) assessment as part of her son, F's education, health and care (EHC) plan. She says this means his needs have not been adequately assessed and he is not receiving the provision he requires. We do not intend to find fault by the Council in how it assessed F's OT needs, as it did so in line with the relevant code of practice. Complaints about provision in an EHC plan should be appealed to a tribunal. Derby City Council (21 006 237) Summary: Mr and Mrs B complained the Council did not secure the social care provision in their son's child in need and education, health, and care plans. They said their son missed provision and this caused the family distress. The Council was at fault for failing to secure their son's provision. The Council will make up the lost provision to remedy the injustice to them and their son. Surrey County Council (21 007 033) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's handling of her son, F's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan in 2020 and about a failure to provide Occupational Therapy (OT) in line with the Plan. The Council was at fault. It did not issue F's final EHC Plan in line with statutory timescales and then failed to ensure the OT provision specified in the Plan was in place for the 2020/21 academic year. It also failed to deal with Mrs X's complaint in a timely manner. The Council agreed to pay Mrs X £500 to recognise the loss of opportunity caused to F and an additional £300 to recognise the distress, uncertainty and time and trouble caused to her. Devon County Council (21 011 732) Summary: Ms C complained the Council wrongly decided not to fund transport to school for her children. She said that as a result she had to walk them to school which had an adverse impact on her health. And when that was no longer possible the children were unable to attend school. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Ms C. The Council will make a payment to her in recognition of the fault and impact on her and her children. East Sussex County Council (21 018 998) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal of free home-to-school transport for Ms X's child. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (21 018 443) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about adopter application issues. It is unlikely we would achieve a significantly different outcome than the Council's complaint procedure produced. London Borough of Newham (21 018 701) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's response to a request for a copy of an adoption certificate. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would achieve a worthwhile outcome or add anything to the Council's response. Gloucestershire County Council (21 018 767) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of and opinions of the Council's social workers in relation to the complainants family. This is because the matter has been subject to court proceedings. Middlesbrough Borough Council (21 018 847) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the accuracy of a children services assessment report. 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. East Sussex County Council (21 007 495) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's decision to refuse her son, F, post-16 home to college transport. The Council considered Mrs X's appeal and the information she provided in line with relevant guidance in making its decision and was not at fault. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (21 007 760) Summary: the school admissions appeal panel failed to properly consider Miss B's case for appeal and a panel member asked inappropriate questions. A new appeal is satisfactory remedy. Cheshire West & Chester Council (21 011 034) Summary: The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation of Mrs X's complaint that the Council delayed issuing her daughter's Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) and failed to consult an occupational therapist during the assessment for the plan. This is because it is not possible to assess the extent of the injustice until the provision she should have been receiving is known. A Tribunal is currently considering this. Slough Borough Council (21 018 657) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alternative education provision. This is because the complainant has appealed to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal about the content of her son's Education Health and Care Plan. The matter complained about is not separable from that. A court ruling means we cannot say what education should be provided in such circumstances, even if a child is not in education. Leeds City Council (22 000 315) Summary: We 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. Leicestershire County Council (21 017 934) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement in care of the complainants child. This is because the matter has recently been decided by the courts. We cannot investigate matters that have been subject to court proceedings. Torbay Council (21 018 970) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the care of the complainant's children because it concerns matters which have been considered in court and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants. London Borough of Merton (22 000 100) Summary: The Council was at fault when it failed to complete stage 2 of the statutory children's complaints procedures within the timescales agreed in a previous Ombudsman investigation. It has agreed to pay Mrs X £100 to reflect the injustice these further delays caused her. Portsmouth City Council (22 000 196) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint that the Council's social worker failed to properly assess the needs of her child and made inappropriate recommendations to the family court on contact with the father. We cannot investigate a court report or the assessment because they are part of court proceedings. Staffordshire County Council (21 006 674) Summary: Mrs V complains about the Council's decision to suspend its Temporary Vacant Seat scheme on home to school transport and the way it communicated with her. We find the Council was not at fault in the way it reached its decision to suspend and then end the scheme. But it failed to consider Mrs V's application and appeal for post-16 transport for her daughter properly and consider whether it was necessary to offer help with transport. This meant she lost the opportunity to have her individual circumstances considered. The Council has agreed to arrange an appeal hearing for her and review its post-16 transport policy. This is a suitable remedy. Staffordshire County Council (21 006 704) Summary: Mrs W complains about the Council's decision to suspend its Temporary Vacant Seat scheme on home to school transport and the way it communicated with her. We find the Council was not at fault in the way it reached its decision to suspend and then end the scheme. But it failed to properly consider Mrs W's application and review request for post-16 transport for her daughter and consider whether it was necessary to offer help with transport. This meant Mrs W lost the opportunity to have her individual circumstances considered. The Council has agreed to consider her review request and review its post-16 transport policy. This is a suitable remedy. Staffordshire County Council (21 006 797) Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council's decision to suspend its Temporary Vacant Seat scheme on home to school transport and the way it communicated with her. We find the Council was not at fault in the way it reached its decision to suspend and then end the scheme. But it failed to consider Mrs X's application for post-16 transport for her daughter properly and consider whether it was necessary to offer help with transport. This meant she lost the opportunity to have her individual circumstances considered. The Council has agreed to review its decision on the application and review its post-16 transport policy. This is a suitable remedy. Staffordshire County Council (21 007 443) Summary: Miss Y complains about the Council's decision to suspend its Temporary Vacant Seat scheme on home to school transport and the way it communicated with her. We find the Council was not at fault in the way it reached its decision to suspend and then end the scheme. But it failed to consider Miss Y's request for post-16 transport for her daughter properly and consider whether it was necessary to offer help with transport. This meant she lost the opportunity to have her individual circumstances considered. The Council has agreed to review its decision on the application and review its post-16 transport policy. This is a suitable remedy. Sheffield City Council (21 009 789) Summary: Mr X complained about the outcome of his home to school transport appeal for his son, which is causing the family financial difficulty. We find the Council is at fault. The Council's appeal panel failed to consider all the evidence Mr X provided. We recommended it apologise to Mr X and offer him a fresh appeal hearing. London Borough of Harrow (21 008 112) Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed to meet his family's need for respite from the care of his disabled son and that its communication had been poor. The lack of respite has had a negative impact on the family. We find the Council is at fault and this has caused injustice. It has agreed the recommended ways to remedy this. Therefore we are closing the complaint. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (21 002 921) Summary: there was some fault by the Council in relation to the matters complained about in the form of a failure to update written care plans and delays in the complaints handling process. The Council will take the agreed action to recognise the injustice these caused and to ensure that such faults do not recur Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (21 015 948) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's practices regarding the provision of halal food in schools. This is because the law prevents us from investigating complaints about what happens in schools. 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