Thursday, July 7, 2022

New children and education complaint decisions

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.


Summary: Ms B complained that Dorset Council failed to adequately meet her eleven-year- old son's educational and special educational needs from 2020 until it identified and placed him at a special needs school in 2021. She also complained that Council officers changed frequently, consistently failed to respond to her calls and emails and failed to deal properly with her complaints.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council was biased against him as it believed his ex-wife's allegations that he had abused his children. We will not reinvestigate Mr X's complaint as it has been properly considered through the statutory complaints process. We find the Council is at fault as it did not fully implement the recommendations of the review panel which considered Mr X's complaint at stage three of the statutory complaints process

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a children and family assessment completed by the Council. This is because we cannot achieve anything significant by doing so.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council removing Miss X's child. This matter is not separable from the decisions of courts.

Summary: Mr B complained that the Council delayed in arranging college transport for his son C and failed to inform him when the transport was cancelled on two occasions at short notice. We found the Council at fault and welcomed its offer to Mr B of £238 in mileage costs. The Council has agreed to pay an additional £250 to recognise the distress and time and trouble caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about what happened at a mediation meeting after the Council issued a final Education Health and Care Plan for Mrs X's child. This matter is not separable from the content of the Plan, in respect of which Mrs X had a right to approach the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal it was reasonable to use.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's actions in relation to her and her husband's adoption case and how the Council responded to her complaint. The Council was at fault because it did not investigate Mrs X's complaint under the children's statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed it will investigate Mrs X's complaint at stage two under the children's statutory complaints procedure. It will also apologise to Mrs X for its failure to investigate her complaint under this procedure and the injustice it caused her.

Summary: Mrs Y complains about the lack of support provided by the Council in respect of her nephew who has complex learning difficulties. The Council upheld Mrs Y's complaint and offered a remedy at the first stage of the statutory children's complaints procedure. When Mrs Y asked the Council to progress her complaint to the second stage of the complaints procedure the Council refused. This is fault. The Council has agreed to progress the complaint, apologise to Mrs Y and remind the relevant staff about the regulations and guidance.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to support the complainants family. This is because it is unlikely, we could add to the investigation already carried out by the Council.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint about her son being removed from her care and contact with him being stopped, because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that are being considered and decided in court. We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about her son having bruises in his foster care placement. This is because there is nothing we could add to the Council's previous investigation on this.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about a delay in applying for a biometric card as there is insufficient injustice caused to Mr X.

Summary: The Council is at fault for not progressing this complaint to stage two of the children's statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now agreed to do so without delay.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to provide her daughter with a suitable education, and delayed identifying the need for an Education, Health and Care plan. Mrs X said her daughter has missed out on education, and it has had a significant impact on her, her daughter, and the wider family. We do not find the Council at fault.

Summary: Mr G complained the Council wrongly refused his application for free school transport for his son. As a result, Mr G said he and his son experienced distress. We found no fault in the way the Council applied its policy or considered Mr G's appeal. We cannot therefore criticise the merits of its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council failing to follow the Education Health and Care Plan procedures. We cannot consider the same issues as a Tribunal or anything which is inextricably linked to it.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about home to school transport issues. It is unlikely we could achieve a significantly different outcome than the Council has offered.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about an education health and care needs assessment. This is because the complainant appealed to the tribunal which places the matter outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council's decision to end her special guardianship financial support. We find no fault with the Council for the way it completed its review and with its decision to end financial support.

Summary: The Council is at fault for delaying consideration of this complaint under the children's statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to make a payment to the complainant for the time and trouble its delay has caused.

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 at stage two of the procedure and to make a payment to the complainant for the time and trouble its delay has caused.

Summary: Mrs B says the Council unreasonably refused her request for alternative transport for her daughter to get to school. The Council's process for considering school transport appeals does not comply with Government guidance. A change to the Council's school transport policy and arrangement for a further appeal for Mrs B is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to reimburse post 16 transport costs. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The Council has now agreed to the complainant's request. This remedies the complaint and there is nothing else we could achieve.

Summary: Mr and Mrs C complain the Council failed to properly carry out the recommendations proposed at the final stage of the statutory children's complaints procedure. Mr and Mrs C say the Council has not offered a satisfactory financial remedy for their quantifiable costs and they have suffered additional distress, time and trouble. We have found fault by the Council through delay in the complaint process and in its implementation of the recommendations. We consider the agreed actions of an apology, additional payment and other action provides a suitable remedy.

Summary: Miss M complains the Council opened up a new child protection assessment based on a malicious referral with no new evidence. She also complains about several aspects of the assessment and its outcomes. We do not uphold the complaint. The referral mentioned an escalation of behaviours, so the Council had reason to carry out an investigation. And we cannot question the merits of the outcomes of its investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council dealt with her request for support to help her care for her child following an operation. We do not find the Council was at fault in the ways Mrs X alleges, but there are flaws in its process for carrying out parent carer assessments. The Council has agreed to review the process.

Summary: We uphold Ms X's complaint, that the Council failed to consider her complaint within its children statutory complaints' procedure. The Council has agreed to complete its stage two without further delay.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about matters involved in Court proceedings. There are other bodies better placed to consider his data accuracy and officers' behaviour complaints.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint the Council refused to assess his parent carer needs and did not do so in its children and family assessment. We cannot investigate arguments or evidence which were properly for the court in care proceedings. Mr X complains late about events before court. There is no ongoing issue because Mr X has not cared for the children in the last 12 months.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker concerning Mr X, his former partner, and their child. The matters complained of are not separable from those which either have or could have been raised as part of an ongoing court process.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint about her daughter being removed from her care and later adopted. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is about a matter that has been considered and decided in court proceedings. The law prevents us from considering such matters, we have no discretion to do so.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council ignoring safeguarding concerns about Mr X's child that he has included in a court case he is currently fighting. The complaint is not separable from the court action.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's failure to provider her son Y with an education when he stopped attending school in September 2020. That is because it is late. Mrs X also complained about the Council's actions in relation to his Education Health and Care plan. As Mrs X has appealed to Tribunal, we have no jurisdiction to investigate this complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the unsuitability of the school transport the Council provides for the complainant's daughter. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council's decision-making process so we cannot question the merits of its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's assessment and communication in preparing an Education Health and Care Plan. It is reasonable to expect Miss X to appeal to the Tribunal.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the support offered to the complainant's daughter and the decision not to carry out an Education Health and Care Needs assessment. This is because we cannot consider complaints about what happens in schools. The complainant has used her right to appeal to a tribunal which places the rest of the complaint outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions concerning the promotion of contact between Miss X and her children. Investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome. The matters complained of are not separable from issues of contact, which were subject to court orders, in respect of which Miss X had and has a right to return to court it would be reasonable to use.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about a social worker's report and recommendations because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been, or are being, considered in court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council being biased in favour of Mr X's former partner in a dispute about the custody of children. The matters complained of are not separable form matters where Mr X has a right to go to court it would be reasonable to use.


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 GovDelivery logo

No comments:

Post a Comment