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. Hertfordshire County Council (20 010 112) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to secure full-time education and provision in an Education, Health and Care plan for his son, Y. He also complained the Council failed to investigate when a school discriminated against Y; the School has subsequently admitted disability discrimination. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (21 008 298) Summary: Mrs C said the Council was at fault for failures during its investigation of child protection concerns about her unborn child. Mrs C's complaint was investigated under the statutory complaints procedure for children's complaints which upheld some of her claims. We agree that the Council was at fault for failures during the investigation. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs C to acknowledge her distress. It has already made service improvements. London Borough of Harrow (21 015 022) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to act on his concerns about his daughter's welfare, carried out a flawed assessment, and failed to respond to his complaint according to its procedures. As a result, Mr X says the Council failed to safeguard his daughter. We found some fault by the Council regarding this matter and the Council agreed to provide a remedy to address the injustice caused. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (22 006 006) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker. The complaint is not separable from matters that are subject to court action. Bristol City Council (21 018 896) Summary: The Council's delay completing an annual review of B's Education, Health, and Care Plan and failure to issue an amended Plan within statutory timescales was fault. The Council was also at fault for failing to ensure the education provision in B's Plan was in place. As a result, B started post-16 education without an up-to-date Plan and missed six months of Speech and Language Therapy. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise, pay £1,750, and act to improve its services. Oxfordshire County Council (22 000 739) Summary: Mrs X complained about the lack of full-time education for her son (Y) when attending Reception and the Council's failure to deliver all special educational provisions (SEP) included in Y's Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP). Mrs X said this had detrimental effect on Y's development, caused her and her husband distress and resulted in their financial difficulties. We find the Council at fault for failing to ensure Y received all SEP included in his EHCP and fulfilling its duties under the Equality Act. The Council accepted our recommendations for personal remedies and service improvements. Hampshire County Council (22 002 396) Summary: We cannot investigate a complaint about the appropriateness of a school placement named in an education, health and care plan, because this carries a right of appeal. There was fault because the Council delayed responding to an annual review, but this did not cause an injustice. The Council is also at fault because it has not yet made a decision whether its duty under section of the Education Act 1996 has been triggered. It is speculative to say what difference this may have made, but this uncertainty causes an injustice and the Council has agreed to address this. West Northamptonshire Council (21 017 938) Summary: The statutory complaints process found the Council's assessment of Miss X and her child was inaccurate. The Council had not suitably remedied the injustice this caused. It has agreed to pay Miss X and her child £350 and take action to improve its services. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (21 018 208) Summary: Miss B complained about the actions of a social worker during a child in need assessment, regarding her son, G. We have not found fault with the Council. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (22 005 525) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's delay in a safeguarding investigation. It is reasonable to expect her to accept the Council's offer to investigate now. Cambridgeshire County Council (22 005 825) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement with the complainant's family which led to his children being adopted. This is because the complaint is late, and the law prevents us from investigating matters which have been considered in court. Also, we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants. Birmingham City Council (21 018 024) Summary: Mrs F complained the Council failed to provide enough support for her partner's (Mr X) problems with substance abuse, his children's welfare and education, and relied on her to report safeguarding issues. We found no fault in the process the Council followed, or the support it provided the family. We cannot therefore criticise the merits of its decisions. The Council has already apologised for its failure to communicate with Mrs F and Mr X during a short period in 2021, which was enough to remedy the distress this caused. Wiltshire Council (21 018 883) Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her daughter, Ms B about the Council's handling and failure to communicate the outcome of a children's safeguarding enquiry regarding her granddaughter, Y. Mrs X complains the Council was heavy handed and placed undue stress and anxiety on the family. We have not found any fault by the Council. Staffordshire County Council (21 019 040) Summary: Ms X complained her son, Y, did not receive the support he was assessed as needing and the Council did not deal with her complaint appropriately. Ms X says this has caused distress to Y, his family and she has been put to time and trouble to complain. The Council was at fault in the way it dealt with this complaint. The Council should now reconsider the complaint and pay Ms X £150 in recognition of the frustration caused by this fault and the delay. Bristol City Council (22 004 926) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to provide the complainant and her son with the support and therapy they need while her son has been in care. This is because the complaint is not separable from the ongoing court proceedings. Darlington Borough Council (22 005 021) Summary: We uphold Miss X's complaint that the Council failed to consider her complaint within its children statutory complaints' procedure. The Council has agreed to do so without further delay. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (22 006 307) Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's childrens services involvement with her family because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been considered and decided in court proceedings, such as this. We have no discretion to do so. North Northamptonshire Council (22 005 040) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about a school's admissions appeals decision letter. It is unlikely our investigation would recommend any remedy. Somerset County Council (22 006 740) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about school admissions and home to school transport. This is because we cannot investigate complaints about school places at academies. It is reasonable for the complainant to use the Council's own appeals process if she wants to challenge the decision not to provide home to school transport. Surrey County Council (21 008 224) Summary: the Council accepts it did not provide suitable care, accommodation or education for Mr X, an unaccompanied migrant child, because it failed to assess his needs and determine his age. It was only when Mr X secured the help of a solicitor after two years in the Council's care that things began to get back on track. The Council has agreed a remedy for the injustice Mr X suffered in that time, which includes a lack of education, inappropriate care and a period of homelessness. Southampton City Council (21 012 010) Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to deliver on its promise to pay him £100 when contact with his grandson was cancelled without any notice. The Council has agreed to honour its promise and also make a payment to recognise Mr X's unnecessary time, trouble and frustration. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (21 013 212) Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to provide support for his mental health during a child protection investigation. This meant he could not fully engage with the process, which caused distress and confusion. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for failing to use the mechanisms in place to identify Mr X's needs and assess whether he needed reasonable adjustments. The Council has agreed to pay a financial remedy and has implemented service improvements. London Borough of Sutton (21 017 702) Summary: Mr G complained the Council refused to respond to his complaint at the second stage of the Children Act complaints process and would not tell him the reasons for its decision. The Council has now agreed to resume the complaints process. City of Wolverhampton Council (22 005 621) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's alleged failure to comply with the Court's orders. This is because the law prevents us from investigating matters that are being or have been considered in court. The complaint is therefore outside our jurisdiction. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (22 005 785) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to cancel a 'staying put' agreement. That is because Mr X has not exhausted the Council's complaint procedure. London Borough of Bromley (22 006 742) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a report written for court proceedings. This is because the complaint relates to an ongoing court case. So, we have no remit to investigate. Staffordshire County Council (21 001 456) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's response to her request for an Education, Health and Care Plan, for her son who has special educational needs. We have found the Council to be at fault because it took too long to carry out an assessment. This caused distress and uncertainty about her son's transition into secondary education. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment and confirm the action it has taken to improve its capacity to carry out assessments without delay. We have been unable to investigate some of Mrs X's complaint because she appealed to the Tribunal. Dorset Council (21 012 539) Summary: Mrs M's son, B, missed a considerable amount of education while the Council looked for a suitable school for him. The Council has agreed to provide a suitable remedy. London Borough of Hackney (22 002 576) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged fault in the complainant's son's Education Health and Care Needs Assessment. This is because we can achieve nothing significant by doing so. Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (22 005 246) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council is applying its school transport policy. There is no evidence of fault in the Council's actions. London Borough of Merton (22 005 962) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to address complaints of discrimination. This is because the Council's decision is not separable from a matter which we cannot consider by law. Bedford Borough Council (20 013 452) Summary: The complainants alleged that the Council failed to care properly for their son when he was in its care. The Council has carried out an independent investigation and has accepted the findings of fault made. We accept those findings, and the findings of no fault, and we do not consider that we can add to the investigation already carried out. However, the Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused by the faults in the way we recommended. We have therefore completed our investigation and are closing the complaint. Kent County Council (22 000 852) Summary: Miss X complained the Council published confidential financial information in an assessment for her son's disability needs, which negatively affected services for him. The Council has already remedied the matter, but we found further fault by the Council in delaying direct payments and delay in dealing with Miss X's complaint. The Council has agreed with our recommendations to remedy this. London Borough of Southwark (22 005 692) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has refused to acknowledge that its officer acted unprofessionally. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking. Northumberland County Council (21 004 235) Summary: Miss X complained about the Council's decision not to provide her son, Y, with transport to college. Miss X said the Council failed to properly consider Y's circumstances and her appeal, and its communication was poor. Slough Borough Council (21 014 556) Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council handled its provision of Speech and Language Therapy for her son, Y, and its delay in updating his Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP). We find the Council at fault for delay in issuing a final EHCP. It has agreed to apologise to Mrs X, pay her £300 and act to prevent recurrence. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (22 006 489) 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. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (21 006 720) Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mrs B and Miss C's complaint about the Council's removal of Mrs B's granddaughter from her care and its subsequent refusal to place her with Miss C (the child's aunt). We can neither tell the Council where to place a child nor decide on disciplinary action for social workers, so we cannot achieve the outcomes they want. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (22 004 732) Summary: We have upheld this complaint that the Council was at fault in declining to use the statutory procedure for children's services complaints to address the complainant's concerns. Cambridgeshire County Council (21 010 953) Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council delayed issuing her child's Education, Health and Care Plan. She said its delay prevented her from exercising her right of appeal sooner and led to loss of provision for her child. The Council was at fault for the delay in finalising the Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused Mrs X's family significant distress, frustration, time and trouble, loss of provision and the child was disadvantaged by not having an up-to-date Plan for a year. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused to the child and Mrs X's family. Kirkby C Of E School (22 005 453) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the School's Admissions Appeal Panel's failure to provide her child with a place. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused her to lose out on a school place. Essex County Council (21 018 413) Summary: Mrs Y complained about the Council's decision to end her foster son, X's staying put arrangement with her and Mr B. She said the Council failed to take proper account of X's mental health and need for support. We find the Council was at fault for failing to communicate with Mrs Y and Mr B and failing to include all required information in the arrangement. This led to Mrs Y and Mr B feeling unsupported by the Council. We make several recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault. 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