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 Bexley (21 010 357) Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with issues concerning his children's care and its investigation of his complaint about this. We have not found fault by the Council. London Borough of Redbridge (21 014 397) Summary: there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in its handling of this complaint to justify the Ombudsman pursuing this complaint further now: the complainant had opportunities to pursue the matter under the final stage of the statutory complaints procedure but did not do so. London Borough of Harrow (21 014 413) 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 and to make a payment to remedy the injustice caused by its delay in not doing so sooner. Herefordshire Council (21 018 908) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council including Miss X's address in court papers sent to a former partner. This is because the matter complained of is not separable from court proceedings. London Borough of Haringey (22 002 647) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the failure of the Council to deal with a complaint by Ms X in her capacity as a headteacher. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is an absolute bar that prevents us investigating complaints made by the representatives of public bodies. Norfolk County Council (22 002 728) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's safeguarding actions. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation. West Northamptonshire Council (22 002 777) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about what a social worker wrote in a court report and interfering in a court process. This is because neither matter is separable from court proceedings. Essex County Council (21 013 183) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council has failed to properly manage her son's EHCP review and delayed in issuing an amended plan. She states this has negatively impacted on her son's education and led to him missing school. Mrs X also complained her son has been illegally excluded from school on three occasions over the last 12 months and that the Council has failed to provide suitable alternative provision. The delays in annual review process and in issuing a final EHC plan amount to fault. As does the failure to provide suitable alternative education between November 2021 and April 2022. This fault has caused Y and Mrs X an injustice. Surrey County Council (21 018 043) Summary: We upheld Miss X's complaint about a delay in identifying and agreeing a college placement for her daughter Miss Y. There was also an unacceptable delay in amending Miss Y's Education, Health and Care plan and poor communication. The Council will make payments to both and take other action described in this statement. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (22 001 211) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about Education Health Care Plan issues as she has appealed to the Tribunal. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (22 001 478) Summary: A parent complained that the Council had unfairly denied his daughter a place at his preferred junior school despite the long time she had been on its waiting list, and that the independent admission appeal panel had wrongly refused his appeal for the school. But we do not have grounds to investigate these matters because there is no sign of fault by the Council or panel which caused the parent a significant injustice. Liverpool City Council (22 001 776) Summary: We will not investigate Miss B's complaint that the Council is at fault in refusing her appeal for a school place for her daughter. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council's part. East Sussex County Council (22 002 304) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss B's complaint about the Council's decision not to provide her children with free transport to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. East Sussex County Council (22 002 641) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's assessment of the complainants son's needs. This is because he has used his right to appeal to a tribunal and the matters raised by the complainant are not separable from this appeal. Bishop Challoner RC School, King's Heath (22 002 708) Summary: We 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. Southend-on-Sea City Council (20 011 908) Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about delays in reviewing their daughter's Education Health and Care plan and how it investigated their complaints. The Council properly investigated Mr and Mrs X's complaints. However, it did not properly apologise or recognise the impact on them of the failures it accepted. The Council agreed to apologise fully, pay Mr and Mrs X an improved financial remedy and review how it manages statutory children's complaints. North Yorkshire County Council (22 002 722) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's view of who may safely care for children. The complaint concerns the Council's view as expressed in a court report and the matter complained of is thus not separable from a court process. Hampshire County Council (21 013 102) Summary: the Council failed to adequately inform Mr B about its investigation of his concerns. This caused him uncertainty as he could not be sure that these issues were thoroughly addressed under the correct procedure and had to complain to this office in order to establish this. The Council will apologise and make a payment of £200 to Mr B to recognise the injustice caused. East Sussex County Council (22 002 264) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not making special educational needs provision recommended for Miss X's child in recent reports by experts. The child's needs are matters subject to an appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal after the Council decided not to issue an Education Health and care Plan for the child. Salford City Council (22 002 436) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about providing education to her child Y. We cannot investigate the same issues a Tribunal is considering. Devon County Council (22 002 035) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about information a social worker used in their assessment. This is because we could achieve nothing significant by doing so. Hampshire County Council (22 002 131) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the disposal of items belonging to the complainant. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Oxfordshire County Council (22 002 535) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not accepting a complaint about a social worker changing a report written for a Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. Another body is better placed than us to consider the complaint about the social worker's professional actions and the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal can consider the content of the social worker's report. It would not be productive for us to investigate how the Council dealt with a complaint where we will not consider the substantive matters complained of. Surrey County Council (21 006 627) Summary: There was fault and delay in amending an Education, Health and Care plan to name a new school and in providing a right of appeal. There was also a failure to provide alternative education when, without the Council's intervention, a child would not receive suitable fulltime education. Recommendations for an apology and financial remedy are made. Staffordshire County Council (21 011 220) Summary: We upheld Mrs X's complaint. There was a delay in completing the process of amending Miss Y's Education Health and Care Plan and a failure to respond fully to the complaint. The Council will apologise and make symbolic payments to reflect avoidable distress and uncertainty. Birmingham City Council (21 011 884) Summary: The Council has admitted it took too long to finalise Z's Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council has offered Ms X £1,000 as a remedy. The Ombudsman would not recommend anything further. Z was not caused an injustice by the fault. Surrey County Council (21 014 162) Summary: Mr X complained about the alternative education the Council arranged for his son, Y. There was fault with how the Council arranged alternative provision for Y when he could not attend his agreed school place. The Council agree to apologise to Mr X, pay him a financial remedy and review how it arranges alternative provision. Surrey County Council (21 017 044) Summary: The Council was at fault because it did not provide or arrange all the activities in line with Y's Education Health and Care Plan. The Council will apologise and make payments to reflect the lost provision. London Borough of Bexley (22 001 679) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council failed to arrange the therapeutic provision specified in an Education Health and Care plan. That is because the Council has already accepted fault and said it will arrange the required provision. Further investigation by the Ombudsman will not lead to a different outcome. Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (22 001 774) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint that the Council is at fault in refusing his appeal for a school place for his son. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council's part. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (22 002 381) 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. Sunderland City Council (21 005 119) Summary: The Council was at fault for delaying in finalising Mrs X's son's Education, Health and Care Plan and putting in place the provision listed in the plan. This caused injustice as Mrs X's son missed out on receiving the provision he was entitled to. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X for the benefit of her son's education. 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