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. Staffordshire County Council (22 000 082) Summary: The Council was at fault for delays in amending and then finalising Mrs X's son's education, health and care plan after an annual review. The delays caused Mrs X distress and uncertainty about education provision for her son. The Council has apologised for the delays and has agreed a financial remedy to properly recognise her injustice. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (22 006 848) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the provision of the free school meals for Miss X's child at home. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant investigation. Leicestershire County Council (22 007 134) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about information the Council provided to the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. This is because the matter is not separable from what happened in court. London Borough of Newham (21 013 641) Summary: Miss C said the Council did not provide speech and language therapy specified in her son X's education, health and care plan. The Council was at fault for a failure to properly consider Miss C's request for the therapy and for a delay in finalising a revised education, health and care plan. These faults caused injustice as X was not assessed for, and did not receive, the specified therapy for more than a year. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss C and pay her a sum in recognition of this fault. It has also agreed to reconsider its decision not to provide X with speech and language therapy and finalise the education, health and care plan without delay. Suffolk County Council (21 016 914) Summary: Mrs X complained about delays in providing special educational needs support to her daughter, Y, and failings in the Council's complaints handling. The Council was at fault. This caused frustration for Mrs X and missed provision for Y. The Council should apologise, make payments to reflect the injustice caused, and take action to improve its timescales for responding to communications from service users. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (22 005 922) Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to provide section 19 alternative provision, failed to secure the special educational needs provisions set out in her child's EHC plan, and delayed in completing an annual review. It is likely we would find fault with the Council if we were to investigate, so we invited the Council to remedy the injustice caused by the likely faults. The Council has agreed to our recommendations. Manchester City Council (22 007 246) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful school admission appeal. This is because the child has now been offered a place at the school and so there is nothing more we can achieve. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (21 010 250) Summary: Mr X complains that the Council has not implemented the recommendations of the stage two investigation and review panel. The Council has not properly implemented a recommendation of the review panel. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and offer a further opportunity for mediation. The Council will make service improvements. Liverpool City Council (22 001 820) Summary: Following an independent investigation into Mrs B's complaint about children's social care at the Council, the Council was not at fault for what it did to remedy her injustice. It completed most of the recommended actions and offered her a suitable financial remedy. It was not at fault for not completing the remaining recommended actions, as Mrs B herself wanted to wait until she had approached the Ombudsman. Surrey County Council (22 006 124) Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed consideration of a complaint at stage two of the children's statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint by providing an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused to the complainant by its delay. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (22 006 804) Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed consideration of a complaint at stage two of the children's statutory complaints procedure The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint by providing an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused to the complainant by its delay. Suffolk County Council (22 006 950) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council has breached a court order because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been considered and decided in court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so. Middlesbrough Borough Council (22 007 226) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about a comment made by a Council officer during a telephone call. This is because an investigation by this office could not add to the response already provided via the Council's investigation. Manchester City Council (22 002 137) Summary: The Ombudsmen cannot investigate Mrs P's complaint about a meeting to review her son L's Education Health and Care Plan. This is because we cannot investigate complaints about what happens in schools and any actions of the Council that are inseparable from these events. We have decided not to investigate Mrs P's complaint about how a speech and language therapist worked with L and about a safeguarding concern they raised. We are unlikely to find fault by the organisations, and further investigation of the complaint is unlikely to achieve more. Maidstone Grammar School For Boys (22 002 207) Summary: There was no fault in how an independent appeal panel considered and refused a school admissions appeal. We have therefore completed our investigation. Kent County Council (22 003 150) Summary: Mrs X complains that the appeal panel which dealt with her appeal for a grammar school place for her daughter ignored evidence she provided. Also she says because it was a paper-based appeal she did not have a chance to point this out to the panel. We do not find the Council at fault in deciding to continue holding appeals on written submissions only. We consider there was fault in the panel's decision letter as it did not explain its reasoning