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. London Borough of Croydon (21 013 878) Summary: Ms B complained that after October 2019 the Council did not support her in arranging suitable respite care for her disabled son, Mr C. Ms B made separate complaints to the Council's children and adult care services as her complaint spanned the time when Mr C moved between the two services. Redcar & Cleveland Council (22 001 507) Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of his wife, Mrs X, that the Council failed to provide respite provision for their disabled child. Lincolnshire County Council (21 015 619) Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to ensure her son received the provision specified in his Education, Health, and Care Plan causing distress to both her and her son. We found there was fault by the Council as it failed to ensure all the provision was in place. This caused injustice to Ms X and Y. The Council has accepted our recommendation to make a payment to Ms X, so we have completed our investigation. Wakefield City Council (22 009 113) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council forcing Ms X to appeal to the SEND Tribunal and of the Council's conduct during the appeal process. This is because Ms X has used her right of appeal and the complaint is outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (22 009 382) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed in its duty to provide an appropriate school place for the complainant's son. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council's part. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (22 009 939) 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. London Borough of Camden (21 008 097) Summary: Ms B complained how the Council handled concerns she raised about its handling of her foster care placement. We find the Council was at fault as it significantly delayed responding to Ms B's complaint. It also failed to provide the stage two officers with all the relevant files, and it wrongly interpreted some of her concerns. This means her complaint has not been considered properly. The Council has agreed our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault. Leicestershire County Council (22 001 151) Summary: Mrs B complained on her own behalf and that of her family, including her husband and seven children, including four looked-after children that Mr and Mrs B agreed to care for in 2017. She complained the Council had failed to find a satisfactory solution to provide enough living space for them all. This was Mrs B's second complaint, after an earlier investigation found the Council had not made a satisfactory offer of support. On this occasion, we found the Council had made a largely satisfactory offer of support, although we found fault in the time taken to make that offer. The Council accepted this finding and agreed action to remedy the injustice caused as a result, set out at the end of this statement. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (22 008 453) Summary: We uphold Ms X's complaint that the Council delayed in considering her complaint within its Children Act statutory complaints' procedure. The Council has agreed to make a payment for the injustice caused by this delay. Cornwall Council (22 008 915) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker and about the Council's response to the subsequent complaint. This is because we could add nothing significant to the investigation the Council has already carried out. Cheshire East Council (22 009 098) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about children services' actions because there are other bodies better placed to do so. Surrey County Council (22 000 603) Summary: Mr X complained about delays and other errors in the Education, Health and Care assessment process for his son, Y. There was fault in how the Council prepared Y's Education, Health and Care plan and responded to Mr X's complaint. This caused Mr X avoidable inconvenience, frustration, time and trouble, for which the Council agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy. It also agreed to remind staff about the importance of properly considering comments on draft Education, Health and Care plans. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (22 001 378) Summary: Mrs B complains the Council did not ensure her son, Y, received the support outlined in his EHCP. She says the Council also cancelled a review meeting without notice and refused to obtain updated specialist reports. Mrs B says this caused distress and the lack of 1:1 led to incidents at school that were avoidable. We find fault in the lack of 1:1 provided and the delay in completing an annual review. However, we do not find fault in respect of its refusal to obtain specialist reports. Milton Keynes Council (22 005 996) Summary: Miss B complains the Council declined to assess her child, London Borough of Sutton (22 008 599) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the provision of education to his child. It is unlikely we could achieve a significantly different outcome. Kent County Council (22 009 251) Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs 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 for us to question the merits of its decisions. Surrey County Council (21 017 125) Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to deal properly with her complaint under the three-stage children's social care complaints procedure. The complaint was about failure to respond adequately to her requests for extra social care support for her disabled son. The children's social care complaint investigation identified failings by the Council, and there were faults in its complaint handling found in a previous Ombudsman's investigation. But we find that the Council was not at fault in dealing with the complaint since then. It has provided an appropriate response to the complaint. Leeds City Council (22 009 213) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's child protection involvement with her in the mid-1990s when she was a young child. The complaint is historic and lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late. There are no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now. Salford City Council (21 017 403) Summary: The complainant alleged that the Council delayed in completing her son's Education, Health and Care Plan and failed to provide alternative education when her son was out of school because of medical needs. We find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to the recommended ways to remedy the injustice caused. We have therefore completed our investigation and are closing the complaint. Leicester City Council (21 018 514) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to ensure provision in her daughter's Education, Health and Care Plan was delivered. We found fault by the Council for delays in securing some provision set out in the Plan. The Council has agreed to provide Mrs X with an apology and a symbolic payment to acknowledge the loss of provision to her daughter. Little Sutton Primary School (22 001 644) Summary: Mrs X complained about how the School's admissions appeal panel decided not to award her child a place in its reception class. The School was not at fault in how it considered Mrs X's appeal. But it was at fault in how it communicated the outcome of Mrs X's late change of preference application to her. This caused her frustration, for which it has agreed to apologise. It will also work with the local council to review how it responds to late change of preference applications. Maidstone Grammar School For Girls (22 005 459) Summary: Mrs X complains that she was denied a fair school admission appeal hearing as she did not receive emails about her appeal so did not have the opportunity to submit further information to the appeal panel. There is no evidence of fault by the School. Buckinghamshire Council (22 008 799) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the content of her son's Education Health and Care Plan. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (21 015 783) Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council carried out child protection proceedings and says he could not properly contribute to the process. Mr X also says the Council wrongly refused to investigate his complaint about S47 reports compiled for the proceedings. We have found fault by the Council. However, this fault did not cause Mr X an injustice. We have made recommendations to remedy the fault identified. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (22 002 348) Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain they were overpaid foster carer payments for six months after a child left their care. This caused them frustration and stress. In their view, they were also owed some payments. There was fault by the Council for the overpayments and unclear communication, but there was no evidence Mr and Mrs X were entitled to any outstanding money. The Council has agreed to provide them with an apology and agree a reasonable payment plan. London Borough of Croydon (22 004 078) Summary: The Council was at fault for its poor communication with Mr and Mrs X during the process of de-registering them as foster carers. It also failed to signpost them to a fostering support service and unnecessarily delayed in coming to its final decision on de-registration. However the Council was not at fault for not referring Mr and Mrs X's appeal to the Independent Review Mechanism (IRM) as Mr X did not request this when given the opportunity. In recognition of the injustice caused by these faults, the Council has agreed to pay Mr and Mrs X £200 and said it will provide evidence of service improvements it has carried out. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (22 008 316) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council delayed dealing with a complaint about how it safeguarded a child who was in foster care. This is because the Council has now issued its complaint response and has made an appropriate payment to remedy the delay. Therefore, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (22 009 278) Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X's complaint about a child protection plan which was considered in court proceedings because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been considered in court. We have no discretion to do so. Bitterne Park School (22 005 979) Summary: there is no fault in the Independent Appeal Panel's decision not to admit Mr and Mrs P's daughter to the school. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions made without fault. Suffolk County Council (22 007 051) Summary: The Council was at fault as it failed to provide Ms E's son with alternative education by the agreed deadline following a previous complaint she made to us. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault. Suffolk County Council (22 008 388) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about her son's home to school transport. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. London Borough of Haringey (21 013 736) Summary: We uphold X's complaint that the Council delayed in considering their complaint within its children statutory complaints' procedure. The Council has agreed to do so without further delay. Luton Borough Council (22 007 849) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters such as this which are subject to ongoing court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (22 008 665) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's children's services actions in relation to the contact and care arrangements of a child. This is because the matters are subject to court proceedings which place them out of our jurisdiction. Wiltshire Council (22 009 418) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about what a social worker said in court. 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 cannot be separated from court proceedings. Kent County Council (21 017 970) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her son, Z, with either a suitable general education or the provision in his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and did not consult with schools after Z's school said it could not meet his needs. Mrs X says this caused Z to miss out on education which disadvantaged him. The Council's duty to act to provide Z with a suitable education did not arise because a school place remained available to him. The Council was at fault for delays in sourcing support to meet Z's social needs between September 2021 and March 2022. It has agreed to pay Mrs X £500 to remedy this. It was also at fault for the delays in issuing Z's final amended EHC Plan, failing to consider whether Z's needs required reassessing and for how it handled the 2022 annual review of Z's Plan. However, this did not cause Mrs X or Z a significant injustice. London Borough of Brent (22 000 781) Summary: Ms Y complained that the Council failed to pay a British Sign Language interpreter which led to the interpreter withdrawing the services provided to Ms Y's daughter, Miss X. We find the Council was at fault. This led to Miss X not receiving all the educational provision specified in her Education, Health and Care plan. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address this injustice. London Borough of Bromley (22 001 138) Summary: Ms X complained about delays with getting professional advice and issuing an Education and Health Care Plan (EHCP) for her daughter (Z). She also complained about the Council's unsatisfactory communication throughout the EHCP process. Ms X said the Council's failings had detrimental effect on Z at the critical stage of her education, caused them distress and resulted in the family's financial difficulties. We find the Council at fault for failing to comply with the EHCP timescales and to effectively communicate with Ms X. The Council has accepted our recommendations for personal remedies and service improvements. London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (22 008 926) 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 panel's decision. Suffolk County Council (22 009 170) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council's school admission appeal panel was at fault in refusing the complainant's appeal for a school place for her daughter. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council's part. Lancashire County Council (21 005 992) Summary: Mrs W complains the Council has prevented her from having contact with her grandson (Child A) who is a looked after child. She also says the Council's communications with her have been poor and that presents she left for Child A have not been passed on. There was no fault in the way the Council has sought to facilitate contact between Mrs W and Child A. The level of alleged injustice relating to the presents Mrs W left for Child A is insufficient to warrant us investigating that issue. We did however identify some fault in the way the Council communicated with Mrs W which caused her significant uncertainty and distress. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy this. Surrey County Council (21 018 132) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has not completed some of the agreed remedy actions after it upheld her complaints following an investigation under the children's statutory complaints procedure. The Council is at fault. It has not completed some of the actions agreed. There was also poor record keeping which has caused uncertainty about how the decision to refuse Mrs X support as a parent carer was reached. The Council will apologise to Mrs X for the frustration and uncertainty caused and improve its services. London Borough of Croydon (22 003 832) Summary: Ms Y complains the Council failed to consider whether her family's housing conditions meant any of her children were 'in need' (under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989). We found fault by the Council, which meant Ms Y missed out on the Council carrying out Child in Need assessments for her children. To remedy this, the Council has agreed to: apologise to Ms Y, make her a payment, and carry out the assessment for her youngest child. The Council has also agreed to make several service improvements. 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