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. Redcar & Cleveland Council (22 012 399) Summary: We find the Council at fault for failing to consider Ms X's request for reasonable adjustments and for failing to discuss possible reasonable adjustments when Ms X told officers she had dyslexia. We recommend the Council apologise to Ms X, consider how it communicates with her going forward, and acts to prevent recurrence. Staffordshire County Council (22 014 266) Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council refused her initial request for a disability social care needs assessment for her child and, having later agreed to complete an assessment, delayed in doing so. She also says it refused to provide support for her child and delayed in responding to her complaint. We found no grounds to question the Council's decision not to provide support. However, we found it was at fault in that it refused Mrs X's initial request and delayed in completing an assessment. It also delayed in responding to Mrs X's complaint. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs X in recognition of the injustice caused. Durham County Council (23 004 784) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to award Mrs X financial assistance. This is because we would be unlikely to find fault with the Council's actions. Dorset Council (22 006 903) Summary: Miss X complained that the Council failed to provide her son Y, with education set on his EHCP, and for failing to provide education when he was out of school. The issue of a lack of access to education prior to July 2021 is out of time and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion and investigate. Further. we also do not have jurisdiction to investigate the failure to provide said education post the EHCP issued in July 2021. This is because Miss X acquired a right of appeal against the Council's EHCP which she later exercised. There is however fault in the time taken for the Council to issue Y's EHCP after September 2022, and the Council has further acknowledged it has not delivered SALT sessions to Y. The Council have agreed to our recommendations. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (22 012 110) Summary: Ms X complains the Council did not provide her son, Z, with enough support to access a mainstream education, did not engage in mediation forcing her to appeal to a tribunal and did not communicate with her properly. The Council delayed in considering if Z's placement was suitable, did not engage in mediation with Ms X and communicated poorly with her. The Council has already accepted some fault and offered Ms X a financial remedy. The Council should honour its offer of a financial remedy to Ms X and make service improvements to its communication and mediation engagement. Derbyshire County Council (22 017 121) Summary: There was fault in the Council delaying issuing an Education, Health and Care plan for Mrs X's daughter. There was also fault in the Council's communication with Mrs X including after she made a formal complaint. Those delays caused an injustice to Mrs X because of uncertainty about her daughter's Special Education Provision. The Council have already apologised and have now agreed it will pay Mrs X a financial remedy to properly recognise her injustice. Dorset Council (23 001 176) Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to issue an amended final Education, Health and Care plan for her daughter Y, in line with the statutory timescales before her transition to high school, and delayed her right of appeal. There was fault in the Council's actions leading to distress and frustration for Miss X and Y. The Council will pay Miss X £400 to recognise the injustice caused to her and Y. Hertfordshire County Council (23 001 965) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint linked to the Education Health and Care Plans of the complainant's children. This is because the complainant has appealed to a tribunal, which places much of the complaint outside our jurisdiction. We have no powers to consider the Council's conduct during the appeal. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council after the appeal to warrant our involvement. Mrs X's concerns about the Council ignoring safeguarding concerns are either late or there is not enough evidence they caused significant personal injustice. London Borough of Ealing (23 005 827) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint that the Council's School Admissions Appeal Panel wrongly dismissed her appeal against the refusal to offer her child a place in reception at her preferred school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. London Borough of Ealing (23 005 837) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's School Admissions Appeal Panel's handling of her appeal against the refusal to offer her child a place at her preferred school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault affecting the panel's decision. Kent County Council (22 015 191) Summary: Miss X complained about the Council's actions and decision in relation to her daughter, F's care in 2020 when she was discharged from a mental health hospital. The Council has upheld Miss X's complaints after investigating them under the statutory children's complaints procedure. It agreed to pay Miss X and F £250 each to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty caused by poor placement planning upon F's discharge. It agreed to pay Miss X a further £500 to acknowledge the significant delays in completing stage 2 of the complaints procedure. Shropshire Council (23 004 785) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's alleged failure to support Mr X with his adoption placement. This is because the complaint concerns events that took place more than 12 months ago and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate matters that took place this long ago. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (23 005 030) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about child protection. The complaint is about matters that are intrinsically linked to court proceedings and we have no discretion to investigate them. Norfolk County Council (21 003 116) Summary: The complainant (Mrs X) said the Council failed to provide her son (Y) with suitable education for many months. Mrs X raised various alleged failures during an Education Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment and issuing Y's Education Health and Care plan (EHCP). Mrs X also said the Council failed in the process of conducting a social care assessment for Y. We found the Council at fault for its failure to provide suitable education to Y for many months and delays in issuing his EHCP. We did not find fault in other parts of Mrs X's complaint. The Council agreed to apologise to Y and Mrs X, make symbolic payments to recognise education missed by Y and impact of the delays in issuing an EHCP and make some service improvements. Oxfordshire County Council (22 014 617) Summary: There was fault the Council delayed issuing an EHCP for Mrs B's son after an annual review. There was also a fault in how the Council responded to Mrs B's complaint about this delay and the provision her son's school were delivering. These faults caused Mrs B an injustice. The Council have already apologised and have agreed to make a symbolic payment to Mrs B, to remedy any remaining injustice. Hampshire County Council (22 016 810) Summary: Mrs Y complained the Council wrongly rejected her claim for sundry expenses under the direct payments agreement regarding the personal budget for her son's Education Health and Care plan provision. We have found fault by the Council in failing to provide clarity about the type of expenses covered and a timely response, causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising to Mrs Y, making a payment to reflect the upset caused, and a service improvement. Kent County Council (22 001 399) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not offer appropriate financial assistance whilst she was caring for her great-granddaughter for 17 months. We have found fault because the Council failed to properly explain the effect of the arrangement in place at the outset. To remedy the injustice caused by this fault, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mrs X and make changes to its procedures. Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (23 003 039) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with a complaint about the financial support the Council has provided to the complainant after she started caring for her grandchildren. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. London Borough of Camden (23 003 864) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council's children's services in relation to matters relating to the complainants' children. This is because the events happened too long ago and I see no good reason why a complaint could not have been made sooner. London Borough of Southwark (23 004 088) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council after a safeguarding concern was raised about a child. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement and because we could not add to the investigation already carried out by the Council. Sheffield City Council (23 004 433) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions when dealing with an out of court disposal relating to the complainant's son. This is because there is another body better placed to consider the complainant's concerns that the Council breached her confidentiality, and there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council's part to warrant our intervention. London Borough of Hounslow (22 015 112) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide sufficient support for her daughter especially when her school attendance began to drop. We find the Council at fault for failing to provide alternative provision. The Council will make a financial payment for the loss of education, review the provision currently in place and remind staff of the policy. Hertfordshire County Council (22 015 572) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to arrange alternative provision when her daughter stopped attending school due to anxiety. We find the Council at fault for failing to consider its legal duties and its policy. The Council will apologise, make payments to recognise the injustice caused and take action to prevent reoccurrence. Gloucestershire County Council (22 017 393) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide her child with suitable education since February 2022. Ms X also complained the Council failed to provide provision detailed in her child's EHC Plan. We found fault with the Council for failing to provide education to Ms X's child and failing to fulfil the full provision detailed in the EHC Plan. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her £4,500 for the missed education and provision. Essex County Council (23 000 503) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed assessing her child, Y, for an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan). We found the Council was at fault. It delayed conducting an assessment with an Educational Psychologist which as a result, has not decided whether to issue Y an EHC Plan. The Council is currently making service improvements to prevent a recurrence of fault. However, the Council has agreed to make Mrs X a symbolic payment to acknowledge the distress, frustration and uncertainty the matter has caused her. It will also make a further payment to Mrs X to acknowledge further delay once it has made a decision or issued a final EHC Plan to Y. Surrey County Council (23 001 346) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to produce the Final Education Health Care Plan for their child within the statutory timescales. Mr X says the Council's fault caused their child to miss educational support. We found with the Council for delays outside the statutory timescales. The Council offered to apologise to Mr X and provide a payment of £300 to acknowledge the time, trouble and uncertainty it caused. The Council also offered to consider an appropriate remedy, such as a financial award or catch-up provision, for missed special educational provision on production of the Final EHC Plan. The Council also agreed to produce the Final EHC Plan. We consider this a suitable remedy to reflect the injustice the Council's fault caused. Valley Gardens Middle School (23 004 078) 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. Essex County Council (23 005 169) Summary: We cannot consider Ms X's complaint about an unsuccessful school admission appeal. This is because the law prevents us from considering complaints about admission appeals for academy schools. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (22 013 625) Summary: Miss B complained the Council has failed to support her family following the outcome of the complaints process and despite that it agreed to take action. There was no fault by the Council. It has reviewed its financial support, offered to meet with Miss B and given her details of who to contact should she want to take up the offer of support. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (23 002 520) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's management of a standards of care investigation. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to result in a different outcome. Kent County Council (23 004 077) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to award a Blue Badge. