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 Haringey (22 007 368) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to make alternative educational provision when her son was unable to attend school. Mrs X also complained about delays in the Education, Health Care plan process. She states her son's education and welfare have suffered as a result. The Council's delays and failings in the EHC plan process and in issuing a final plan amount to fault. As does the Council's failure to provide alternative educational provision or ensure Y received the provision specified in his EHC plan since November 2021. These faults have caused Mrs X and Y an injustice. Hampshire County Council (22 011 963) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the education provision for Ms X's child. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. It is unlikely an investigation would add anything to the Council's response or achieve a different outcome. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (22 012 048) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the home to school transport arrangements for her son. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The Council investigated Mrs X's concerns and took the action it considered appropriate. It has now agreed to Mrs X's request for a Personal Transport Budget. Investigation by the Ombudsman would be unlikely to add anything to the Council's response or achieve a different outcome. London Borough of Bexley (22 012 284) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to secure the special educational provisions set out in Mr X's son's EHC plan. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, we have previously considered his complaint about the lack of hydrotherapy. Durham County Council (22 012 566) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to assess the risk the complainant poses to a child. This is because we would not achieve anything significant by doing so. London Borough of Newham (22 012 764) Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the alleged failure of the Council to register Mr X as a British citizen when he was in care as a child. The documents I have seen show Mr X was aware of the matters he now complains of as an adult in 2017 and was able to complain at that time. There is thus no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate the late complaint now. Dorset Council (21 019 058) Summary: Miss Y complained about the way the Council dealt with her daughter's special educational needs and alternative education provision, including a failure to provide alternative provision for two months, conduct the annual review and consultation process properly or respond to her request for a re-assessment. We have found fault by the Council on a number of parts of Miss Y's complaint causing injustice. The Council should remedy this by apologising to Miss Y, making payments for Z's missed education and to reflect Miss Y's time, trouble and distress, considering and deciding Miss Y's request for reimbursement of Z's transport costs, and a service improvement. Kent County Council (22 002 957) Summary: Mrs X complained about errors in the Council's handling of her son, Y's, Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan between October 2020 and September 2022. She said this caused uncertainty and distress for two years and meant Y has missed out on specialist educational provisions. The Council was at fault. There were delays issuing two EHC Plans between October 2020 and September 2022. It failed to appropriately consider Mrs X's request for occupational therapy advice as part of an EHC needs assessment process. There was also poor communication. The Council will apologise to Mrs X, make financial payments to remedy the uncertainty and distress caused and Y's lost provision and improve its services. Worcestershire County Council (22 003 220) Summary: Miss B complains the Council delayed in putting in place an Education Health and Care Plan ("EHCP") for her child, Y, following a tribunal decision. She says the Council has not ensured Y receives the services set out in the EHCP since that point, meaning she has not been able to access education. We find the Council is at fault for the delay in finalising Y's EHCP and for not ensuring alternative education provision was available and accessible. Devon County Council (22 003 618) Summary: Mrs B complains the Council failed to take suitable action to safeguard her grandchild and her grandchild's sibling. Miss B says this put them at risk. We found no fault with the Council. Royal Borough of Greenwich (22 005 899) Summary: an Independent Appeal Panel failed to properly consider Mr F's appeal against the Council's decision to refuse admission to the school for his children. Further, the case presented by the Council to the appeal was largely irrelevant and in part wrong. It did not address the right questions. The Council wrongly involved the Fair Access Panel in the decision. Swindon Borough Council (22 007 840) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about backdating school travel payments. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation. Thurrock Council (22 011 812) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a report that home to school transport was operating without the required passenger assistant. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. An investigation would be unlikely to add anything to the Council's response. Cheshire West & Chester Council (22 012 149) Summary: We will not investigate Dr Y's complaint about the time taken to complete an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. Delay by the Council has not caused a personal injustice significant enough to warrant our involvement. Royal Borough of Greenwich (22 012 395) Summary: an Independent Appeal Panel failed to properly consider Mr F's appeal against the Council's decision to refuse admission to the school for his children. Further, the case presented by the Council to the appeal was largely irrelevant and in part wrong. It did not address the right questions. The Council wrongly involved the Fair Access Panel in the decision. Herefordshire Council (21 016 809) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about child protection. Investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome. Gloucestershire County Council (22 001 028) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to take appropriate action as required by a Family Assistance Order to enable her to have contact with her children. The Council did take action but withdrew when it was clear the family would not co-operate