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. Kent County Council (22 011 002) 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. London Borough of Barnet (21 013 529) Summary: Miss C and Mr D complain about the Council's handling of a children's safeguarding referral and their subsequent complaint which they say caused unnecessary upset and damaged family relationships. The Council accepted fault and agreed several actions and offered £1,450. We found fault by the Council and it has agreed to an additional payment of £250 to each complainant and an offer of counselling which we are satisfied provides a suitable remedy. Surrey County Council (22 007 478) Summary: Mrs X complained about delays in how the Council considered her complaint about its adoption service. The Council was at fault for significant delays in arranging an independent stage three panel. This caused Mrs X frustration and meant she had to go to avoidable time and trouble. The Council will pay Mrs X £300 in recognition of that injustice. It will also promptly arrange the stage three panel hearing and carry out staff training. Bristol City Council (22 008 395) Summary: We uphold Mr X's complaint that the Council has failed to reply to his complaint within its Children Act statutory complaints' procedure. The Council has agreed to make a payment for the injustice caused by this and to now complete the procedure. Suffolk County Council (22 009 818) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about a court report and the conduct of the social worker involved in Mr X's case. This is because we cannot investigate complaints about what happened in court. This includes the content of court reports. The actions of the social worker are not separable from the report. Also, we cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X wants. Worcestershire County Council (21 018 357) Summary: Mr and Mrs D complained the Council failed to provide their son with the education and specialist provision set out in his Education, Health and Care plan. They also say the Council failed to provide adequate alternative education when their son was no longer able to attend school. We find the Council was at fault for failing to provide full-time education for Mr and Mrs D's son when he was out of school or record the reasons part-time provision was suitable for him. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault. Suffolk County Council (22 003 415) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide suitable transport to and from school for her child. We found fault with the Council failing to provide suitable transport. The Council agreed to our recommendations to provide an apology to Y and pay Mrs X £300, for Y's benefit, for the missed education, stress and difficulty Y experienced. Royal Borough of Greenwich (22 009 444) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay by the Council in issuing an Education Health and Care Plan. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation. Essex County Council (22 009 947) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault for us to question the merits of the panel's decision. Blackburn with Darwen Council (22 004 089) Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council responded to concerns for the welfare of children living at the same home as Mr X. It had reasons for these concerns, and it acted to safeguard the children in line with statutory guidelines. Cumbria County Council (22 006 918) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed investigating her complaint at stage two of the children's statutory complaints procedure. She said the delay caused her frustration and distress. The Council was at fault as failed to complete the stage two investigation within the statutory timescales. The Council has agreed to complete the stage two investigation within 65 working days, pay Mrs X £100 in recognition of the frustration and distress caused and review its procedures. Sunderland City Council (22 009 473) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council assessed Mrs X as not suitable to supervise family contact between her nephew and his children. That is because the matters she complains of have been considered by the Court and we have no jurisdiction to investigate. Reading Borough Council (22 010 460) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision to make an application to the family court for an interim care order for his child because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from considering complaints about matters that are subject to court proceedings. Norfolk County Council (22 010 877) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the accuracy of medical records and GP services. This is because the Council is not responsible for the matter complained about. Nottinghamshire County Council (21 004 069) Summary: Mrs M complains about the payments she received to transport her daughter, G, to school. The Council has agreed an additional payment so Mrs M receives the equivalent of its new and improved 'disabled travel assistance payment' from its introduction. London Borough of Southwark (22 004 315) Summary: We did not find fault with the way the Council considered Ms X's complaint through the statutory complaint process. Derbyshire County Council (22 004 335) Summary: Mrs D complains about an unsuccessful appeal to the Council in relation to her son's (Young Person X) application for free school transport. She says the appeal panel errored in its assessment of whether Young Person X was eligible for free school transport. Further, Mrs D alleges there was a serious delay in her appeal being heard. She also says the hearing was procedurally biased and fell short of the standards expected of an independent process. We found a delay by the Council in convening an independent appeal panel. However, this did not prejudice the appeal panel's decision. The Council's appeal panel considered Mrs D's representations and made the necessary material considerations with procedural accuracy. We therefore have no authority to question the merits of the decision made. Nevertheless, the identified delay caused Mrs D an injustice and the Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy this. Birmingham City Council (22 009 934) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the response of the Council to a complaint about bullying in Ms X's child's school. We cannot investigate the actions of the school and there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation. Central Bedfordshire Council (22 010 004) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the content of an Education Health and Care Plan. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to the SEND Tribunal. If Mrs X wants to challenge the Council's decision not to provide her daughter with free transport she can do so through the Council's own appeals process. Staffordshire County Council (22 006 394) Summary: The Council failed to apply the correct legal test when deciding an application for free home to school transport for a child with an Education, Health and Care Plan. The complainant says this has had an adverse financial impact and caused his son anxiety. The Council will review its decision, consider if financial redress is due, apologise and provide a time and trouble payment. The Council will also review whether other families have been similarly affected. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (22 009 882) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to produce an Education, Health and Care Plan for Mrs X's child Y. This is because Mrs X has appealed the decision at SEND Tribunal and the matter is therefore out of our jurisdiction. London Borough of Enfield (22 009 218) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of Children's Social Care. That is because the matters have been considered by the Court and we have no jurisdiction to investigate. Manchester City Council (22 009 233) Summary: I uphold this complaint because the Council was at fault in failing to respond reasonably to the complainant's request for the provision of post-adoption information for her children. The Council has agreed to resolve the matter by providing a suitable remedy Telford & Wrekin Council (22 009 531) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about matters relating to the Council's child protection involvement with her family. This is because there is nothing we could add to the response provided by the Council which explains it cannot consider her complaint until the court proceedings have concluded. Durham County Council (22 010 166) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about what the Council wrote in an assessment. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The content of the assessment is not separable from matters that formed part of court proceedings. Norfolk County Council (22 010 225) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to respond fully to a complaint about the actions of its officers in the course of child protection action. This is because it is unlikely we could add anything significant to the response the Council has made. London Borough of Bexley (22 010 501) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council taking Ms X's child away. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The matter complained of has been subject to court action. Bracknell Forest Council (21 018 119) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide the provision set out in her son's Education, Health and Care plan, and it failed to address all of her complaint. Ms X said this had a disproportionate impact on her son's physical wellbeing due to the nature of his conditions. She said it also caused unnecessary distress and uncertainty. We find the Council at fault, and this fault caused Ms X and her son injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and make a payment to her to reflect the injustice caused. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (22 006 339) Summary: We are unable to investigate the majority of this complaint, about delays by the Council during a mediation and appeal process, because these matters fall outside our jurisdiction. The Council was at fault for a modest delay in completing an assessment after the appeal, but it has already apologised for this, which is an adequate remedy. We have therefore completed our investigation. Essex County Council (22 009 625) Summary: Miss X complained about the Council's decision not to provide her daughter with post-16 transport to school. We will not investigate her complaint. 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 by the Council to warrant an investigation. London Borough of Bexley (22 010 726) Summary: A parent complained that the selection test for grammar school entry which her son sat was badly organised and he underperformed in the test as a result. But we will not investigate this matter because the parent will have a right of appeal to an independent appeal panel if her son is refused a place at her preferred grammar school. Hertfordshire County Council (21 018 414) Summary: Ms B complained that the Council failed to properly support her as a foster carer when her first foster child was placed with her and delayed in making payments to her. She said this caused her a great deal of stress and resulted in the placement breaking down. We found the Council was at fault in failing to accept Ms B's complaint into its corporate complaints procedure. To remedy the injustice caused by this, the Council has agreed to investigate the complaint. Swindon Borough Council (22 001 043) Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide them with appropriate information about two children they adopted in 2019 which they say contributed to the breakdown of the placement. There was no fault in how the Council investigated Mr and Mrs X's complaints under the statutory children's complaints procedure or the recommendations made. It agreed to provide us with evidence it has completed them. The Council significantly delayed carrying out the complaints procedure and failed to provide Mr and Mrs X with the stage 3 report which was fault. It agreed to pay them £300 to remedy the injustice that caused. Nottinghamshire County Council (22 008 760) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the production and content of a child and family assessment because we would achieve nothing significant by doing so. Hampshire County Council (22 009 335) Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed consideration under the children's statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint by responding to the complainant at stage one of the procedure. North East Lincolnshire Council (22 010 398) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about Council actions that concern Miss X's contact with her children. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The matters complained of are not separable from matters which form part of or could reasonably form part of court proceedings. 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