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council's part. London Borough of Lewisham (23 005 483) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of the complainant's personal data. This is because the Information Commissioner's Office is better placed, and also because we cannot achieve the desired outcomes. Kent County Council (23 005 627) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint concerning the Council's involvement with his child. This is because there are ongoing legal proceedings, and so his complaint matters lie outside our jurisdiction. Kent County Council (22 009 904) Summary: Miss X complained about the Council's failure to support her son's (Y) education and special educational needs. We have found the Council to be at fault. There was significant delay in issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan, some poor communication and complaint handling. It also failed to provide equipment and software specified in the Plan. To remedy the injustice caused by these faults, the Council agreed to apologise, make payments to Miss X, increase the personal budget and take action to improve its service. We were unable to investigate parts of Miss X's complaint because they related to matters that were appealable to a Tribunal. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (22 013 426) Summary: The complainant (Mrs X) said the Council failed when addressing her complaint about the Council's children's services. She also complained about the Council's failings to review her daughter's (Y) Education Health and Care (EHC) plan within statutory timescales, to deliver all special educational provision (SEP) included in Y's EHC plan and to carry out a dyslexia assessment for Y. We found fault with the Council for the delays in the children's statutory complaint process and during the Annual Review of Y's EHC plan. We did not find fault with the remaining parts of Mrs X's complaint. The Council agreed to apologise, make payments to Mrs X to recognise her injustice and carry out some service improvements. Thurrock Council (22 015 128) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's failure to provide his son with suitable education, a school place or provision as set out in his Education, Health and Care Plan, since moving to the Council's area. We found fault with the Council as it has not been able to secure a school place, arrange consistent tuition or deliver the contents of Mr X's son's Plan. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy this injustice. Surrey County Council (22 016 192) Summary: Ms F complains the Council has delayed completing an EHC assessment for her son and has not obtained information and advice from an educational psychologist or therapists. We found fault which caused uncertainty to her son and the family. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Ms F to remedy this. Leicestershire County Council (23 000 105) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council managed a review of a child's Education Health and Care plan. This is because the Council has offered an appropriate remedy and therefore further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Plymouth City Council (23 003 991) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to provide education to a child out of school because the Council has agreed a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (23 004 234) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to issue an Education Health and Care Plan because Mrs X has used her right to appeal. Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (23 005 796) 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. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (22 014 428) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to carry out agreed actions following the conclusion of its investigation under the statutory children's complaints procedure around a lack of social care support. The Council failed to carry out some of its agreed actions following the conclusion of the complaints process. It agreed to apologise and pay Mrs X £200 to acknowledge the distress and frustration this has caused her. In line with the agreed actions it agreed to hold a meeting with her without further delay to resolve her ongoing concerns about social care support for her and her children. Coventry City Council (22 015 537) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the involvement of the Council's children's services with Ms X's child. This is because we could not add anything to the Council's previous investigation. Oxfordshire County Council (23 003 868) 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 in how the Council considered the complaint under the statutory procedure. Slough Borough Council (22 013 224) Summary: Miss X complains the Council did not deliver the provision for her child as set out in their EHCP, and delayed reassessing their needs. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for failing to ensure the provision in the EHCP was delivered, and for delaying the reassessment of the EHCP. The Council has agreed to make a financial payment for the missed provision and the distress caused, as well as service improvements. Derby City Council (23 003 779) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about delays on issuing an Education Health and Care Plan. We cannot investigate issues in a Tribunal appeal. Any delay separate from that, is not significant enough to justify any further remedy. Essex County Council (23 004 474) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alternative educational provision. Mrs X has used her right of appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal against the provision specified in an Education Health and Care Plan. A legal ruling prevents us from investigating the matter complained of. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (23 004 522) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a review of a child's Special Educational Needs. This is because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council. Gloucestershire County Council (23 005 757) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to make alternative provision for the complainant's son while he was out of school, and delays in reassessments of his special educational needs. This is because the matters are not separable from those which are the subject of the complainant's appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability), or have not caused the complainant so significant an injustice as to warrant the Ombudsman's intervention. Wokingham Borough Council (22 003 681) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to arrange or provide all the support in her son, Y's, Education Health and Care plan. There was fault in how the Council took too long to arrange some of the support in Y needed and how it communicated with Mrs X. This caused avoidable distress and frustration for Y and Mrs X. The Council agreed to apologise and pay Mrs X a financial remedy. 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