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. Manchester City Council (21 018 865) Summary: Mr X complains the Council did not make his step nephew a "looked after child" and says he would like to have his foster carer payments backdated for a year. The Council say it was a private family arrangement before the Interim Care Order was made. We find fault with the Council for failing to carry out an assessment sooner. We have suggested remedies for the frustration and financial distress caused to Mr X. Gloucestershire County Council (22 003 700) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of social workers. A parenting assessment is not a matter that is separable from the court proceedings for which it was prepared. Most of the matters complained of also pre-date the end of court proceedings by some time, they are late, and they could reasonably have been raised in court. The remaining matters since the court action concluded are not ones where our further involvement would be likely to find sufficient fault or injustice to Mr X to warrant investigation. London Borough of Croydon (22 005 260) 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. Bedford Borough Council (22 008 373) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaints triggered by a report used in the family court. This is because the issues Mr X raises cannot be separated from the matters decided in the family court. Cumbria County Council (22 008 493) 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. London Borough of Bromley (22 009 010) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a historic court report and a more recent assessment. We cannot investigate the use of the report in court proceedings. Any subsequent processing of inaccurate data in a new assessment since court proceedings ended would be a matter where the Information Commissioner's Office is better placed than us to resolve the matter. Surrey County Council (21 013 886) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to ensure Z was provided with a suitable education or the support in his Education, Health and Care plan (EHC Plan) during various dates between September 2019 and February 2021 and failed to provide the personal budget which had been agreed. Ms X said this meant Z missed out on the education and support he was entitled to. The Council has already agreed there was a lack of provision at times. There was also delay in setting up Ms X's personal budget which caused her frustration. The Council's offer of £1,200 is suitable to remedy the injustice she and Z experienced. Leeds City Council (21 018 748) Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to provide alternative education to Y under s.19 Education Act when she was too unwell to attend school. The Council considered Y was fit to take advantage of the education made available to her by her school and that this was suitable. The Ombudsman cannot question this professional judgment by the Council. There was therefore no obligation on the Council to offer an alternative and no fault in failing to do so. The complaint is not upheld. Liverpool City Council (22 007 313) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council managed the education provision of a child. This is because the complainant appealed the Council's decision to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. Derbyshire County Council (21 016 963) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions in 2019 and its subsequent handling of Mrs X's complaint. Investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome or the outcome Mrs X wants. She has or had a right to go to court it would have been reasonable to use to pursue a compensation claim. There is not enough evidence of fault in the key matter or the way the Council handled the complaint to warrant investigation. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (22 004 289) Summary: The Council was at fault for not dealing with Ms B's complaint about her special guardianship allowance under the statutory children's complaint procedure. This meant that Ms B did not have access to an independent investigation of her complaint. The Council has now agreed to consider the complaint under the correct procedure. Buckinghamshire Council (22 007 584) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about children services actions because legal proceedings cover the same issues. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (19 018 867) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to ensure her son, F, received education and provision in line with his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan between May 2019 and September 2020 after he was unable to attend his named school. The Council was at fault. Between January 2019 and September 2020, it delayed issuing F's final EHC Plan, delayed finding a new school for F and failed to ensure he received education and provision in line with his EHC Plan. The Council has already paid Ms X a total of £5,200 to remedy the injustice caused between September and March 2020. It agreed to pay her a further payment totalling £1050 to recognise the injustice caused to F during the other periods. Oxfordshire County Council (22 007 855) Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to issue a final EHC plan in 2021 and that there were delays in its complaint handling. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Miss X by the fault accepted. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (22 008 606) 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. West Northamptonshire Council (21 017 496) Summary: Mr and Mrs H complain about the Council breaching their confidentiality during a child protection investigation. And in wrongly telling them Mr H was not allowed home for a lengthy period. The Ombudsman finds fault in how the Council dealt with the issue of Mr H going home. It did not assess the risks. Instead it told Mr H he could not go home, without explaining this was voluntary. We also uphold a complaint that the Council did not consider whether it needed to complete a separate assessment for each of the children. We have found the fault with the instruction to not return home created uncertainty. Lancashire County Council (22 007 209) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the lack of support from the Council's Post Adoption Team in 2017, and about an assessment carried out by its children's services in 2020. This is because these events happened too long ago, and I see no good reason to exercise discretion and investigate them now. Lincolnshire County Council (22 007 801) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council's Local Authority Designated Officer dealt with report that someone who worked with children ignored concerns of abuse. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault with how the matter was dealt with. Liverpool City Council (22 008 073) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the preparation and content of a report which formed part of Court proceedings. We are unlikely to achieve a significantly different outcome for complaint procedure failings than the Council has offered. West Sussex County Council (20 008 504) Summary: The Council failed to advise a parent that under Section 19 Education Act councils must provide suitable alternative education when a child is unable to attend school for health reasons, or otherwise. This led a parent to make their own private tuition arrangements when their child could not attend school, in the belief no funding or support was available from the Council. This caused distress, a financial burden and the child missed out on education because a full curriculum was not in place. The Council will apologise, refund costs and make service improvements. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (21 014 224) Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council's handling of her child's Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP). The Council took too long to issue the final EHCP in this case. This caused Mrs X injustice as it delayed her appeal rights and she was put to avoidable time and trouble chasing meaningful progress from the Council. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X. It will also offer an appropriate remedy to Mrs X's child for delayed special educational needs provision when the outcome of the Tribunal hearing is known. North East Lincolnshire Council (21 018 217) Summary: The two-week delay in issuing Y's final Education, Health and Care Plan did not cause injustice. There was a failure to secure some of Y's provision. This had a negative impact on his attainment. The Council will apologise to Y and make a payment to him and to his mother Ms X for her avoidable time and trouble. Surrey County Council (22 001 001) Summary: Mrs X made two complaints about delay within the Education, Health and Care Plan process for her son. There was fault by the Council for significant delay in issuing a final Plan after an appeal and also in its handling of her second complaint. This caused a direct loss of provision to her son, in addition to time and trouble for Mrs X. The Council has agreed to provide Mrs X with an apology, a financial payment and to make service improvements to remedy the injustice caused. East Sussex County Council (22 007 985) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's decision not to provide her son with free transport to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (22 008 672) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about education transport for Mr X's daughter and other matters. Investigation of the transport complaint would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome. Matters concerning an assessment in 2016 are late, and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate them now. Manchester City Council (21 016 561) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's communication with him about his daughter, who it had assessed as being as a child in need, information about him included in meeting records, and its decision about sharing information. We have not found fault with the Council in the way it dealt with these issues. Hertfordshire County Council (22 008 358) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions concerning her and her child. The matters complained of are not separable from the contact and residence arrangements for a child. These matters have been subject to court proceedings. Mrs X also has a right to go to court it would be reasonable to use as only a court can vary the contact arrangements for children. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (22 008 383) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's response to the complainant's concerns about her daughter's welfare. This is because the complaint concerns matters which may be raised in a court of law. Kent County Council (22 001 173) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's poor communication when communicating its decision to change his son's home to school transport arrangements. We find the Council was at fault for poor communication and failing to respond to Mr X. This caused him significant stress and his son was not able to attend school. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address this injustice. St Gerards Catholic Primary & Nursery School (22 004 416) Summary: Miss X complains that an appeal panel's decision to refuse her appeal for a place for her daughter at a school was unfair. There is no evidence of fault by the appeal panel. Leicestershire County Council (22 008 618) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's failure to lodge an appeal. It is not possible to establish the in injustice until a Tribunal's outcome is known. Sunderland City Council (22 000 158) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about safeguarding and other matters. The matters complained of are not separable from those that have been or could reasonably have been raised in a court of law, which we cannot investigate. Data matters are ones where the Information Commissioner's Office would be better placed to investigate. The complaint is also late, and there would be no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate it now even if it were not otherwise outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (22 000 253) Summary: Miss B complained about excessive delay by the Council in completing the statutory complaints process and its failure to implement the agreed recommendations. We found fault in the Council's failure to implement the recommendations in full and its poor communication with Miss B in respect of these actions. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay her the agreed £5,000 plus an additional £500 for the continued delay, offer to meet with her and send her an appropriate outcome letter she can show to prospective employers. We have also recommended some service improvements. Gloucestershire County Council (22 005 873) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint as we cannot investigate Court ordered reports or events the Court has considered. Medway Council (22 007 278) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about a safeguarding flag not being placed on his childrens' medical records after he raised concerns about them to the Council. This is because an investigation by this office could not add to the response already provided by the Council. Royal Borough of Greenwich (21 004 039) Summary: Ms X complained that the Council failed to provide her son, E, with a full-time suitable education and failed to communicate effectively with her. We found some fault. This failure has caused E an injustice as he has missed out on education. We have made recommendations to knowledge that injustice. Bracknell Forest Council (21 009 081) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to properly assess Child Y's needs for their EHCP. This meant the Council did not accurately describe Child Y's needs, it did not gather information and the Council left Child Y without suitable provision. We are discontinuing the investigation as the matters complained about are not separable from the conduct of the SEND Tribunal process and so are out of our jurisdiction. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (21 015 494) Summary: Mrs D complains on behalf of her son (Young Person A) who has special educational needs. The Council maintain an Education and Health Care Plan (EHCP) for Young Person A which includes the provision he is legally entitled to receive so to support his education. Mrs D says the Council has failed to provide Young Person A's EHCP provision. Further, she says the Council has failed to provide her son with a suitable full-time education when he was no longer permitted to attend two different schools. We found the Council failed to provide Young Person A with his needed EHCP provision. This fundamentally undermined Young Person A's educational development. There was no fault however by the Council in respect of its duty to provide Young Person A with alternative education provision when he was out of school. The failings identified have caused an injustice and the Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy this. Torbay Council (22 008 171) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint the Council has issued an education and health care plan containing inaccurate personal information about Ms Y and without her consent. There is insufficient injustice. Mrs X can go to the Information Commissioner if she has data protection concerns. We cannot lawfully investigate the substance of the education health care plan because there is an appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability tribunal. Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (22 008 265) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has demonstrated discriminatory and transphobic behaviour. This is because we would not achieve anything significant by doing so. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (22 007 190) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to consider parental alienation during its handling of Mr X's son's case. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation. 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