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. Devon County Council (21 014 827) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council significantly delayed issuing her daughter, Y's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan between December 2018 and April 2021 after she transitioned from a Statement of Special Education Needs. The Council was at fault. It delayed issuing Y's EHC Plan by 16 months which subsequently delayed Mrs X's right of appeal to the SEND tribunal. It meant Y lost out on 1:1 provision between January 2020 and July 2021. The Council further failed to ensure Y received Speech and Language Therapy in line with her plan between March and July 2022. It agreed to pay Mrs X a total of £4,325 to acknowledge the impact the faults had on Y's education during this period. Somerset County Council (21 015 427) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to make alternative education provision for her son when he could not attend school. The Council is at fault as it did not make alternative provision for Y when he was unable to attend school. As a result, Y did not receive suitable provision and support between April 2021 and February 2022. The Council also delayed in issuing Y's Education, Health and Care plan and in agreeing a personal budget. The Council has agreed to remedy Y's injustice by making a payment to acknowledge he has been disadvantaged by the lack of alternative provision and a payment to Mrs X for the distress caused. Devon County Council (21 015 675) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council significantly delayed issuing her daughter, Y's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan between December 2018 and April 2021 after she transitioned from a Statement of Special Education Needs. The Council was at fault. It delayed issuing Y's EHC Plan by 16 months which subsequently delayed Mrs X's right of appeal to the SEND tribunal. It meant Y lost out on 1:1 provision between January 2020 and July 2021. The Council further failed to ensure Y received Speech and Language Therapy in line with her plan between March and July 2022. It agreed to pay Mrs X a total of £4,325 to acknowledge the impact the faults had on Y's education during this period. Suffolk County Council (22 001 396) Summary: There was fault in failing to secure special educational provision after a Tribunal order and delay in agreeing a personal budget. This caused loss of education and unnecessary distress, time and trouble. The Council will pay a financial remedy and make service improvements. The complaint is upheld. Hertfordshire County Council (22 006 506) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about problems with school transport. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. It is unlikely an investigation would add anything to the Council's response or achieve a different outcome. Cheshire West & Chester Council (22 007 283) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council seeking to recover an overpayment to Miss X. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council has sought to recover the overpayment to warrant investigation. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (21 017 580) Summary: Miss X complained that the Council did not implement recommendations made in response to her complaint about lack of support for her child. She also complained about delays handling her complaint. Miss X said this caused them both stress and distress, impacted on Miss X's physical and mental health, and cost her time and trouble. The Council has reminded staff of the statutory guidance around timeframes in children's complaints, and will make a payment to Miss X reflect the injustice caused. Devon County Council (22 006 137) 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. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (22 006 393) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's Children's Services team and its involvement with her family. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault, and it is unlikely an investigation would add anything to the Council's response. London Borough of Brent (22 007 272) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker and what the Council recorded about Miss X when her contract as a foster carer ended. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate it now. Even if that were not so, Miss X's complaint of factual inaccuracy in records is one about which she could approach the Information Commissioner's Office. And any matter of greater compensation for the social worker's action would be more appropriate for a court. Birmingham City Council (22 007 867) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council have treated the complainant as a Person Posing a Risk to Children. This is because the events happened too long ago and we cannot add to the investigation already carried out by the Council. Staffordshire County Council (21 004 336) Summary: There is no evidence of fault in how the Council managed the implementation of provision in a child's education, health and care plan, nor in matters arising from his move to a new area and school. We have therefore completed our investigation. Suffolk County Council (21 010 279) Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council's handling of her requests for support since her child (Child Y) has been absent or unable to attend school. The Council's delay in completing the Education, Health and Care Plan assessment and response to Mrs X's stage two complaint was fault. The Council was also at fault for not providing appropriate alternative education to Child Y since November 2019. These faults caused avoidable and significant distress to Child Y and their family. The Council has agreed to our recommendation to improve its offer to remedy the injustice caused. The Council will also review and amend its procedures to ensure it takes appropriate action sooner when a child is absent from school because of health, exclusion or otherwise. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (21 011 219) Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council's handling of her child's (Child Y) special educational needs. The Council took too long to issue Child Y's Education, Health and Care Plan, respond to requests for a personal budget and complaints. The Council agrees to apologise, make a payment and meet with Mrs X to discuss and agree Child Y's personal budget without delay. The Council will also review its systems for monitoring complaint responses. West Sussex County Council (21 018 292) Summary: Mrs J complains on behalf of son (Child A) who has special educational needs. She says the Council unlawfully refused to assess him for an Education and Health Care Plan (EHCP). Further, Mrs J complains that once the Council eventually did so, the assessment process was flawed, delayed and led to an unsuitable EHCP being maintained for Child A. Mrs J also complains the Council is failing to provide her son with a suitable education and is not meeting his EHCP provision following him no longer attending his educational setting. We found the Council delayed in issuing Child A with an EHCP which meant the support he needed was also delayed. Further, we found significant delays in the Council's complaint handling responses to Mrs J. We do not have the legal jurisdiction to investigate any other matters because these are waiting to be heard in tribunal proceedings. That said, the fault identified in this statement has caused a serious injustice to Mrs J and Child A. