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. Birmingham City Council (21 015 635) Summary: Mrs F complained about the Council's decision in relation to respite support for her disabled children and about the way it dealt with her complaint. Durham County Council (22 006 118) Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to consider backdating a transport award when it reviewed her case on appeal. Ms X also complains about the conduct of the appeal. During this investigation the Council agreed to consider the request to backdate. This action resolves this part of Ms X's complaint and no further action from the Ombudsman is needed. While the decision is not favourable to Ms X, the Ombudsman has no basis to question the outcome. There is no evidence of fault in the way the appeal was conducted. Northumberland County Council (22 012 112) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has delayed consideration of a complaint under the statutory procedure for complaints about children's services. This is because the Council has upheld the complaint and offered a suitable remedy for the injustice caused by the delay. London Borough of Hillingdon (22 012 089) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council managed a child's education and Special Educational Needs provision. This is because the complaint is made late, and I see no good reason to exercise discretion and investigate it now. Lancashire County Council (22 012 208) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about whether an Education Health and Care Plan meets her child's needs. She has appealed to the Tribunal and we cannot investigate the same issue. Surrey County Council (22 012 452) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to provide school transport for the first three days of the school term in September 2022. Investigation by us would be unlikely to achieve the outcome Miss X is seeking. Isle of Wight Council (22 012 603) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the arrangements for the delivery of education at a school. This is because there is no evidence of fault causing the complainant an injustice. Wiltshire Council (22 012 518) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement with the complainant's family and the care arrangements of his child. This is because the matter has been subject to court proceedings and we are unable to achieve the outcome the complainant seeks. Luton Borough Council (22 012 635) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of social workers. The matters complained of are not separable from matters subject to court action. Dorset Council (21 017 586) Summary: Miss X complains about delays in the Council completing the annual review of her child, Z's, Education, Health and Care Plan and failure by the Council to arrange suitable education for Z during the 2021/22 academic year. The Council accepted there were significant delays in the annual review process and that it failed to provide a suitable education. We also find the Council failed to carry out two key assessments by its social care team and obtain advice from a social care officer during the annual review. To remedy the injustice caused to Miss X and Z, the Council has agreed to apologise to Z and Miss X, make several financial payments, carry out the social care assessments now and make certain service improvements. Essex County Council (22 002 223) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council not delivering specialist services outlined in her son's Education, Health and Care Plan since September 2020. We have found fault because the Council has failed to deliver specified provision. Mrs X has suffered avoidable frustration and distress in getting the issues resolved and her son has missed services he should have received. To remedy the injustice caused by this fault, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and Mr Y, make a payment to Mrs X and organise the provision Mr Y has missed. London Borough of Croydon (22 002 258) Summary: There was delay and fault in the way an EHC needs assessment was carried out and a delay in putting s.19 education in place. This caused unnecessary distress, time and trouble, some loss of education and uncertainty. The Council will apologise, make a remedy payment and carry out service improvements. Cambridgeshire County Council (22 003 641) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide all of the support specified in her child's Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council has accepted this. The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation into Ms X's complaints because it is not possible to assess the level of injustice until after the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal has decided Ms X's current appeal. Oxfordshire County Council (22 006 291) Summary: Miss B complained the Council failed to deliver her daughter, C's provision as named in her Education Health, and Care Plan. It has also failed to adhere to statutory time limits and has caused unacceptable delay when replying to her concerns. Miss B said this has caused C to lose provision. It has also caused Miss B distress, uncertainty, frustration and put her to the time and trouble of complaining. We find fault with the Council for failure to provide some provision, for failing to adhere to the statutory guidelines following annual review and when issuing C's final Education, Health, and Care Plans. We also find fault with the Council for poor record keeping and poor complaint handling. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused. Kent County Council (22 010 734) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint about her daughter's Education, Health and Care plan. Mrs X has already appealed to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (22 011 825) Summary: The Council failed to carry out the agreed actions following an earlier investigation by us following a complaint from Mrs X about its failure to provide appropriate free transport to college for her son, Mr Y, an adult learner with an Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council has agreed to apologise for the additional injustice caused because of this failure to carry out the agreed actions on time, make a payment and complete the agreed actions. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (22 012 646) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about school transport arrangements for the complainant's daughter. This is because it is unlikely our intervention would lead to a different outcome. Lancashire County Council (22 012 707) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about educational provision for the complainant's son. This is because the complaint has already been substantially upheld and our intervention would achieve nothing significant. Kent County Council (22 012 879) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about Kent County Council. That is because she has already appealed to the SEND Tribunal. Worcestershire County Council (22 009 767) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's delay progressing his complaint through its statutory complaints procedure along with the Council's decision not to uphold many of his complaint points. We will not investigate the complaint about the Council's investigation as there is no evidence of fault in the way it made its decision. We have upheld Mr X's complaint regarding the delay because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a £250 financial award for the injustice caused to Mr X. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (22 011 709) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the money she received for caring for family members as it is unlikely we could achieve more. And we cannot investigate the contact she now has with the children as that is subject to legal proceedings. London Borough of Lewisham (22 012 636) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about matters relating to the Council's child protection involvement with her family. This is because an investigation by this office could not add to the response the Council has already provided explaining the ongoing family court proceedings need to conclude before it can consider her complaint. Salford City Council (22 012 853) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council removing Miss X's children. These matters are not separable from court action. Buckinghamshire Council (22 012 896) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about an assessment carried out by the Council. The matter complained of is not separable from matters that either formed or could reasonably have formed part of court proceedings. Devon County Council (22 012 382) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the content of an Education Health and Care Plan and the Council's conduct during the appeal process. This is because Mrs X has used her right of appeal. The matter is therefore outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. Suffolk County Council (22 009 035) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide the agreed EHCP support for her child, and failed to consider her complaint under the complaints process. The Ombudsman intends to find fault with the Council for failing to ensure the EHPC was being delivered, and for failing to consider Mrs X's complaint at stage two. The Ombudsman recommends a financial remedy. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (22 011 679) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to put her children on a Child Protection Plan and the conduct of a social worker. The Court is currently considering the children's welfare and we cannot investigate the same issues. West Berkshire Council (22 011 220) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled a complaint by Ms X. There is not enough injustice to warrant investigation. Nottinghamshire County Council (22 012 120) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council's children's services. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and further investigation into the matters raised by the complainant would not lead to a different outcome. Lancashire County Council (22 012 502) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement with the complainant's family and her children's living arrangements. This is because we cannot consider complaints linked to court proceedings or achieve the outcome the complainant wants. Derby City Council (21 019 038) Summary: Mrs D complained the Council caused delays in the EHC Plan process for her son, and in providing his SEN provision. We found the council at fault for causing delays in the EHC Plan process which meant Mrs D's son did not receive some SEN provision he was entitled to. The Council agreed to apologise and make payment to acknowledge the injustice this caused Mrs D and her son. Hampshire County Council (22 001 190) Summary: Ms Y complained the Council failed to provide the support set out in, her son, Z's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. We have found fault by the Council in failing to make appropriate provision, together with communication failures, causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising and making payments to acknowledge Z's loss of education and reflect Ms Y's time and trouble. Hertfordshire County Council (22 012 478) 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. Peterborough City Council (22 000 753) Summary: The Council was not at fault for its refusal to provide therapeutic support to Miss B's son. Its explanation – that this is the responsibility of the NHS – is not unreasonable. But it was at fault for failing to keep records proving that it made agreed service improvements following Miss B's complaint. It was also at fault for delaying its complaint investigation by around a year. It has agreed to make a symbolic payment to Miss B, and to take steps to improve its record-keeping when it completes service improvements following complaints in future. 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