and that the best way forward would be for Ms X to go back to court to enforce the order. Cumbria County Council (22 006 128) Summary: Ms X complained 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 as it has not completed the stage two investigation within the statutory timescale. It has agreed to pay Ms X £100 to acknowledge the frustration and distress caused by the delay and complete the stage two investigation within 65 working days. Staffordshire County Council (22 009 624) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about children services' actions. We cannot investigate issues which form part of Court proceedings. And Social Work England are better placed to consider her professionalism complaints. Worcestershire County Council (21 018 677) Summary: There was delay by the Council in consulting new school placements and in updating an EHC plan. However, it is not possible to say that without this fault Y would have started his new school or moved to residential provision sooner. There was poor communication by the Council with parents which led to a mismanagement of parents' expectations. The Council will apologise, make a remedy payment and make service improvements. Leeds City Council (22 000 095) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed three years in issuing an Education, Health and Care plan for her daughter, Y. Mrs X further complained the Council failed to provide Y with a suitable education between October 2020 and June 2022. There was no fault in how the Council issued Y's Education, Health and Care plan. London Borough of Bexley (22 000 875) Summary: There was service failure in that some elements of Mr Y's Education, Health and Care plan were not in place. The Council failed to secure all the provision or fully investigate when concerns were raised. This caused injustice as some provision was not available for many months. The Council will apologise and make a remedy payment to acknowledge the impact of the fault. Gloucestershire County Council (22 001 930) Summary: There was fault by the Council in failing to provide suitable full-time education when a child could not attend school for health reasons. There was also delay and fault in the way the Council carried out a statutory reassessment of education, health and care needs. This led to loss of education, unnecessary expense, distress and uncertainty. It also delayed a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal. The Council will apologise make a financial payment and carry out service improvements. Suffolk County Council (22 006 659) Summary: Mrs B complained about the Council's failure to properly consider individual transport for her daughter to get to school, the way the appeal was handled, failure to consider her complaint and poor communication. There is fault in how the appeal was handled, along with instances of poor communication with Mrs B and a failure to take part of the complaint to stage two. An apology, payment to Mrs B and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy. A further appeal is no longer necessary as Mrs B's daughter has changed schools. Leicester City Council (22 012 229) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in issuing an Education Health and Care Plan and its content. This is because the complainant has appealed to the SEND Tribunal. The content of the plan itself is not something the Ombudsman can consider. Any injustice from the delay in issuing the plan cannot be quantified until the outcome of the appeal is known. Dorset Council (22 012 384) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to name a school in an Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP) and about delay in arranging alternative educational provision. This is because the complainant has used her right to appeal to the SEND Tribunal and this places the matters outside our jurisdiction. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (21 018 376) Summary: there was fault by Bradford Metropolitan District Council in the way it provided services to a disabled child. This fault caused injustice. The Council had already considered the matter under the statutory children's complaints procedure and found fault. It had already offered a remedy to the complainant and taken action to ensure improvements in its future service provision. The Council should take action in the form of an improved remedy to Ms B to recognise the injustice caused. Norfolk County Council (22 012 080) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's assessment of a child protection referral. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation. London Borough of Enfield (22 012 250) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to implement a court order. This is because Mr B may take the matter back to court and it would be reasonable for him to do so. West Sussex County Council (22 012 324) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has been at fault in its response to Mr B's representations concerning his partner and her child. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council's part. Somerset County Council (22 000 756) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to review her daughter's Education Health and Care plan (EHC) within the required timescale and that her daughter did not receive a suitable education or the EHC plan provision that she should have had. This impacted her education and progress. It also caused anxiety and distress. We found the EHC plan timescales were not met and Y did not have a suitable education in the period of the complaint. We recommended the Council apologised and made a payment to reflect the injustice caused. Suffolk County Council (22 001 180) Summary: Mrs Y complains that the Council failed to ensure her daughter, X, received the education she was entitled to as per the provision named in her Education Health and Care Plan. In our view, X has received up to nine hours per week as specified in the amended draft plan. However, the Council has not issued a final plan, and this has frustrated Mrs Y's right of appeal to challenge this. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay £300 and undertake the service improvements listed at the end of this statement. