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. Hertfordshire County Council (22 004 357) Summary: Miss X complains her son D has been out of education for three years. We find fault with the Council for delays with D's Education Health and Care Plan, delay with the complaint response, failure to properly explain Elective Home Education to Miss X, and failure to provide alternative provision to D. We have suggested financial remedies for the injustice caused to Miss X, with service improvements to ensure it does not happen again. Darlington Borough Council (22 006 556) Summary: Miss X complains about the Council's decision to refuse her appeal for home to school transport for her son who has special educational needs. We find that the Council was at fault. It has not explained its decision adequately and so has not demonstrated it considered the appeal properly. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Miss X to recognise the impact of its failings. It will also arrange another appeal hearing and remind appeal panel members about the importance of properly explaining their decisions. If the appeal is successful the Council will reimburse Miss X's reasonable transport costs. Surrey County Council (22 009 150) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions in issuing an Education Health and Care Plan and the educational provision being made. Mrs X has exercised her right of appeal to a tribunal and the matters complained of are not separable from that. Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (21 006 196) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about child protection action by the Council. There is not enough evidence of fault causing injustice by the Council to warrant investigation. Gloucestershire County Council (21 018 698) Summary: Mrs Y complains on behalf of her daughter, Miss X, that the Council did not fully secure the provision detailed in Section F of Miss X's Education, Health and Care Plan. We have found the Council at fault for not securing the provision specified in Section F of the plan. The faults identified in this statement have caused Miss X an injustice. We have made recommendations to remedy this injustice. Oxfordshire County Council (22 010 697) Summary: I uphold this complaint because the Council was at fault in delaying its response under the statutory process for complaints about children's services. The Council has agreed to resolve the matter by providing a suitable remedy for the injustice the complainant has been caused. Hertfordshire County Council (22 001 693) Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed providing her son, Y with travel training and school transport. We have found fault with the Council for not processing Y's application within 10 working days. We do not consider this to have caused an injustice to Y or Ms X. St. William of York RC Primary School (22 011 286) Summary: We will not investigate Mr 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. Derbyshire County Council (22 011 435) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the educational provision for Mrs X's child. This matter is not separable from matters in respect of which Mrs X has used her right of appeal to a tribunal. Leeds City Council (21 018 203) Summary: Miss X complained how the Council managed a child protection matter in relation to her child. There was no fault by the Council. London Borough of Barnet (22 003 773) Summary: Ms C complained the Council failed to give accurate and truthful information in relation to a foster child who was placed in her care. She also says the Council delayed providing her with appropriate support during the placement. We find the Council was at fault as it failed to provide Ms C with all the relevant information before the foster placement began. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault. Thurrock Council (22 008 590) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council's children's services carried out an assessment of a child's care needs. This is because court proceedings have commenced to consider the child's care. Staffordshire County Council (21 014 869) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly consider her application for travel assistance for her son, C. Mrs X says that without the travel assistance, C is unable to receive the bespoke educational package in his Education, Health and Care Plan. There is fault in how the Council considered the application and the Council has agreed to reconsider the application and make a payment to remedy the injustice caused to Mrs X and C. London Borough of Newham (21 018 447) Summary: There was fault and excessive delay in the way the Council carried out an EHC needs assessment. There was fault in failing to provide a child out of school with anxiety with s.19 education. There was fault in failing to secure therapy provision in an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. This led to loss of education and distress. The Council will make a financial payment, apologise and make service improvements. Warrington Council (22 000 772) Summary: Ms X complained about the Council's actions when drafting her son's Education, Health and Care Plan. We have discontinued our investigation. This is because the matters complained of are intrinsically linked to the content of the Education, Health and Care Plan. This is appealable to a tribunal and is therefore outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (22 001 118) Summary: There was delay in consulting a range of alternative schools, in holding an emergency review of an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan and in providing a new right of appeal when a child was not able to attend school over an extended period. While the child's health needs make it difficult to assess what impact the delay had, the uncertainty as to whether Y would have been able to return to school sooner, but for the fault, is itself an injustice. The Council will make a payment to acknowledge the injustice caused and make service improvements. London Borough of Croydon (22 002 241) Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide Occupational Therapy (OT) provision in line with her son, F's, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan between December 2021 and May 2022. The Council failed to deliver F's OT provision during this period which was fault. It agreed to pay Miss X £1000 to recognise the impact the loss of OT provision had on F. It also agreed to refund her the cost of the private OT assessment she commissioned during the EHC assessment process and carry out service improvements. Dartford Science & Technology College (22 004 695) Summary: Ms X complains that the independent appeal panel which dealt her appeal for a place for her daughter failed to consider all her evidence properly. She also complains that she was not told the appeal would be considered on written submissions only or that she send in further evidence after she submitted her appeal. We find there was no fault by the School or the appeal panel in these matters. London Borough of Hounslow (22 000 445) Summary: Ms Y complains about the Council's failure to provide adequate support when she was a looked after child. She also says the Council did not do enough to help her secure indefinite leave to remain in the UK. We find the Council has already undertaken a thorough and independent investigation of Ms Y's complaint and has provided an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by fault. We do not make any further recommendations. Cambridgeshire County Council (22 003 603) Summary: Ms D complained the Council's Children Services failed to provide enough support her daughter and properly consider her concerns under the statutory complaint procedure. We found the Council identified the faults it caused, apologised, completed the stage three review panel's recommendations, and offered Miss X a suitable payment to acknowledge the distress she experienced. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (22 010 026) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that a child was made subject to a child protection plan under the incorrect category. This is because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council. Cambridgeshire County Council (22 011 359) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to refuse an application and appeal for a Blue Badge. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council's part. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (21 003 846) Summary: Mrs Y complains on behalf of her daughter, Miss K, the Council delayed in issuing an amended Education, Health and Care Plan following a Tribunal decision and delayed in producing a personal budget. We have upheld Mrs Y's complaint because there is evidence of fault by the Council, which caused Miss K to miss out on certain educational provision. Mrs Y was caused distress and put to significant time and trouble chasing the Council. We also find the Council failed to register and process Mrs Y's complaint. To remedy this, the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss K and Mrs Y, and make several payments to Miss K, a payment to Mrs Y and certain service improvements. Kent County Council (22 000 478) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to deliver provision in her child, C's Education, Health, and Care Plan while she attended school. Mrs X also complained the Council's communication was poor and it failed to provide alternative provision or make amendments to C's Education, Health, and Care Plan when she removed C from the school roll. The Council was at fault for failing to follow the code of practice and poor communication. This caused Mrs X confusion and frustration and put her to the time and trouble of complaining. I have not found the Council at fault for its considerations about C's provision. The Council has agreed to my recommendations to remedy the injustice caused. Warwickshire County Council (22 002 198) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to finalise an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) for her daughter, Y, within statutory time limits. She also complained about poor communication. We find the Council at fault for missing deadlines and for inadequate communication. We recommend the Council apologises, makes a payment to recognise the avoidable uncertainty and time and trouble, and takes action to avoid recurrence. Poole High School (22 004 272) Summary: Mrs X complains that an appeal panel did not properly consider her appeal for a place at a school. We find the School is at fault as there is no evidence to show the appeal panel made a decision on whether the admission arrangements were lawful. This fault did not cause significant injustice to Mrs X. Surrey County Council (22 006 202) Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed finalising an Education Health and Care Plan ("EHCP") for his son, Y, and failed to arrange alternative provision while Y was out of school, resulting in missed education, costs and distress. We found the Council at fault. We recommended it provide an apology, reimburse Mr X's costs; pay £800 for missed education, pas £450 for time trouble and distress, arrange provision for Y going forward and act to prevent recurrence. Cheshire West & Chester Council (22 011 223) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about special educational needs provision for the complainant's son. This is because the complainant has used her right to appeal to a tribunal and this places the related matters outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (22 009 232) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to allow Mr X to have contact with his grandchild. That is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (22 009 952) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council's children's services in relation to child protection matters. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and because other bodies are better placed to deal with some matters. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (22 010 818) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's treatment of Mr X's application for social housing. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation. Bristol City Council (21 015 861) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council delayed reviewing an Education Health and Care plan and that it failed to arrange the provision detailed in that plan. This is because these matters are subject to court proceedings. Hampshire County Council (22 001 265) Summary: Mrs X's daughter, Y missed out on provision set out in her Education Health and Care Plan. The Council was at fault for some of the delays in meeting the provision. The Council agreed to remedy the injustice caused to Y and her family. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (22 007 576) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's response to the complainant's application for school transport assistance. This is because it is not for the Ombudsman to take a view on the substantive matter, which is the complainant's daughter's eligibility for school transport assistance. Oxfordshire County Council (22 008 072) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about delays in issuing an Education Health and Care Plan decision and in replying to her complaint. It is unlikely we will achieve a significantly different remedy. Oxfordshire County Council (22 008 404) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the time taken to issue an 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 personal injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation. Hampshire County Council (22 011 453) 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 Richmond upon Thames (21 000 960) Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to carry out agreed support and record information about her children. Miss X also complains about how her complaint was investigated. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for failing to properly record information, and for the issues identified in its complaint handling. However, the Council recognised the fault in its stage three complaint response and the remedies provided were in line with our guidance. We recommend no further action by the Council. London Borough of Southwark (21 011 116) Summary: Mrs X complained about the support the Council provided to her during a fostering placement and the length of time it took in making a decision about her future as a foster carer. The Council had acknowledged there was fault and had implemented learning points. The Council agreed to remedy the personal injustice to Mrs X by apologising to her and making a payment to reflect the distress its failures caused. Lancashire County Council (22 008 819) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the events that led to the complainant being placed in a school where he was abused. This is because the amount of time that has passed means that records no longer exist and we therefore cannot achieve the outcome that the complainant seeks. London Borough of Lewisham (22 009 973) 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. Buckinghamshire Council (22 011 274) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's removal of Mrs X's child. The matter complained of is not separable from matters that were before a court. Surrey County Council (22 002 615) Summary: Ms C complained the Council failed to keep proper records and shared her information with the father of her children, putting her at risk. We have discontinued the investigation because there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, the Information Commissioner. Ms C also complained about the Council's child protection investigation. The Council has not had an opportunity to consider this complaint and therefore it is premature. 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