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy this. Wiltshire Council (22 001 406) Summary: Mr E complains about delays in the Council's reassessment of his daughter's Education, Health and Care plan. He also complains about the contents of professionals' reports used in the assessment. The Ombudsman has discontinued our investigation. This is because we cannot know the injustice, caused by any delay, until we know the outcome of the appeal Mr E has lodged. Hertfordshire County Council (22 005 463) Hertfordshire County Council (22 005 463) Holy Trinity C of E Secondary School, Crawley (22 006 207) 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. Telford & Wrekin Council (21 013 485) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to follow a court order and facilitate contact between him, his child Y and his former stepchild W. He said this has caused him and Y significant frustration and distress. There was no fault in the Council's actions. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (21 019 027) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement with Mr X. That is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council investigated under the statutory complaints procedure to justify our investigating. Blackpool Borough Council (22 006 569) Summary: We uphold Mrs 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. Slough Borough Council (22 006 763) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a social worker and delay by the Council in informing Ms X about the result of a viability assessment to care for a child in her wider family. The social worker's conduct is not separable from the decision she made about where the child should live, which has been or will be subject to the decision of a court. The delay in informing Ms X did not cause sufficient injustice separable from the decision itself to warrant investigation. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (22 008 275) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's failure to answer her concerns about its decisions concerning her children. This is because the issues Miss X raises are not separable from matters already considered before the family court. Southampton City Council (21 008 066) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to carry out recommendations made at Tribunal, which led to Y being placed in a mainstream school that could not meet her needs for a full school year. He said this caused him significant inconvenience and negatively affected Y's education. The Council was at fault when it failed to name a specialist school in Y's EHC Plan within the deadlines set by the Tribunal. This caused Mr X and Y an injustice. The Council has agreed to issue an apology and a £800 financial award to be used for Y's educational benefit. North Somerset Council (21 018 506) Summary: Mrs E complained the Council failed to exercise discretion and provide home to school transport for her daughter and other pupils who do not qualify under its policy. We find no fault in the Council's decision making. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (21 012 067) Summary: Miss Y complained her complaint the Council failed to support and protect her daughter was not properly considered by the Council under the statutory complaints procedure. We have found fault by the Council regarding the remedy proposed in response to her complaint, and the delay in completing the Stage 3 review, causing injustice. We do not consider the recommendation meets our expectations based on our published remedies guidance. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising to Miss Y and making a payment to reflect the distress its failures caused. Devon County Council (22 005 876) 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. Norfolk County Council (22 006 677) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's actions concerning Mr X's child. This is because the matter complained of are not separable from matters that were or could have been raised in court. London Borough of Bromley (22 007 427) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to continue the complainant's daughter's child protection plan. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking. London Borough of Croydon (20 005 011) Summary: We found fault with the Council for failing to put in place all the provision in Y's Education, Health and Care plan. We also found fault with the annual review process, record keeping and complaint handling. This caused Y an injustice because they missed out on provision they should have received. The Council agreed actions to remedy the injustice. Salford City Council (21 016 916) Summary: Miss Y complained the Council failed to help her arrange a new school place for her daughter or make any alternative provision while she has been unable to attend school. We have found fault by the Council in failing to respond to Miss Y's requests for support and take appropriate action to ensure her daughter was provided with a suitable education. This fault has caused injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising to Miss Y, making payments to reflect the impact on her daughter of the loss of education and Miss Y's distress, time and trouble, and several service improvements. Liverpool City Council (22 007 074) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Independent Appeal Panel failed to properly consider an appeal for a child's school place. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault with how the panel reached its decision. London Borough of Lewisham (22 006 314) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with the care needs of the complainants children. This is because some of the complaint is about matters that happened too long ago and other elements are now subject to court proceedings. Bedford Borough Council (22 006 896) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint. This is because an investigation by this office could not add to the response the Council has already provided which explains the ongoing family court proceedings need to conclude before it can consider her complaint. Oxfordshire County Council (22 007 492) Summary: We will not investigate Mr & Mrs X's complaint about the Council's decision not to investigate their complaint until ongoing court proceedings have concluded. This is because the is no sign of fault in the Council's approach and an investigation by this office would not be able to add to the response and explanation already provided by the council. Kent County Council (22 007 508) 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 will consider the complaint North Yorkshire County Council (21 005 558) Summary: Mrs X complained North Yorkshire County Council (the Council) took too long to issue her son Y's Education, Health and Care plan (EHC plan). She also complained communication with officers in the Special Educational Needs (SEN) Team was poor and the Educational Psychologist (EP) did not see Y before completing her report. Thurrock Council (22 003 342) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X and Ms Y's complaint about the Council's children services actions. We cannot investigate issues which have been considered by a Court. 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