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (22 002 549) Summary: Miss X complained about errors and delays in the EHC plan process for her son which have led to her son not receiving an appropriate education and causing him unnecessary distress. She also complained a council officer provided inaccurate information about her to Early Help and requested they carry out a welfare check without Miss X's consent. The errors and delay in issuing a final plan are fault, as was the referral to Early help contrary to Miss X's wishes. These faults have caused Miss X an injustice. Leicestershire County Council (22 002 597) Summary: Mrs Y complains the Council failed to ensure her daughter, X, received the education she was entitled to when she was too ill to attend school between November 2021 and September 2022. Part of Mrs Y's complaint is outside of our jurisdiction because of the availability and use of an appeal right. There is no evidence of fault during the other period complained about because the Council made provision available for X at a level which it deemed was appropriate for her needs at the time. Suffolk County Council (22 006 361) Summary: Mr X complained that the Council delayed in completing a re-assessment of his son's special educational needs and failed to seek advice from an educational psychologist to inform the assessment. We found the Council delayed in completing the re-assessment. It has offered a satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused by this. The Council was not at fault in failing to request an assessment by an educational psychologist, but it has now agreed to do so. Staffordshire County Council (22 008 011) Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed reviewing her son's Education Health and Care Plan and did not handle her complaint properly causing distress. We found the Council at fault. We recommended it apologise to Ms X, pays £200 for time and trouble, pays £300 for distress and loss of opportunity and, acts to prevent further injustice to others. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (22 011 594) Summary: We cannot lawfully investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's social worker's assessment and report to court regarding his daughter because they were part of court proceedings. The Council should deal with Mr X's other complaints about actions affecting his other children before the Ombudsman will consider them. London Borough of Bromley (22 011 933) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's children services team's decision to carry out a child protection assessment and have a child protection plan. It is unlikely we would find fault. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (22 011 947) Summary: We will cannot investigate this complaint about the care arrangements of the complainant's grandchild. This is because this matter is now subject to court proceedings which places it outside of out jurisdiction. Cornwall Council (22 013 102) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions concerning its views about the residence and contact arrangements for Miss X's children. We cannot investigate where there have been court proceedings, and the matters complained of are not separable from matters that can only be resolved by a court. Miss X has a right to go to court it would be reasonable to use. Leeds City Council (22 003 373) Summary: Ms X complained about the Council's failure to support her adopted daughter, Z, with her special educational needs and mental health needs. The Council was at fault for a delay in issuing an Education Health and Care plan for Z, poor communication about the basis for providing accommodation for Z, and a delay in responding to the complaint. The Council should apologise, make a payment to recognise the delay in providing educational support for Z and review its processes. Birmingham City Council (22 008 570) Summary: Miss X complains the Council delayed the annual review for her son's Education, Health and Care Plan. We find fault with the Council for the delay, causing Miss X frustration and distress. Blackburn with Darwen Council (22 012 032) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the provision of a bus service to the school attended by Mrs X's child. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation. London Borough of Lambeth (21 014 560) Summary: Miss Y complained about the Council's failure to make educational provision for her son, W, once it became aware that he was unable to attend school. She also complained about delays in the Council's assessment of W's Special Educational Needs (SEN). We find the Council failed in its statutory duty to make suitable provision available for W. The Council will pay £2,350 to W in recognition of the missed provision, £2,900 to Miss Y for the provision she funded and £500 in recognition of her distress, time and trouble. The Council will also undertake the service improvements we have recommended. Bath and North East Somerset Council (22 000 074) Summary: There was no fault in how the Council assessed Ms X's daughter for autism and speech and language provisions for her Education, Health and Care Plan. Nor was there any fault in how it ensured these provisions were being delivered by the education provider. Leeds City Council (22 002 375) Summary: Ms X complained about the Council's failure to support her daughter, Y, with her special educational needs, and to secure the provision in her Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan during the COVID-19 lockdowns. The Council was at fault for a delay in finalising Y's EHC plan. It has already apologised but it should also make a payment to recognise the uncertainty caused by the delay in issuing the plan. London Borough of Waltham Forest (20 007 868) Summary: There was no fault in the Council's consideration of Ms X's complaint under the children's statutory complaints procedure. London Borough of Ealing (21 010 290) Summary: Ms Y complained the Council failed to provide appropriate support for her and her son, Z, and wrongly threatened her with child protection proceedings. Ms Y also complained the Council failed to provide Z with the support in his Educational, Health and Care Plan. We have found fault by the Council in its delay considering Ms Y's requests for support for Z, and failure to consider whether it should assess Ms Y's needs for support, causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising to Ms Y. We have not found fault by the Council with regard to its contact with Ms Y about child protection proceedings, or the provision of Z's educational support. Oxfordshire County Council (22 011 879) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council not providing information which Mrs X believes she is entitled to. Royal Borough of Greenwich (22 012 265) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement with the complaint's family. This is because the complaint is late, and we cannot consider matters linked to 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