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. Worcestershire County Council (22 008 158) Summary: The complainant (Miss X) said the Council failed to investigate her complaint as brought out of time. We do not find fault with the way the Council re-considered its decision about Miss X's complaint. Wiltshire Council (22 008 603) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about children services actions. We cannot investigate matters which are part of legal proceedings, and we are unlikely to achieve a significantly different remedy for the other aspects of his complaint. Hertfordshire County Council (22 009 102) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's response to the removal of Mr X's children from the UK. The matter complained of is not separable from the residence and care of children, which can only be decided by a court when the children are in the UK. It would be reasonable for Mr X to use his right to go to court. Thurrock Council (22 009 241) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's responses to a safeguarding matter in 2020. The matters complained of are either not separable from criminal matters, or from the conduct of court proceedings. We cannot achieve the outcome Ms X is seeking. London Borough of Newham (22 009 356) Summary: We uphold Mrs X's complaint that the Council delayed in considering her complaint within its children statutory complaints' procedure. The Council has agreed to pay Mrs X for the injustice caused. Hertfordshire County Council (22 009 385) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the complainant was not given the opportunity to explain all their concerns, prior to her complaint being considered under the statutory complaints procedure for complaints about children's services. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (21 018 143) Summary: Mr X complains the Council refused his request for a personal transport budget. This request was to cover the mileage costs of driving his son, F, to and from school. We have decided to uphold Mr X's complaint because there is evidence of fault in the Council's decision-making. This caused Mr X uncertainty and confusion. To remedy this, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, make him a payment, retake its decision and make a service improvement. Hertfordshire County Council (21 018 318) Summary: The Council failed to complete Ms X's son, Z's, annual review or finalise his Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan). The Council then delayed in consulting with Ms X's preferred school and used an outdated version of Z's EHC Plan to make its consultations. The Council also repeatedly failed to communicate important information to Ms X regarding her son's education. In recognition of the uncertainty, time and trouble caused by these faults, the Council has agreed to pay Ms X £450 and urgently re-assess Z's EHC Plan needs, where an assessment has not recently taken place. Staffordshire County Council (21 019 072) Summary: Miss X complained about delays relating to the Council's handling of the Education, Health, and Care Plan annual review process for her son. There is fault by the Council for significant delay in issuing a draft and final Plan following its decision to amend and also in the handling of her complaint. This caused a direct loss of provision to her son, delayed Miss X's right to appeal, in addition to her time and trouble in chasing the Council for this. The Council has agreed to provide Miss X with an apology, a financial payment and to make service improvements to remedy the injustice caused. Staffordshire County Council (22 007 900) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Council providing alternative provision for Ms X's son when he could not attend school. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Cambridgeshire County Council (21 010 991) Summary: Mrs X complained about the post adoption support the Council provided her and her family. There was no fault in how the Council investigated Mrs X's complaints or the recommendations it made. However, it failed to address the injustice caused to Mrs X's children by the identified faults. The Council has agreed to pay Mrs X £600 to remedy this injustice and provide evidence it has completed the recommendations. London Borough of Lambeth (22 003 076) Summary: Ms X complained the Council has not awarded a blue badge for her daughter, Y. Ms X says if Y is ill, not having the blue badge can delay getting her to hospital, potentially having a serious impact on her health. The Council was not at fault. London Borough of Southwark (22 008 469) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a social worker telling Mr X to inform his employer about a child protection matter. The complaint is late, and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate it now. We also could not achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking even if the complaint were not late. Somerset County Council (21 018 532) Summary: there is no fault in the Council's consideration of Ms B's request for transport for her three younger children Torbay Council (22 005 840) Summary: Miss X complained the Council has failed to carry out all the actions agreed to remedy her earlier complaints to the Ombudsman. The Council's continued failure to make the provision in Miss Y's EHC plan or make the agreed payments while the provision was not in place is fault. As is the delay in issuing a final amended EHC plan and the lack of clarity about whether it would be possible to provide a nail technology tutor on a one to one basis. These faults have caused Miss X and Miss Y an injustice. Warwickshire County Council (22 007 872) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's response to the complainant's daughter's special educational needs. This is because the substantive matters fall outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. Surrey County Council (22 009 242) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council naming a school on Mr X's child's Education Health and Care Plan that is too far away. Mr X has used his right to appeal to the SEND Tribunal and the matters complained of are not separable from that. London Borough of Hounslow (22 003 701) Summary: There was no fault in the Council's actions following Mr X's report of concerns about his children's welfare. Hampshire County Council (22 007 912) Summary: We uphold Mr X's complaint that the Council delayed in considering his complaint within its children statutory complaints' procedure. The Council has agreed to do so without further delay. Devon County Council (22 008 227) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a Council Social worker. That is because the Council has not provided a substantive complaint response as care proceedings are ongoing. Norfolk County Council (22 008 678) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council ending special guardianship allowance payments. