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. Leicestershire County Council (22 003 906) Summary: Ms Z is making a complaint for her son (Child X) who has special educational needs. Ms Z says the Council has delayed in carrying out an annual review of Child X's Education and Health Care Plan (EHCP). She adds the Council has, in turn, delayed identifying a school for Child X who has suffered a loss of suitable education as a result. We found the Council delayed in issuing an amended EHCP with a suitable school following the annual review. The Council also failed to provide alternative education for Child X until he could attend a school which met his needs. Both Ms Z and Child X suffered an injustice due to the failings and the Council has agreed to our recommendations to put this right. Central Bedfordshire Council (22 009 604) Summary: We found fault by the Council on Mrs J's complaint about it failing to ensure her son received suitable education between October 2021 and June 2022. She was unhappy with the remedy offered. The alert arrangements it had with the academy school needed improving. It failed to ensure her son received suitable alternative provision while out of school. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused. Trafford Council (22 009 901) Summary: the Council has taken appropriate action in response to concerns raised by Mr F about a nursery's charges. There is no fault by the Council. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (22 012 077) Summary: Miss X complained about delays throughout the Education, Health, Care Needs assessment process for her son, and the Council did not seek appropriate advice to inform the assessment of his needs. We found fault with the Council with significant delays, with poor communication, and some fault with what advice it obtained. This caused uncertainty, frustration and distress for Miss X and her son, and he missed out on extra support for his needs. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice and to take action to prevent recurrence of fault. Derbyshire County Council (22 012 202) Summary: We have found no fault with how the Council reached its decision that Mr X's son, Y was not eligible for school transport. Its decision-making was in line with legislation for determining the shortest walking route to school. Surrey County Council (23 001 991) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to properly consult with the complainant's preferred choice of school for their child's Education Health and Care plan. This is because the complainant appealed to the SEND Tribunal which places the matter outside of our jurisdiction. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (23 002 838) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to carry out an Education Health and Care assessment. This is because there is a right of appeal to a tribunal that it would be reasonable for the complainant to use. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (23 003 118) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's Schools Admissions Appeal Panel's failure to provide his child with a place at School Y. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused him to lose out on a school place. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (23 003 124) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's Schools Admissions Appeal Panel's failure to provide her child with a place at School Y. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused her to lose out on a school place. South Gloucestershire Council (22 016 402) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council as he has not confirmed details that would allow us to reach any view about possible fault causing injustice. Investigating without that would be unlikely to lead to any worthwhile finding. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (22 016 487) Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Miss B and Mr C's complaint. The Council has already investigated their complaint, accepted mistakes and offered suitable remedies. As a result, there is nothing we can add. Birmingham City Council (23 002 212) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not paying Ms X appropriately when she was a foster carer between 2014 and 2022. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. London Borough of Waltham Forest (22 011 395) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council refused to increase her son, F's personal budget to secure funding for a teaching assistant in line with his Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. F's personal budget was underfunded which means the Council did not provide all of the teaching assistant hours which F was entitled to in line with his EHC plan. The Council agreed to increase F's personal budget to cover the extra 13 hours F is entitled to and backdate the missing payments. It also agreed to pay Mrs X £300 to acknowledge the distress, inconvenience and time and trouble the matter caused her and carry out service improvements. Derbyshire County Council (22 012 010) Summary: Mrs B says the Council failed to put in place provision in her son's education, health and care plan, failed to provide oversight of her son's education other than at school programme, delayed issuing an education, health and care plan following the annual review and failed to properly consider her complaint. The Council delayed addressing missing provision in the education, health and care plan, failed to properly oversee the plan to ensure the provision was in place and delayed completing an annual review. The Council delayed considering the complaint but there is no evidence it failed to properly consider it. Staffordshire County Council (22 014 905) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to issue an Education, Health and Care plan for her child, S, after a Tribunal Order issued in March 2022. She says S missed the support he needed and caused her distress and frustration. She said the Council also did not follow its corporate complaints procedure. We found the Council was at fault. The Council accepted our recommendations on how to remedy the injustice its actions caused to Mrs X and S. Staffordshire County Council (22 016 566) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide her son, Y, with an education since September 2021. Ms X further complained the Council failed to provide the provision in Y's Education, Health and Care Plan since April 2022. There was no fault in the Council's actions. Bedford Borough Council (23 001 855) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Council issuing a final Education, Health, and Care plan, and of failure to provide the child with suitable education. This is because an investigation would not lead to different outcomes or findings. Birmingham City Council (22 009 469) Summary: Mr B complained about the Council's statutory complaint investigation into contact between siblings. He complained the Council did not answer his complaint, the financial remedy was low, and it did not action the stage 2 and 3 recommendations. Mr B said this delayed contact between siblings and caused distress. We found fault with the Council for delay progressing the stage 2 recommendations and for delay in its complaint investigation. The Council will resolve the outstanding issues with sibling contact and make service improvements to prevent this happening again in future. West Northamptonshire Council (22 018 059) Summary: The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) will not investigate Mr X's complaints about the actions of the Council, school and two NHS organisations. The Council has not yet had the opportunity to investigate and respond to most of the complaints about its actions. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the school complaints. Another Ombudsman is better placed to consider the complaints about the NHS organisations. London Borough of Lambeth (23 000 548) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to move to Stage 2 of the children's statutory complaints procedure. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. North Somerset Council (23 002 269) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's historic complaint about the Council's actions when she was a child. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now. South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (23 002 625) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays by the Council during care proceedings. The law prevents us from investigating matters that are before the courts. Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (23 002 648) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate it now. Even if that were not so, another agency is better placed to consider potential data breaches, slander is a matter for a court, and we could not investigate social workers' actions inextricably linked to evidence they gave in court. Liverpool City Council (23 003 104) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged delay in the statutory procedure for complaints about children's services. This is because the delay is not so significant as to warrant the Ombudsman's intervention. Nottinghamshire County Council (22 001 694) Summary: The Council was at fault for the way it disclosed information to Ms X about the risk from her adopted son's birth father. It has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to recognise her injustice. However, the Council was not at fault in the other ways it considered managing the risk. Its view – that this was primarily the Police's responsibility – was not unreasonable. Suffolk County Council (22 016 014) Summary: Mrs D is making a complaint for her son (Mr P) who has special educational needs. Mrs D says the Council failed to support Mr P by meeting the identified provision in his Education and Health Care Plan (EHCP) which it must provide. She adds the Council's handling of her concerns has been inadequate. We found the Council was at fault for a delay in providing the needed EHCP provision. The Council's communication with Mrs D was not satisfactory as it failed to keep her updated and address her legitimate concerns. These failings caused an injustice and the Council has agreed to our recommendations to put this right. King David High School (23 002 713) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Schools Admissions Appeal Panel's failure to provide her child with a place at this School. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused her to lose out on a school place. Isle of Wight Council (22 011 755) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to carry out the agreed recommendations after the conclusion of the Children Act statutory complaints process. The requirement to provide respite care has not been carried out. While this service failure was not an intentional act by the Council, it has had a significant detrimental impact on the whole family. A suitable remedy is agreed. Cumberland Council (23 002 599) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement with Mr X's children. The courts are currently involved, and the law prevents us from investigating matters before the courts. It is open to Mr X to complain after proceedings have finished. London Borough of Wandsworth (22 013 615) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's failure to provide his son with 1:1 support as specified in his Education Health and Care Plan. We have found the Council to be at fault. Mr X's son did not receive 1:1 support for several years, the Council took too long to issue an amended Plan and there was delay holding an annual review. To remedy the injustice caused by these faults, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr X and review its service with a view to making improvements. North Yorkshire Council (23 002 717) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's Schools Admissions Appeal Panel's failure to provide her child with a place at School Y. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused her to lose out on a school place. Wokingham Borough Council (22 006 725) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about the contents of a court ordered report because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been, or are being, considered in court proceedings. Nottingham City Council (22 008 832) Summary: The Council was at fault for its failure to deal properly with safeguarding concerns about Mr B's children. It has already apologised to Mr B and made improvements to its service. It has now also agreed to make symbolic payments to Mr B and his children to recognise their injustice. Surrey County Council (22 012 278) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly carry out a parent carer needs assessment to identify what support it could offer to provide respite from caring for her disabled child between 2020 and 2022. The Council upheld Mrs X's complaints after investigating them under the statutory children's complaints procedure. This found a lack of knowledge around parent carer needs assessments which meant Mrs X went without an offer of support for 14 months. The Council was at fault for failing to provide a suitable remedy for the failings it identified. There was also a delay in completing the stage two investigation. The Council agreed to pay Mrs X a total of £700 to acknowledge the distress and frustration the faults caused. Cornwall Council (22 012 801) Summary: Miss X complains about the Council's handling of child protection issues relating to her children. There was no fault in the Council's handling or decision making in respect of Child Y, who was the subject of a child protection plan. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (22 016 743) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council disclosed the complainants address to a third party during court proceedings. This is because the law does not allow us to investigate complaints about things that happened in court. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (23 002 116) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's disclosure of Miss X and her partner's personal details. This is because the complaint concerns personal data and it would be reasonable for Miss X to refer her complaint to the Information Commissioner's office. Worcestershire County Council (23 003 418) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about a court report written by Council staff. This is because the issues Mr X raises cannot be separated from matters to be decided in court, so we have no remit to investigate. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (23 001 312) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has managed matters relating to the education of a child with special educational needs. This is because the complainant has appealed the Council's decision to maintain an Education Health and Care plan to a tribunal and other matters are not sparable from this appeal. West Sussex County Council (22 012 644) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement with matters relating to the care arrangements for Mrs X's child. This is because the issues raised related to matters that have been considered in court. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (22 012 648) Summary: The Council was at fault for prematurely ending Mr B's fostering allowance while he was suspended. However, as delays in the Council's de-registering of Mr B led to him receiving the allowance for 15 months, he suffered no financial injustice. Nonetheless, the Council has agreed to take action to improve its service. Derbyshire County Council (23 000 380) Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed considering a complaint under the children's statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint by arranging a stage three panel by the end of June, apologising to the complainant and offering to make a payment to them to remedy the time and trouble they have been too. Hampshire County Council (23 001 452) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of a section 47 enquiry regarding Miss X and her child. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to result in a worthwhile outcome for her. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (23 001 918) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement in Mrs X's children's case. The Council has offered a suitable remedy to Mrs X and her children to recognise the injustice they experienced, in line with our guidance on remedies. 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