fully. The Council has offered to write to Mrs X with a further explanation. City of York Council (22 006 407) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to issue final Education Health and Care Plans for Mrs X's son following reviews of the Plan in 2019-20 and 2020-21. The fault in the form of delay by the Council is unlikely to have caused sufficient injustice to warrant investigation by us. Medway Council (22 006 507) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to consider a request for special arrangements in its grammar school entrance test. This is because the Council has now agreed to consider the request and to review its procedures. This is a suitable remedy for the complaint. Staffordshire County Council (22 007 542) Summary: We will not investigate this 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 merits of the panel's decision. Kent County Council (21 012 369) Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed to assess his family's support needs properly when his son came out of hospital. He says it also failed to provide a suitable remedy for his complaint about this under the children's social care complaints procedure. We find there were some flaws and delays in the assessment process that the Council has not fully recognised in its response to the complaint so far. The Council has agreed a further remedy. Torbay Council (21 017 478) Summary: Mr B complained the Council was biased against him when considering safeguarding concerns relating to his daughter. He also complained about its social worker's conduct and failure to communicate with him as agreed, and a breach of his data rights. The Council agreed its social worker failed to communicate as agreed and apologised. This was enough to remedy the injustice this caused him. We found no fault on the other matters complained about, or we could not investigate as a court or other body had already considered the issues. London Borough of Lambeth (22 005 349) 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. Warwickshire County Council (22 005 437) Summary: We uphold Mr X's complaint that the Council failed to consider his complaint within its children statutory complaints' procedure. The Council has agreed to do so without further delay. Liverpool City Council (22 006 585) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about information disclosed in the course of legal proceedings. This is because the law prevents the Ombudsman from considering evidence provided to a court. East Sussex County Council (21 005 827) Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council did not properly consider her reheard appeal for transport assistance for her daughter, Y, to attend college. We found fault in the way the Council considered her reheard appeal. The Council agreed to apologise, pay Mrs B £100 for her frustration, and rehear her appeal. It will also carry out a lessons-learned exercise and allow parents who unsuccessfully appealed for sixth-form age transport for the 2021/22 school year a reassessment of their cases with the chance to make verbal representations to the panel. Royal Borough of Greenwich (21 007 480) Summary: Mr F complains about the way the Council implemented the Tribunal's order in relation to SEN provision for his son and that it wrongly refused a personal budget. We have found fault. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mr F to acknowledge the injustice caused. Reading Borough Council (21 007 805) Summary: the Council accepted it had not supported Ms M and B as it should with transition from school to college, and two transport payments were late. The Council apologised and made changes to address the problems. This is a satisfactory outcome. Devon County Council (21 007 975) Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council has treated his family during child protection investigations. As a result he says the family did not receive adequate support and they experienced unnecessary distress and anxiety. We do not find the Council at fault as it followed the process properly and provided the family with support. Being involved in a child protection investigation is always likely to be distressing but we do not find this was a result of fault by the Council. The Council said it would consider drawing up a 'child on parent violence protocol' and it has agreed to provide an update on progress. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (22 006 265) Summary: We will not investigate how the Council dealt with various complaints from Mrs X. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The complaint is late and Mrs X could have complained earlier. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (21 003 862) Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed completing her son's Education, Health and Care Plan review and did not provide alternative provision while he was out of school, resulting in missed education. We found the Council at fault. We recommended the Council provide an apology, pay £4400 for missed education; pay £500 for distress and uncertainty and; act to prevent recurrence. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (21 015 092) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not ensure her child, Y, received the provision set out in their Education, Health and Care Plan. She also complained it delayed in completing Y's annual reviews. The Council is at fault. It did not ensure Y received the provision in their Education, Health and Care Plan and delayed in completing annual reviews. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment to be used for Y's educational benefit and for the distress the matter caused Mrs X. The Council has also agreed to make service improvements. Maidstone Grammar School For Girls (22 001 357) Summary: There was no fault in how an independent appeal panel considered and refused a school admissions appeal. We have therefore completed our investigation. Suffolk County Council (22 001 666) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to properly consider her appeal for home to school transport for her child. There was no fault in the way the Council applied its policy or considered the appeal. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (22 002 204) Summary: We ended out investigation because the wrong council responded to Ms X's complaint. Ms X needs to use all stages of the correct Council's complaints procedure (Council B). If she is not happy with Council's B's final complaint response, she can complain to us. Maidstone Grammar School For Boys (22 002 663) Summary: There was no fault in how an independent appeal panel considered and refused a school admissions appeal. We have therefore completed our investigation. Salford City Council (22 006 107) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council has been at fault in its response to the complainant's child's special educational needs. This is because they have used their right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability), and this places the matter outside our jurisdiction. St. Wilfrid's Catholic School (22 006 808) Summary: We will not investigate this 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 merits of the panel's decision. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (20 013 918) Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council failed to carry out the recommendations it identified during its response to their complaint about the way the Council assessed their children's needs. The Council accepted it was at fault in how it managed some of Mr and Mrs X's case. There was no fault in how the Council made the service improvements it identified. Darlington Borough Council (21 015 466) Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not properly consider the findings and recommendations of an independent investigation carried out under the children's statutory complaints process. Miss X said the Council's actions caused her avoidable frustration and negatively affected her mental health. We found fault by the Council who agreed to apologise to Miss X and make a payment to recognise the injustice caused. London Borough of Croydon (21 017 720) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to award Ms X the full amount of fostering payment for caring for a child. Birmingham City Council (21 018 355) Summary: Ms Y complained about the Council's decision to recall £1250 in direct payments she received for her son B who is a child in need. The Council also failed to provide the extra direct payments it had agreed. This caused stress to the family at an already difficult time. We found the Council was at fault for not providing the extra direct payments and it has agreed to apologise to the family. South Gloucestershire Council (22 005 211) Summary: I have ended my investigation into this complaint. The Council is currently investigating Mr X's concerns under the children's statutory complaints procedure and should be allowed to complete this process. Cumbria County Council (22 005 860) Summary: I uphold this complaint because the Council was at fault in failing to use the statutory procedure for children's services complaints to address the complainant's concerns. West Northamptonshire Council (22 007 135) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement with the complainant's family. This is because we cannot consider matters linked to ongoing court proceedings. There is nothing we can add to the Council's response which explained court proceedings need to conclude before it can consider the complaint. London Borough of Barnet (21 016 939) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's response to the complainant's concerns about her son's welfare. This is because the Council has offered to make a substantive response and it would be reasonable to allow it to do so. Herefordshire Council (22 005 521) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement with the complainant's family which led to her daughter being taken into care. This is because the law prevents us from investigating matters which have been considered in court. Also, we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants. Hampshire County Council (21 017 016) Summary: Hampshire County Council has failed to put in place all the education and special education provision in the complainant's son's Education, Health and Care Plan since autumn term 2021. There was also delay in completing a review of the EHC Plan. These faults have caused injustice and the Council will take the action detailed to recognise and remedy the injustice caused. London Borough of Lambeth (21 005 087) Summary: Mr B complained the Council failed to keep his daughter safe while she was known to its children's services. We upheld the complaint noting an earlier investigation had found fault in its case management. In addition, we found fault in how the Council responded to findings resulting from that earlier investigation. As a result, Mr B suffered injustice mainly in the form of distress. The Council accepted these findings and agreed action to remedy this injustice, set out in detail at the end of this statement. Hampshire County Council (21 019 131) Summary: The Council was at fault for delays following a review of an Education Health and Care Plan, and for incorrectly telling Mr X he could appeal to the SEND Tribunal before the Plan was finalised. This caused Mr X and his son avoidable distress and uncertainty about education provision. The Council was also at fault for not organising transport in time for Mr X's son to get to college, causing inconvenience to Mr X. The Council has apologised for the delays and offered a financial remedy to Mr X. It has also agreed to offer additional financial remedies, and to review one of its procedures, to properly recognise the injustice suffered by Mr X and his son. Essex County Council (21 000 724) Summary: Mr G complains the Council has failed to provide his daughter (Child X) with physiotherapy provision, as required by her Education and Health Care Plan. We found the Council has fallen significantly short of providing the provision Child X is entitled to receive by law. Further, the evidence shows a fundamental lack of management and oversight by the Council in relation to securing Child X's education provision. We consider the failings identified have caused both Child X and Mr G a serious injustice. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy this. 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