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. North Yorkshire County Council (21 007 839) Summary: The Council was at fault when it produced Mr X's son's Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) seven months late. This caused uncertainty to Mr X and his son as it was unclear what education his son would receive and Mr X lost his right to appeal a key period of provision to the special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) Tribunal. The Council has agreed to pay Mr X £1,600 in recognition of the avoidable injustice caused and carry out several service improvements. Medway Council (21 012 591) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's failure to provide her son, who has special educational needs with a suitable education and related matters. We have found the Council to be at fault because it failed to provide alternative education when Mrs X's son was too ill to attend school and did not properly consider what level of home tuition was suitable. To remedy the missed education and distress, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mrs X and review its practices. We did not investigate parts of Mrs X's complaint because they either happened too long ago or were matters that were appealable to the Tribunal. Somerset County Council (22 010 255) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the school named in an Education Health and Care Plan. This is because the complainant has used her right of appeal to a tribunal and this places the matter outside our jurisdiction. Birmingham City Council (22 010 565) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's conduct of the assessment process in the period before a Tribunal hearing due to determine Miss X's child's special educational needs provision. The type and quality of assessments carried out is not separable from the Council's judgements about the child's special educational needs, in respect of which Miss X has used her right of appeal to a Tribunal. London Borough of Haringey (20 009 266) Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's child protection involvement with her family because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been considered in court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so. Essex County Council (22 007 473) 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 completing its stage two investigation and providing an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused to the complainant by its delay. London Borough of Southwark (22 009 312) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about a child protection assessment in 2020. There are no good reasons the late complaint rule should not apply. Derby City Council (22 010 145) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about child protection action taken by the Council. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation. Norfolk County Council (22 010 813) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement with the complainant's family and the living arrangements of their child. This is because we cannot consider complaints linked to court proceedings or achieve the outcome the complainant wants. Kent County Council (21 018 105) Summary: Mrs B says the Council delayed consulting specialist schools, delayed reviewing her son's education, health and care plan and failed to communicate with her effectively. The Council misled Mrs B about the type of school it intended to seek for her son, delayed reviewing the education, health and care plan and failed to communicate properly with her. An apology, payment to Mrs B and a meeting to discuss the way forward is satisfactory remedy. Dover Grammar School for Boys (22 003 867) Summary: Mrs F complains about an independent appeal panel's decision to reject her appeal for a grammar school place for her son. We found no fault by the panel. Slough Borough Council (22 009 634) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council refusing to pay a personal budget for education provision. Mr X has appealed to the Tribunal and we cannot investigate the same issues. London Borough of Brent (22 009 821) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council's case records misrepresented the complainant. That is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. London Borough of Brent (22 011 221) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to carry out an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to the SEND Tribunal. We have no powers to consider a complaint about the school Mrs X's daughter attends. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (21 016 479) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's actions in relation to his child's Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council was not at fault. Royal Borough of Greenwich (22 009 190) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about a Council's decision to de register her as a foster carer. It is reasonable to expect her to have used the Independent Review Mechanism. London Borough of Croydon (22 009 191) Summary: The complainant's (Mr Y) representative (Advice Centre) said the Council failed by refusing to investigate Mr Y's out-of-time complaint at stage two of its children's complaint procedure. We found fault in the way the Council dealt with Mr Y's complaint. This caused him injustice. The Council agreed to apologise, consider Mr Y's complaint at stage two and provide staff training. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (22 010 925) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's child protection action. The principal matters complained of are not separable from matters that were or could reasonably have been subject to court action and we cannot investigate them. The complaint is also largely historic, and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate elements of it that are separable from court action. We have no consent to investigate matters concerning another person. Hertfordshire County Council (21 012 612) Summary: Mrs Y complains the Council failed to arrange suitable educational provision for her child, B. She complains the Council failed to put in place adjustments to meet B's disability-related needs so B could access any provision offered. We have decided to uphold Mrs Y's complaint because there is evidence of fault by the Council causing injustice. To remedy this, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs Y and B and make several payments. The Council has also agreed to make certain service improvements. Essex County Council (22 000 336) Summary: Mr B complained the Council's transport provider repeatedly failed to transport his disabled son to school, and the Council failed to properly respond to his complaints. We found the Council caused a service failure as it failed its duty to ensure Mr B's son was transported to school in line with his special educational needs. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr B and make payment to remedy the injustice this caused him and his son. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (22 003 398) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide suitable alternative provision whilst her daughter, C, was unable to attend school. We find the Council was at fault for failing to provide alternative provision. We have recommended that the Council make a financial payment for the loss of education and review its policy. Staffordshire County Council (22 004 672) Summary: Mrs Y complains about the Council not providing any alternative education when her daughter was not well enough to attend school. The Ombudsman's provisional view is we cannot investigate most of the period when Mrs Y's daughter was out of school. This is because Mrs Y had appealed a decision that was linked to the matter under compliant. We find no fault for the period we can consider. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (22 005 165) Summary: Ms X complained the Council's school admissions appeal failed to properly consider her case when he appealed the refusal of a school place at a local school. The Council was not at fault in how it considered Ms X's appeal. However, the decision letter contained incorrect information which is fault. The Council agreed to amend the letter to prevent future fault. West Sussex County Council (22 006 140) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the quality of reports produced by the Council in assessing Mrs X's child's special educational needs. The matters complained of are not separable from the content of an eventual Educational Health and Care Plan decided upon by the Council, where there is a right to appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal Mrs X has used. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (22 009 267) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council adopting a child protection plan, nor a social worker's actions. Other bodies are better placed, and we are unlikely to find fault in the Council adopting a child protection conferences recommendations. Surrey County Council (22 010 349) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about an assessment by the Council. The matters complained of are not separable from matters that were or could reasonably have been raised in court. Medway Council (21 018 092) Summary: The Council failed to make suitable alternative provision for Mrs B's son, C, when he was unable to attend school because of anxiety. This caused the family significant distress and C missed out on education. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs B to remedy the injustice caused. Wiltshire Council (22 000 360) Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed assessing her son, C's, special educational needs following a request in January 2021. There were delays in the assessment. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the frustration caused to C and his family. Surrey County Council (22 001 375) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to agree a personal budget for her daughter, Y's, Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP), leaving her to fund Y's education. We find the Council at fault for delays. We recommend the Council apologise to Ms X and Y, pay £400 and act to prevent recurrence. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (22 001 672) Summary: Mr Y complained on behalf of Ms X, that the Council did not properly assess her child D's special educational needs, and did not provide suitable alternative education while they were out of school. There was fault in how the Council followed its assessment and planning process and how it considered its duties to provide suitable alternative education. This meant D missed education, and caused avoidable distress for D, and avoidable distress, time, and trouble for Ms X. The Council agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy, review D's school transport arrangements, review relevant procedures, and issue reminders to its staff. London Borough of Bexley (22 011 226) Summary: Mrs X complained about the selection test for grammar school entry. She said it was badly organised and this affected her son's performance in the test. We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint. This is because Mrs X will have a right of appeal to an independent panel if her son is refused a place at her preferred school. London Borough of Havering (22 005 947) 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. Southampton City Council (22 006 276) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about children services actions. Some parts we have no power to investigate. There are other bodies better placed for other parts. And we are unlikely to find fault in the Council's decision to make child protection enquiries. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (22 010 572) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's actions connected with the removal of Ms X's children from her care. The matters complained of are not separable from matters that either formed or could reasonably have formed part of court proceedings. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (21 017 247) Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of himself and his daughter Ms Y, who has mental health difficulties, about the circumstances in which Ms Y left a family assessment centre during a COVID-19 outbreak. He holds the Council responsible for the decision and says it has failed to recognise the impact of the distress caused. We find that the Council was at fault as found in the statutory children's social care complaints procedure. Ms Y had a long and distressing journey as a result. But we cannot say Mr and Mrs X contracted COVID-19 as a direct consequence of the Council's actions. The Council has agreed a financial remedy for the distress caused to the family. Dorset Council (21 017 920) Summary: there was a delay making suitable arrangements for Ms M's son, B's education and amending his Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. I have recommended a symbolic remedy. Since making her complaint to the Ombudsman, Ms M said the Council had still not issued B's EHC Plan and he remained out of school. If it has not already done so, the Council should issue B's EHC Plan and arrange suitable, full-time education for him – following all relevant guidance and procedures – without further delay. Ms M can make a new complaint if she remains dissatisfied with the Council's actions since her first complaint to us. Essex County Council (22 000 381) Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to ensure her son, C, received the provision outlined in his Education, Health and Care Plan. Further she says the Council delayed issuing an amended Plan. We find the Council was at fault for failing to provide some of the agreed provision and delaying issuing an amended Plan. The Council has agreed to make a financial payment to recognise the injustice caused. Manchester City Council (22 007 055) Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's refusal to provide free home to school transport to his daughter who has a learning disability. The Council has failed to assess the child's ability to walk the required distance (even if accompanied). It applied the wrong legal test and did not follow its own policy. This is fault and casts doubt on the decision reached. The family may have missed out on free transport and has been put to unnecessary time and trouble bringing the complaint. The Council will review its decision, make service improvements, offer a financial remedy if it decides to overturn its previous decision and make a time and trouble payment to Mr X. Sunderland City Council (22 007 536) Summary: there is no fault in the Council's decision to refuse Ms M's request for deferred entry to Reception for her daughter. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions made without fault. Kent County Council (22 007 753) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council has failed to provide the provision outlined in her son, C's, Education, Health and Care plan. There were delays in the Council arranging the placement listed in Section I. The Council have agreed apologise and make a payment to recognise the injustice caused. London Borough of Redbridge (22 009 853) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in issuing a child's Education Health and Care Plan. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The injustice from the delay is not significant enough to warrant an investigation. Worcestershire County Council (22 001 941) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to facilitate contact arrangements with her child, failed to provide her with information about whether her child would be adopted and failed to provide her with travel expenses. We found fault with the Council. The Council has already made changes to how it deals with Ms X moving forwards and provided a rebate for travel expenses incurred. The Council agreed to pay Ms X £1,000 for the distress and worry caused by its fault. Staffordshire County Council (22 006 822) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a safeguarding failure by the Council. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation. We cannot investigate the actions of the school in this case. Surrey County Council (22 009 183) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to make suitable and timely arrangements for Miss X's son's special educational needs, for the final EHC plan being deficient and not fit for purpose, and for the named placement being unsuitable. This is because it is reasonable to expect Miss X to use her right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal. London Borough of Sutton (22 010 625) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's treatment of Mr X. The matters complained of are not separable from matters that either formed or could reasonably have formed part of court proceedings. Derby City Council (22 010 758) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement with the complainant's family and the living arrangements of their child. This is because we cannot consider complaints linked to court proceedings or achieve the outcome the complainant wants. 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