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. Liverpool City Council (21 010 243) Summary: Ms X complains about the way the Council dealt with a review and reassessment of her daughter's Education Health and Care Plan. The Council has accepted it was at fault. It has already apologised to Ms X and offered a payment in recognition of the delays and Ms X's time and trouble in pursing her complaints. We consider it a suitable remedy in this case and so are completing our investigation. Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (22 000 712) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss 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 panel's decision. Wiltshire Council (21 007 430) Summary: Miss X complained, through her representative Mr Y the Council discounted her views and failed to adequately safeguard her when she made disclosures about her mother and raised concerns about her biological father. The Council was at fault for not investigating Miss X's complaint under the children's statutory complaints procedure. This was a missed opportunity for Miss X to have her complaint investigated with independent oversight. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X for this failure and investigate her complaint at stage two of the procedure. Worcestershire County Council (22 001 675) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's opposition to Mr X's daughter's partner living at the same address as her children. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. Arrangements for the residence of children and contact with them are decided by a court, and there is ongoing court action in this case. London Borough of Croydon (22 001 841) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's child protection actions. The matters complained of are not separable from matters that have been subject to court action, or that could have been raised during a court process. London Borough of Brent (21 003 785) Summary: Ms X and Mr Y complain the Council failed to make sure their daughter, B, received suitable educational provision when she became too unwell to attend school. The Council has accepted it incorrectly refused to accept the private medical reports Ms X and Mr Y provided and provided several remedies. However, we find, because of this fault, the Council failed to arrange suitable educational provision for B. To remedy this, the Council has agreed to apologise to B, Ms X and Mr Y, make a payment for the time B was without suitable provision and several service improvements. Dorset Council (21 006 833) Summary: Mr B is complaining on behalf of his nephew (Child X) who has special educational needs. The Council maintains an Education and Health Care Plan for Child X and Mr B says it has failed to properly review this over three years. Further, Mr B says the Council has failed to provide a suitable placement and education for Child X over this period. We have found the Council delayed in issuing an amended EHCP for Child X. The Council also failed to hold an annual review meeting to a satisfactory standard and has not communicated with Mr B appropriately. We have no jurisdiction to question the contents of Child X's EHCP, the provision Mr B believes should be made available, or the educational placement identified. However, we do consider an injustice has been caused in this case and the Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy this. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (21 004 408) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint the Council forced his wife to leave home, his son to attend school rather than be home educated and failed to communicate with him appropriately. There is insufficient evidence of Council fault and no injustice. Investigation will not achieve the outcome Mr X wants. North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (21 012 091) Summary: Miss P complains about the conduct of Council social workers while it maintained Child in Need Plans for her two daughters. She says the Council sought to remove her children from her care, visited her family home without her consent and acted inappropriately. At this stage, we have identified some minor fault by the Council in the way social workers visited the children without being entirely clear about Miss P's wishes. We have not identified any other fault and there are some aspects of Miss P's complaint which we cannot investigate. In any event, there is some injustice in this case and the Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy this. Bedford Borough Council (22 000 979) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint the Council was wrong to refuse her application for home to school transport. It is unlikely we would find fault. East Sussex County Council (22 001 220) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to specify Ms X's child's special educational needs correctly in an Education Health and Care Plan, and unnecessarily forcing her to go through with a contested hearing at the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. The matters complained of are not separable from those before the Tribunal. Suffolk County Council (22 001 667) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's response to the actions of a school. This is because by law we cannot consider the school's actions themselves. London Borough of Brent (21 007 297) Summary: There was no significant fault in how the Council investigated a complaint under the statutory children's complaints procedure. We therefore have no grounds to question or reinvestigate its findings, and completed our investigation on this basis. City of Wolverhampton Council (21 008 832) Summary: Mr and Mrs B complained about delays in the Council providing adoption support for their two children and in dealing with his complaint about it. We found fault with the Council. The Council has agreed to increase its payment to Mr B to £1000 and to take steps to improve its procedures for the future. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (21 011 218) Summary: Mr B is unhappy with the outcome of the Council's statutory children's complaint investigation. He believes two of his complaints should have been upheld. Mr B said he has been left feeling uneasy about accessing support from the Council. Mr B says the Council did not address all his concerns. We did not find fault with the Council. Slough Borough Council (21 012 602) Summary: Mr B complained about the actions of the Council when it pursued a child protection investigation following concerns about his son's behaviour. We did not find fault with the Council. Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (22 001 055) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a social worker writing inaccurate things about Miss X's family in a report. The Council does not accept the data it recorded is inaccurate and the Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to consider this. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (22 001 131) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's care of the complainant's grandchildren. This is because the complaint is late and there are no grounds to consider it now. Norfolk County Council (22 001 274) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's historic complaint about the Council's actions in the mid-1990s. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are not good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now. Cambridgeshire County Council (22 001 533) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's response to safeguarding concerns when writing and since filing a court report. The matters complained of are not separable from matters which have been and are subject to court action. Hertfordshire County Council (22 001 251) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about naming the right school to meet Mr X's child's special educational needs. Mr X has used his right to appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal about the school named by the Council. Leicestershire County Council (21 000 259) Summary: Mr X complains that the Council was biased against him following a false allegation made by his ex-partner, which led to the Council implementing a child in need plan for his son. We do not find the Council to be at fault in this matter. We have found fault with the Council's complaint handling and have recommended an apology and financial payment to address the injustice caused to Mr X. The Council has agreed to carry out these recommendations. Cambridgeshire County Council (21 008 061) Summary: Miss X complained about the Council's assessment of her parenting when it decided to place her children on child protection plans. The Council was at fault for making two poorly evidenced statements about Miss X's mental health and for not sending reports in advance of child protection conferences. This caused Miss X distress. The Council has agreed to apologise and place a note of the Ombudsman's concerns about the accuracy of the statements about Miss X's mental health on the children's records. The Council will also remind its staff they have to send reports to parents before child protection conferences. The Council was not at fault in the other matters Miss X complained about. Coventry City Council (21 009 981) Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not tell him about a child protection investigation concerning his son. The Council accepts it acted with fault and has offered Mr X a suitable remedy. Buckinghamshire Council (21 013 557) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaints about the Council's failure to provide healthcare, failure to make reasonable adjustments or the failure to provide child protection meetings. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in any continuing lack of healthcare provision, we have previously considered a complaint about reasonable adjustments and the Council has agreed to respond to Mr X's complaint about the child protection meetings. Southampton City Council (21 015 365) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take action to protect him from abuse while he was a child. We will not continue to investigate his complaint. This is because it is not possible, so long after the relevant events, to carry out a fair investigation, reach any safe conclusions or achieve a meaningful outcome for Mr X. Oxfordshire County Council (22 000 103) Summary: We uphold Mr X's complaint, as the Council delayed considering his complaint at stage one 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. London Borough of Haringey (21 001 564) Summary: Ms B complained about the delay in dealing with her complaint about children's services. We found the Council delayed in completing the process and has not yet sent Ms B the reports in an accessible format. We have asked the Council to pay her £150 and send her the reports so she can access them. Gloucestershire County Council (21 017 801) Summary: We uphold Mrs X's complaint, about a viability assessment. The Council has agreed to let third parties know and make a payment. London Borough of Bromley (22 001 102) Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X's complaint about a report submitted to the court in family court proceedings because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from considering complaints about matters that have been, or are being, considered in court. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (22 001 421) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of social workers at the time when Mr X's former partner left the area with their children. These matters are not separable from matters involved in ongoing court action. Southampton City Council (22 001 448) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council removing Mr and Ms X's child. The matters complained of are not separable from matters subject to court action. Norfolk County Council (21 018 493) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered safeguarding concerns raised about Ms X. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council as it was under a duty to consider concerns raised and is not responsible for the actions of the body making the referral or the actions of Ms X's employer. Birmingham City Council (21 008 018) Summary: the Council was at fault in avoidably delaying for six months in arranging an appeal at stage 2 of the transport appeals process. This fault caused Ms B injustice in the form of frustration, uncertainty and time and trouble as she had to complain to this office to have the matter resolved. The Council will take the agreed action to recognise this injustice and to avoid repeating the same faults in future. 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