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. Norfolk County Council (22 005 084) Summary: Mrs K complained about the support the Council provided her before it ended a fostering placement of a child in her care, and it failed to consider her views. She also said it made untrue accusations against her. As a result, Mrs K said she experienced distress and had a loss of income. We found no fault by the Council. It had put support in place for Mrs K and considered her and professionals' views before it made its decisions. It based its views on the information it received and found child X was being caused harm due to their disagreement. Warwickshire County Council (22 005 515) Summary: Mr & Mrs F complain about the way the Council's Local Authority Designated Officer considered allegations made about them as foster carers. I have ended my investigation into the Council until the outcome of a complaint against Authority 2 is known. West Sussex County Council (22 011 489) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about information the Council provided the family court. That is because we have no jurisdiction to investigate complaints about the commencement of court proceedings or what happened in court. West Sussex County Council (22 002 837) Summary: Mrs X and Mr Y complained about the mileage rate the Council awarded for their son's school transport. The Council failed to properly consider Mrs X and Mr Y's request for school transport in 2016. The Council agreed to apologise and backdate the higher mileage rate to January 2019 to remedy the injustice. Cumbria County Council (22 009 060) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council delayed investigating her complaint at stage two of the children's statutory complaints procedure. She says the delay has caused frustration and distress. The Council is at fault. It has agreed to complete the stage two investigation within 65 days and pay Mrs X £250 in recognition of the frustration and distress caused by the delay. Cheshire East Council (22 011 582) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement with the complainant's family and the conduct of a social worker. This is because we cannot investigate complaints linked to legal proceedings. This includes the content of reports. The actions of the social worker cannot be separated from matters which are outside our jurisdiction. Also, we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants. Kent County Council (22 011 634) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about data breaches. Another body is better placed than us to consider these matters. Even if that were not so, both matters are late, and there would be no good reason to exercise discretion to consider either matter. And we could not investigate one alleged breach even if neither previous impediment applied as it concerns the actions of a school. City of London (22 011 778) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's child protection action. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation. Kent County Council (22 012 456) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement with the complainant's family. This is because we cannot consider matters linked to ongoing court proceedings. There is nothing we can add to the Council's response which explained court proceedings need to conclude before it will consider the complaint Wokingham Borough Council (22 001 589) Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's handling of his child's (Child Y) Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) last year. The Council should have better explained why it would not reimburse the costs Mr X has incurred. It has also not done enough to remedy the injustice caused to Child Y due to a lack of special education needs provision for the first two months of school. The Council has agreed to apologise and make payments to Mr X for his time and trouble and Child Y for missed provision. Leicestershire County Council (22 001 789) Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council handled the process of amending his daughter's education, health and care plan in preparation for transfer to secondary school. We found several failings in the process. In recognition of the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to make a payment to Mr X. Bristol City Council (22 002 192) Summary: Ms X complained that the Council failed to provide her daughter, C, with alternative education for a period of two years when she was only attending school part-time. We found the Council was at fault in failing to ensure the school increased C's educational provision from September 2020. As a result, she lost out on education. The Council also delayed in issuing C's final education, health and care plan so Ms X lost the opportunity to appeal sooner. It also delayed in responding to her complaint causing uncertainty and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and make a payment to her in recognition of the injustice caused. London Borough of Camden (22 004 833) Summary: Mr Y complained the Council unreasonably refused his application for a free school travel pass for his daughter. We found fault in how the Council consider his application. But this fault did not alter the outcome of Mr Y's application and so we have completed our investigation. Cumbria County Council (22 008 363) Summary: We found fault by the Council on Mrs J's complaint about the appeal panel failing to follow procedure when it refused her infant class size appeal against its decision not to provide her son a place at her preferred school. The clerk's notes failed to properly record the panel's decision. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused. Derbyshire County Council (22 009 330) Summary: The Council was at fault for delays in finalising an Education, Health and Care Plan for Mrs X's son. The delays have caused uncertainty about future education provision and delayed Mrs X being able to appeal to the SEND Tribunal. The Council has already apologised for the delays, and it has agreed to offer a financial remedy to properly recognise the injustice to Mrs X. London Borough of Southwark (22 002 520) Summary: Miss X complains the Council has unfairly developed its policy on Special Guardianship allowances, which has impacted the children in her care. The Ombudsman find no fault in how the Council decided to implement a new policy. Lincolnshire County Council (22 010 384) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with a complaint about how its children's services assessed the needs of a child. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Leeds City Council (22 011 807) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to properly identify the complainant's daughter's needs and make appropriate provision. This is because the complaint is late and there are insufficient grounds for us to consider it now. Medway Council (22 012 161) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint concerning the Council's involvement when removing her children from her care. This is because the issues Miss X raises cannot be separated from legal decisions, so her complaint matters lie outside our jurisdiction. Kent County Council (21 015 060) Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to deal properly with her complaint about support from children's social care during the COVID-19 pandemic. We find that the Council did consider alternative means of providing the agreed support but did not fully or clearly explain the question of reimbursement of expenses. The Council has agreed a remedy, including reimbursing reasonable expenses Mrs X incurred in paying for activities that could have been covered by direct payments. Mrs X will need to provide evidence of her spending. East Sussex County Council (22 000 730) Summary: Mr D complained the Council failed to secure education for his daughter, who has special educational needs, for nine months after they moved into its area. We have found fault, as the Council failed to secure (or make sufficient efforts to secure), temporary education while it assessed her needs. This led to a significant loss of service to Mr D's daughter. We