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation. Surrey County Council (21 012 317) Summary: Mr X complained the Council has failed to provide an education for his daughter, Y, when she became too anxious to attend school in September 2021. We find the Council at fault, which caused Y to miss out on educational provision and put Mr X to avoidable time and trouble. To remedy this, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and Y, to make them several payments and to review its procedures. Surrey County Council (21 017 133) Summary: Mrs K complains the Council failed to ensure her son received a suitable education when he was out of school due to anxiety. We have found fault. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment for her son's educational benefit to acknowledge the injustice caused. London Borough of Croydon (21 018 626) Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not properly consider her request for a personal budget to provide education for her son, Mr Y and failed to implement the provision set out in his Education, Health and Care plan between November 2021 and July 2022. There was no fault in the Council's decision not to provide a personal budget for direct payments. However, the Council failed to provide most of the special educational provision for Mr Y. The Council agreed to pay Mr Y £2800 to recognise the education he missed, reimburse the costs Ms X accrued in arranging some of Mr Y's provision and pay her £500 to recognise the time and trouble caused to her by the Council's fault. Oxfordshire County Council (22 000 999) Summary: Mrs D complained the Council delayed adopting her daughter's Education, Health and Care plan when they moved to the area. She also says the Council did not meet the provision outlined in her daughter's Education, Health and Care plan. We find the Council was at fault as it failed to adhere to statutory timescales. It also failed to ensure Mrs D's daughter received the provision outlined in her Education, Health and Care plan. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (22 001 289) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's application of its home to school transport policy. There was fault in the way the Council conducted its stage 2 appeal which caused Mrs X uncertainty. There was also delay holding the panel. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X, reconvene a stage 2 panel and update its policy to reflect statutory guidance. Staffordshire County Council (22 002 070) Summary: Mrs X complained her son, Y, was not provided with an education from March 2021 until February 2022. Mrs X also complained the Council did not adhere to the statutory timescales to amend Y's Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) and her complaints have not been responded to within appropriate timescales. This has caused Mrs X distress. The Council was at fault for not amending the EHCP within timescales and did not ensure Y received an appropriate education or provision. There have been delays throughout this case and Mrs X has been put to time and trouble to complain. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice these faults have caused. Hertfordshire County Council (22 002 670) Summary: The Council was at fault because it failed to ensure a child received speech and language therapy. However, the Council has offered an appropriate remedy for this. The Council was also at fault because it delayed consulting the therapist about the possibility of arranging catch-up sessions; and, although there was no material impact from this delay, it has agreed to apologise for the frustration it caused. We have therefore completed our investigation. Worcestershire County Council (22 004 577) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to ensure Y received suitable education while out of school, resulting in missed education and distress to Y and his family. We found the Council at fault. We recommended it provide an apology to Mrs X, pay £300 for distress, pay £7200 for missed education and act to prevent recurrence. North Yorkshire County Council (22 007 592) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays issuing an Education Health and Care plan This is because it is unlikely we could achieve a different remedy than already offered and therefore further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Leeds City Council (22 001 012) Summary: Ms X complained about the Council's actions in dealing with a child protection investigation about her daughter. We have found fault with how the Council conducted aspects of the investigation. The resulting delays and uncertainty would have caused Ms X avoidable distress. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X, pay her £500 and review some of its procedures. Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (22 007 588) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's substantiating concerns about Mr X's care of a foster child. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council's actions to warrant investigation. Sheffield City Council (22 007 683) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint about matters relating to her grandchildren being removed from their mother's care because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from considering complaints about matters that have been considered in court proceedings. Reading Borough Council (22 008 036) Summary: We uphold Ms 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. London Borough of Sutton (22 008 391) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about a Council officer's inappropriate behaviour towards her. This is because an investigation by this office could not add to the response and remedy already recommended via the Council's previous investigation. Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (22 008 525) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a social worker giving Mr X permission to record a telephone call, then the Council substantiating a concern about him based on his doing so. Any fault by the Council is unlikely to have caused enough injustice to Mr X to warrant investigation. Hampshire County Council (22 008 604) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about children services actions. We cannot investigate a CAFCAS report or matters which have been part of legal proceedings. The Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to consider his data protection complaints. Derbyshire County Council (22 008 911) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has delayed addressing a matter under the statutory procedure for complaints about children's services. This is because we would achieve nothing significant by doing so. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (21 010 226) Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of Y about the Council's handling of Y's education, health and care plan and alternative provision when she could not attend school. She says Y missed provision she was entitled to. The Council was at fault for using a flawed medical provision policy and for not assessing how many hours of tuition Y could access. This caused uncertainty about the tuition the Council would have offered Y if it was not for its faults. The Council has agreed to make a payment to remedy the injustice caused to Y and carry out service improvements. North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (21 016 079) Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not properly assess or review her child D's special educational needs or provide suitable alternative education while they were out of school. There was fault in how the Council followed its Education Health and Care Plan review process and considered its duties to provide suitable alternative education. This meant D missed education, which caused avoidable distress to D, and avoidable distress, time, and trouble for their parents. The Council agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy, review relevant procedures, and issue reminders to its staff. Kent County Council (21 019 100) Summary: Mr C complained about the Council's failure to find an education placement for his son D since May 2021. While recognising the efforts the Council has made, we found fault which has caused D and his family significant injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay £3,250 for the educational benefit of D and £300 to Mr C and consider steps to widen the availability of placements for the future. Surrey County Council (22 001 754) Summary: B missed almost a year of education because the Council was unable to arrange school transport for him. The Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment to recognise the impact on B's education. Wanstead Church Primary School (22 001 915) Summary: the school did not properly consider Mrs M's request for deferred entry to Reception for her son, B. However, the school has reconsidered and agreed B can start in Reception in September 2023 if he is offered a place. This is a satisfactory outcome. Worcestershire County Council (22 008 372) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about support provided to his child in a preschool setting. St. Peter's RC Primary & Nursery School (22 008 805) 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 and so we cannot question the merits of the panel's decision. St. Peter's RC Primary & Nursery School (22 008 949) 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 and so we cannot question the merits of the panel's decision. Southend-on-Sea City Council (20 011 744) Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council dealt with social work assessments for her son, and how it dealt with her complaints about the matter. As a result she says she and her son have not received the support they need and she has incurred costs in providing a report. We find that the Council carried out the latest social work assessment properly. There was some fault in earlier assessments which was unlikely to have affected the outcome. We recommend that the Council remind relevant staff across all social work teams of the need to consider and record whether the child involved in an assessment is a disabled child. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (22 002 962) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council has not allowed her to have contact with her former foster child, Y. Mrs X also complained the Council failed to provide sufficient support for her and Y to maintain the placement and she was pushed into giving notice on the placement. Mrs X says this has caused her emotional distress and financial hardship. The Council was not at fault. North Northamptonshire Council (22 008 574) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about data protection issues. The Information Commissioner's Office is better placed. Suffolk County Council (22 008 758) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's decision not to consider her complaint until ongoing court proceedings have concluded. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council's approach. North Northamptonshire Council (22 001 133) Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her sister, Mrs Y. Mrs X complained the Council has not reviewed Mrs Y's son, Z's, Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) since it was issued in 2019 and Z had no school place. Mrs X also complained about the poor communication from the Council and dealing with this has caused Z and his family significant anxiety and distress. The Council was at fault. The Council did not review the EHCP and did not ensure Z received a suitable education. The communication with the Council has been difficult and Mrs Y has been put to time and trouble to complain. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice these faults have caused. St Michael's Catholic Grammar School, North Finchley (22 002 950) Summary: The Ombudsman has ended its investigation into Ms X's complaint about the decision to refuse her appeal for an out of year school place. The school has now offered her daughter a place as requested. Essex County Council (22 008 490) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision not to provide his child with free transport to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Wiltshire Council (22 008 711) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to name the complainant's preferred placement in his son's Education Health and Care Plan. The complainant has used his right to appeal and this places the matter outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. Norfolk County Council (22 008 734) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that fault on the Council's part has delayed the complainant's admission to an appropriate school. This is because we could not achieve anything significant by doing so. Kent County Council (22 008 847) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision not to provide their son with free transport to nursery. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. Sheffield City Council (22 005 443) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint about her daughter's Education, Health and Care plan. Mrs X should have appealed to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. Wiltshire Council (21 003 520) Summary: Mrs X complains about the actions of the Council's designated officer for allegations who managed a safeguarding allegation made against her. Mrs X says this matter caused her mental distress and upset. There was no fault in the Council's actions. 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