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. West Sussex County Council (22 005 795) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's failure to provide support for her daughter's special educational needs. We found the Council was at fault for the delay in issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan following a Tribunal order. It also failed to provide alternative education for two terms. To remedy the injustice caused by these faults, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X. Dorset Council (22 014 151) Summary: There was no fault by the Council in the limited period available to us for investigation of this complaint about a child out of school. We therefore propose to complete our investigation. Staffordshire County Council (22 015 878) Summary: The Council was at fault for a delay in issuing a final amended Education Health and Care plan following a Tribunal order, and a delay in providing the personal budget agreed. This meant a delay in Mrs X having the funds to arrange the provision for Y. The Council has already apologised for the delay. It agreed the funds will be available until 31 August and it will pay her the balance of any unused funds so she can arrange additional provision to make up for the missed period. In addition, it will make a modest payment to remedy the injustice caused by the delay in providing sensory equipment. London Borough of Harrow (22 017 340) Summary: Ms B complained the Council failed to ensure the school her son attended provided the occupational therapy provision specified in his Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC plan). She said this meant he missed that provision over six terms. She considered this meant his development and progress against goals set out in the EHC plan was delayed. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Ms B. West Sussex County Council (23 004 100) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council failed to follow the proper process in considering requests for an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment for his child. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. The injustice Mr X claims is primarily the result of the Council's decisions not to carry out a needs assessment and if Mr X disagreed with the decisions it would have been reasonable for him to appeal. Central Bedfordshire Council (23 004 202) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about which school the Council should name on an Education Health and Care Plan. The Tribunal considered this. Staffordshire County Council (23 004 229) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's response to the complainant's request for specialist educational provision for her daughter. This is because it would have been reasonable for her to use her right to appeal against the decision to refuse her request. Cornwall Council (23 004 284) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to reject Mrs X's appeal for home to school transport for her child Y. This is because we would be unlikely to find fault with the Council's actions. Essex County Council (23 004 874) 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 for us to be able to question the panel's decision. Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (22 008 656) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions at the time of and after an incident in 2022. There is not enough evidence that the Council's failure to tell Mr X that his children would not be coming home led to his arrest. The remaining matters are ones we cannot investigate as they are not separable from court action. Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (22 014 679) Summary: Mr X complained the Council treated him unfairly and discriminated against him while being biased towards his children's mother. He also complained the Council has failed to investigate all of his concerns and has excluded issues or altered the way his complaints are phrased. The failings in communication and significant delays in the statutory complaints procedure are fault. These faults have caused Mr X an injustice. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (22 014 883) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's failure to properly assess his eligibility for adaptations to his home for his disabled children. We have found the Council to be at fault because it relied previous occupational therapy assessments and did not consider relevant information. The Council has agreed to apologise and carry out a new assessment. North Yorkshire Council (23 000 975) Summary: The Council was not at fault for rejecting Mrs C's complaint because it was too old. For the same reason, we have not investigated the substantive issues Mrs C complains about. London Borough of Newham (22 000 023) Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to provide her son, Y with a suitable education from September 2019 until April 2022. We have found fault by the Council but cannot say Y would have received an effective education absent of this fault. We have also found fault with the Council's handing of Miss X's request for school transport. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment and service improvements to remedy the injustice caused. Derbyshire County Council (22 016 575) Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council has managed her son's special educational needs provision. She said her son had not been receiving full time education and said his needs had not been met. We find the Council was at fault. This caused significant stress to Miss X and her son was out of education. The Council has agreed to several recommendations to address this injustice caused by fault. Bristol City Council (22 017 341) Summary: There was fault by the Council in failing to train new staff in how to assess eligibility for school transport where a child has an EHC plan. This was fault and is likely to have caused injustice by wrongly denying free home to school transport to some families. The Council will carry out a review to identify any affected families and to provide a remedy where an incorrect decision has been made. London Borough of Islington (22 017 975) Summary: Mr X complained that the Council refused his application for a personal travel budget in April 2021 and that, although it granted his second application in November 2022, it refused to backdate payment to the date of his first application. We have not investigated Mr X's complaint about his first application because he could have exercised his right of appeal against the Council's decision. We found the Council was at fault in failing to offer Mr X a right of appeal against its decision not to backdate payment. In recognition of the injustice caused by this, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and review its decision not to backdate his travel expense payments. London Borough of Croydon (23 002 770) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council managed the Education Health and Care plan process for a child. This is because the complainant has appealed to a tribunal which places part of the complaint outside of our jurisdiction. Further investigation into the rest of the complaint would not achieve a different outcome. Kent County Council (23 004 573) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the school admissions process for Mr X's son. This is because while the Council was at fault, it is unlikely we could add anything to its response. We cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants. Plymouth City Council (22 008 652) Summary: Ms X complained the Council underpaid her special guardianship allowance (SGA). The Court has found the Council's approach to calculating SGA was flawed. The Council wrongly stated the court decision quashing its policy could not be applied retrospectively and it could not refund underpaid SGA prior to July 2022. This was fault and has caused injustice. The Council will apologise and refund underpayments to 1 January 2020 for all special guardians affected. The complaint is upheld. Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (22 009 047) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about contact arrangements in 2021. Investigation by us is unlikely to lead to a worthwhile outcome. Surrey County Council (22 012 885) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council reducing Miss X's child's care package. This is because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (22 013 033) Summary: The complainant (Miss X) said the Children's Trust (the Trust) acting for the Council failed to review contact arrangements with her son (Y) for whom a Care Order is in place. We found fault with the Council for refusing to consider Miss X's complaint through its children's statutory complaint procedure. This caused Miss X injustice. The Council agreed to apologise, consider Miss X's complaint under the children's statutory complaint procedure and make a payment. The Council also agreed to review all cases for which it applied the Unreasonable and Unreasonably Persistent Complainants and Unacceptable Behaviours policy to ensure the correct decision-making process takes place for any new complaints. Hampshire County Council (22 015 319) Summary: There was no fault that the Council decided Mr X could no longer be a sponsor under the Homes for Ukraine scheme. It took a decision it could take and there was no fault in the decision making. There was fault in the way it told Mr X about this decision and that fault caused him an injustice. The Council have agreed to apologise to Mr X to remedy this injustice. Blackburn with Darwen Council (23 001 621) 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 apologising to the complainant and offering to make a payment to them to remedy the time and trouble they have been too. Nottinghamshire County Council (23 003 231) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's alleged attempt to remove Mr X's children from the family home. This is because we would be unlikely to find fault with the Council's actions. Isle of Wight Council (23 004 178) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to consider Mr X's complaint about a social worker until court proceedings have concluded. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Oxfordshire County Council (23 004 364) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council's decision not to consider his complaint until the ongoing court proceedings have concluded. Warwickshire County Council (22 005 856) Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to arrange suitable educational provision for her child, B, when B was unable to attend school due to illness. Miss X complains the Council delayed naming a new placement in B's Education, Health and Care Plan, which delayed her appeal rights to the SEND Tribunal. We have decided to uphold Miss X's complaint because we have seen evidence of fault by the Council causing Miss X and B injustice. B missed out on certain educational provision. To remedy this, the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and B, make Miss X several payments and carry out some service improvements. Hertfordshire County Council (22 007 028) Summary: We find the Council failed to provide Miss X's son (Y) with education in line with his EHC plan between January 2021 and February 2022. There were also delays in completing Y's annual review and responding to Miss X's communications. The Council has agreed to apologise for the identified faults, make payment to reflect Y's missed education and uncertainty and distressed caused to Miss X. The Council has already introduced suitable service improvements to address complaint delays and improve communication. Suffolk County Council (22 010 176) Summary: Ms X complained about the Council's handling of the annual review of her daughter's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and delay in issuing her EHC plan. She also complained about its consideration of her request for a personal budget. We found evidence of fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to put right the injustice caused Ms X and her daughter and to improve its service. London Borough of Newham (22 011 776) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide the occupational therapy and speech and language therapy agreed in her son's Education Health and Care (EHC)plan. She also complained the Council had not refunded her travel costs she has incurred. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to provide an additional payment to fully address the injustice caused to her and Y. Lancashire County Council (23 001 102) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to fund post 16 education because there is not enough evidence of fault and because any fault did not cause injustice. Gloucestershire County Council (23 001 626) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council failing to complete an annual review in 2020 and 2021, and for delay in producing a final Education, Health, and Care plan. This is because part of Ms X's complaint is late and because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused by the likely fault. Lancashire County Council (23 003 596) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the school named in a child's Education Health and Care plan. This is because the complainant has used their right of appeal to a tribunal. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (23 003 598) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council reached a decision not to issue an Education Health and Care Plan for Mrs X's child. The matters complained of are not separable from the disagreement about the nature of the child's needs. Mrs X has a right to appeal against the Council's decision to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal that it would be reasonable to use. Cambridgeshire County Council (23 004 061) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's handling of its review of her daughter's Education Health and Care Plan. This is because the Council has offered a suitable remedy and it is therefore unlikely we could achieve anything more for Ms X. Hampshire County Council (23 005 029) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant further investigation. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (23 005 147) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant further investigation. Gloucestershire County Council (22 013 574) Summary: Mrs Y complains the Council has failed to provide special education provision for her daughter, Miss X. We cannot investigate this complaint. Miss X lodged an appeal with the SEND Tribunal against the content of her EHC Plan. The lack of provision is inextricably linked to matters considered at appeal. Devon County Council (23 003 791) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the actions of social workers involved with his family. This is because we cannot consider complaints about what happened in court. The matters which the complainant is unhappy about can be brought to the attention of the Court. Also, we cannot achieve what Mr X wants. London Borough of Ealing (23 004 231) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council wrongly placed the complainants' children on child protection plans in 2020. This is because the issues raised happened too long ago and so the complaint is made late. London Borough of Sutton (22 014 676) Summary: The Council was at fault for delaying in completing a child's Education, Health and Care needs assessment and for not putting in place all the special educational provision after they were permanently excluded from school. As a result the child missed out on receiving all of the provision in their Education, Health and Care plan. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council agreed to apologise, make a payment for the loss of education to the child and put in place some of the missed provision. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (23 002 642) Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council considered her application for delayed entry to reception for her summer born daughter, Y. Mrs X said the Council failed to follow the guidance and applied the wrong tests. We find fault with the Council's decision making. We recommend the Council apologise to Mrs X and reconsider her application. Warrington Council (23 003 297) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with safeguarding concerns that the complainant raised about his child. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Kent County Council (23 003 316) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions after it received a child protection referral. A lack of evidence concerning a phone call means doing so would be unlikely to lead to any worthwhile outcome. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (23 003 742) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a report and assessment the Council provided to the Family Court. This is because the law prevents us from investigating matters that have been before the courts. Westminster City Council (23 003 912) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not having investigated concerns of child abuse. We already investigated the substantive part of Mr X's complaint. The more recent issue he raises did not cause him any injustice. Lancashire County Council (23 004 165) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker. This is because the complaint concerns matters which have been considered in court, and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants. Gloucestershire County Council (22 013 921) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed completing her child, Child Y's, Education Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment within the statutory timescale and delayed making a decision about whether to issue Child Y with an EHC plan. The Council was at fault for failing to decide whether to issue Child Y with an EHC plan within the statutory timescale, caused by a delay in obtaining Educational Psychologist advice. The Council will pay Mrs X £600 for the distress and uncertainty the delay has caused between early December 2022 and early June 2023. The Council will also remedy the continuing injustice from June 2023 until the date it issues Child Y's final EHC plan. Bishop Thomas Grant School, Streatham (23 003 166) Summary: A parent complained about the refusal of her application for place for her son at her preferred secondary school, and about the school admission appeal panel's decision to turn down her appeal regarding this matter. But we will not investigate the complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (23 003 348) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to secure the special educational provisions set out in Ms X's child's Education, Health, and Care plan. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, an investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (23 004 914) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant further investigation. Dorset Council (22 007 794) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to make suitable alternative educational provision or special educational needs provision for his sons, carry out annual reviews of their Education, Health and Care Plans, or respond to his requests for support and his complaints. We have found fault by the Council causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising, making payments to acknowledge the missed provision, and reflect the upset and worry caused to Mr X and his family, and his time and trouble bringing the complaint to us. It has also agreed to review, at a senior level, the findings in this decision and the progress on improvements it said it would make following our report last year. Oxfordshire County Council (22 012 000) Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council's failure to secure alternative education provision and respond to her requests for a personal budget for her child, Child Y. The Council was at fault for not arranging alternative education for Child Y sooner and not considering how much education was suitable. The Council took longer than it should to complete the annual review of Child Y's Education, Health and Care Plan in 2021. The Council has also not responded to Mrs X's earlier requests for a personal budget. These faults have caused injustice to Child Y and Mrs X, which the Council has now agreed to remedy. The Council will also issue reminders to relevant staff to avoid recurrence of these issues. Somerset County Council (22 013 514) Summary: Mrs X and Ms Y complained about the Council's involvement with Ms Y's family. There was no fault with how the Council carried out a child and family assessment. There was some fault with how the Council shared distressing information with Mrs X and failed to carry out some direct work with her. This caused Mrs X some avoidable distress for which the Council has agreed to apologise. London Borough of Haringey (22 014 178) Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not offer an appropriate financial remedy after considering and upholding the majority of his complaints through the statutory children's complaints process. We consider the findings of the Council's investigation were fair and appropriate. It identified historic failings, with fault in how Mr X's complaint was investigated with several delays throughout the process. The Council has already made service improvements. The Council has agreed to our recommendation for a revised financial remedy to recognise Mr X's avoidable distress caused by the Council's faults. West Northamptonshire Council (23 004 541) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's involvement in care proceedings involving his child. This is because the law prevents us from matters which have been discussed in court. Gloucestershire County Council (22 016 073) Summary: Mrs X complained her son, Y, has not had the finance required to support his education other than at school (EOTAS) package. She said this has affected his mental health and the health of the family. There was fault in the way the Council delayed issuing Y's final Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) meaning appeal rights to the tribunal were not engaged. We cannot say this caused Mrs X or Y any injustice. There was also fault due to the Council not holding the annual review within 12 months of the last review. Mrs X and Y suffered uncertainty because of this fault. The Council should make a payment to Mrs X, issue guidance to its staff to remind them to hold annual reviews and issue plans in line with legislation timescales. Dorset Council (22 013 476) Summary: There was fault by the Council. The Council accepted that Y's college placement was unsuitable in April 2022 but there were delays in getting new educational provision. The Council has apologised and offered a payment towards the lost educational provision for Y and Ms X's stress. Events after October 2022 are outside jurisdiction, as Ms X has appealed to the SEND tribunal. 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