set out at the end of this statement action agreed by the Council to remedy this injustice and learn wider lessons from this complaint. Halton Borough Council (22 005 218) Summary: Mr X complained that the Council wrongly refused his application and appeal for help with school transport for his daughter, D, who is disabled, to the school named in her Education, Health and Care Plan. We find that the Council's decision-making was flawed as it did not take account of relevant law and guidance. The Council should have treated D's school as the nearest suitable school as it was the only one named in the Plan. The Council has now agreed a remedy including funding the transport, reimbursing Mr X's expenses, and identifying and taking the same action on other similar cases. London Borough of Harrow (22 008 307) Summary: there is no fault which calls the outcome of Mrs M's school admission appeal into question. Lancashire County Council (22 002 075) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not follow the statutory children's complaint process when it considered her complaint about post-adoption support. Mrs X said it did not meet the timescales and failed to consider her representations at the stage three panel meeting. Mrs X further complains the Council unfairly treated her as a persistent complainer. The Council was at fault as there was delay completing the statutory complaints process. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £100 to recognise the frustration this caused. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (22 009 871) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council allowing a former partner to remove Mr X's property. The matter complained of is not separable from the Council's role as a social housing provider. Plymouth City Council (22 010 307) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's child protection actions including that it failed to communicate properly and completed a flawed assessment. There is insufficient injustice to investigate. The Council has reviewed its practice and offered to take appropriate action. We cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants. Devon County Council (21 009 006) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council did not reassess her daughter's social care needs in July 2020 and has not provided all the therapy component of her Education, Health and Care Plan since 2018. The law says we cannot investigate her complaint about lost therapies. We have ended our investigation into her complaint about the social care assessment because she could have included this in her disability discrimination claim against the Council where she sought a remedy for the alleged injustice she and F were caused. Lancashire County Council (22 007 695) Summary: Mr X complained about delays in the way the Council administered a school admissions appeal hearing and that the Independent Appeal Panel failed to properly consider the appeal for a place for his child. The Council was at fault as it delayed arranging the appeal and delayed sending a detailed decision letter. This caused Mr X frustration for which the Council has agreed to apologise. There was no fault in the way the Panel reached its decision. Cheshire East Council (21 004 831) Summary: Mr B complained about the actions of the Council in responding to his complaint about children's services. We found some fault including a failure to appoint an advocate to assist Mr B with his complaint, failing to implement agreed reasonable adjustments for him and a failure to provide a personal remedy to Mr B and C to recognise the impact of the fault on them as part of the complaints process. The Council has agreed to pay £550 to Mr B, including £250 for the benefit of his daughter C, and to improve its procedures for the future. Luton Borough Council (22 011 596) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council reviewed Mr X's child's Education Health and Care Plan. The matters complained of are not separable from matters that have been subject to court action, and where only a court could vary the current arrangement for where the child should live. Mr X has a right to go to court it would be reasonable to use. Mr X also has or had a right of appeal to a tribunal it would be reasonable to use against the educational setting named in the child's Plan. Surrey County Council (21 018 366) Summary: Mrs C complained the school transport the Council provided for her daughter was not suitable which was worsening her anxiety. We have found fault in the way the Council considered home to school transport but consider the agreed action of an apology, £200 and a review of decisions reached provides a suitable remedy. Cambridgeshire County Council (22 000 296) Summary: Mr B complains on behalf of his adult son, Mr F, about the Council's handling of his Education Health and Care Plan. We have found fault which has caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to acknowledge the distress caused. Cheshire East Council (22 004 692) Summary: Miss X complained her son remains on roll at a school he does not attend and that the Council has failed to provide information about personal budgets. Miss X also complained the Council has delayed in securing the provision set out in her son's EHC plan. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council has secured Y's educational provision. However,the Council's failure to provide the information Miss X requested and the delay in arranging a meeting to discuss a personal budget is fault. This fault has caused Miss X an injustice. Kent County Council (22 006 987) Summary: Mrs X complains about how the Council carried out an annual review of her son B's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. Mrs X says the Council delayed in completing the review, in communicating its decision, and in providing her with a right of appeal. She also complains about how the Council communicated with her about her complaint. We have found fault with the Council's actions. We have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (22 010 735) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council reached a decision to name a school on a child's Education Health and Care plan. This is because the complainant has appealed the Council's decision to a tribunal which places the matters outside of the Ombudsman's jurisdiction West Berkshire Council (22 011 525) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's Education Welfare Service. 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. Also, we have no powers to investigate complaints about schools. Mr X's concerns about data protection and the accuracy of information are best dealt with by the Information Commissioner's Office. Kent County Council (22 011 860) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the complainant has used their right of appeal. This places the matter outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. Oxfordshire County Council (22 002 631) Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not properly consider the impact of domestic abuse when carrying out a child and family assessment in 2020. This complaint has been investigated using the children's statutory complaints process. There was no fault with that investigation, and it is unlikely I could achieve anything more by further investigation. The Council was at fault for a delays in the complaints process and a delay in implementing some of the stage 3 panel's recommendations. It has apologised and offered to pay Ms X £300 for the injustice caused by the delays, which is appropriate. Surrey County Council (21 017 836) Summary: Ms X complained about delays and poor practice throughout the EHC process for her son. We have concluded our investigation having made a finding of fault by the Council. We found that that there were delays in the EHC process. Further to this, we found fault in the Council's actions to undertake an OT assessment without the consent of Ms X. Although the Council has provided a remedy and made several service improvements, it has agreed to the further recommendations we have proposed. 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