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. South Gloucestershire Council (23 005 373) Summary: The Council has failed to provide the agreed support packages to disabled children and young people in its area. Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (22 009 762) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's response to a complaint about an incident on school transport. This is because we could not add anything significant to the investigation the Council has carried out. Suffolk County Council (22 015 250) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to ensure her child D received a suitable education or had their special educational needs met. Ms X also said the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments for her as someone with a disability, so she could engage fully in its processes. There was fault by the Council which meant D did not receive suitable education or support for their special educational needs. It also caused avoidable distress for D and for Ms X. The Council agreed to apologise, agree reasonable adjustments it will make for Ms X, ensure suitable education and special educational support is in place for D without delay, and pay a financial remedy. It will also review relevant procedures, issue reminders to its staff, and ensure our findings are considered as part of its SEND Improvement Strategy. Lancashire County Council (22 015 557) Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council handled his daughter's Education, Health and Care plan after they moved into its area in April 2019. The Council was at fault for not concluding EHC plan annual reviews since 2019, not providing alternative provision and not securing a suitable school place for S soon enough. The Council agreed to remedy the injustice its actions have caused to Mr X and S. Oxfordshire County Council (22 017 249) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to ensure her son, F received an education and provision in line with his Education, Health and Care plan when he stopped attending school between November 2022 and July 2023. She also complained about delays in the annual review process. The Council failed to put in place alternative provision for F between November 2022 and March 2023. It also delayed issuing F's amended plan following an annual review. The Council agreed to make payments to acknowledge F's loss of education and the distress and time and trouble caused to Mrs X. Surrey County Council (22 017 789) Summary: Mrs X complains about delays in the Education, Health and Care assessment process for her son, Y. We have concluded our investigation having made a finding of fault. The Council have yet to make a decision on whether to issue Y with an EHCP and this is fault causing an injustice to Mrs X and Y. The Ombudsman is aware of a national shortage of Educational Psychologists that have impacted upon events described in this complaint, and the Council have agreed to our recommendations made in line with our standardised approach. Oxfordshire County Council (23 000 771) Summary: There has been fault by the Council. The Council has delayed finalising an Education, Health and Care plan. Child Y has been out of school for over 18 months, with 2 hours of therapeutic provision per week. Mr X appealed to the SEND tribunal, so events from the last 12 months are out of jurisdiction. However, there were 6 months of service failure by the Council prior to this as there is no evidence it considered trying weekly tuition when Y could not reintegrate into school. An apology and payment remedies the injustice to Mr X. Oxfordshire County Council (23 001 972) Summary: The complainant, Miss X, complains about how the Council has managed the education, health and care plan process for her son. She said the Council has failed to meet deadlines; her son has been out of education with limited alternative provisions in place and said the Councils communication has been poor. We find the Council at fault. This caused significant distress to Miss X and her son was out of education. To address this injustice the Council has agreed to several recommendations. Bishop Thomas Grant School, Streatham (23 003 077) Summary: Mrs X complained the school has not accepted her daughter, Y, despite her meeting the requirements in the school admissions policy. Mrs X said this caused her and her family distress. There was fault in the way the school did not fully consider Mrs X's appeal and failed to keep detailed notes of its decisions. Mrs X suffered uncertainty and distress due to the school's actions. The school has now offered Y a place. The school has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and consider training requirements of panel members. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (23 006 309) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about his son, Y's, Education, Health and Care plan annual review process. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants. West Berkshire Council (23 007 490) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to arrange alternative educational provision for the complainant's child. This is because most of the matters raised are not separable from matters which have been appealed to the SEND Tribunal. There is insufficient fault causing an significant injustice regarding other matters. Manchester City Council (23 009 129) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful school admission appeal. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome we could achieve. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (23 008 116) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about poor communications by the Council, not inviting Ms X to meetings, withholding her child's medical notes, and failing to deal with her complaint. Investigation by us would be unlikely to lead to a worthwhile outcome as the child is 16 and has made clear their views about contact and attendance at meetings. Only a court can mandate contact arrangements, and another agency is better placed than us to consider complaints about data disclosure. Thurrock Council (22 014 053) Summary: There was fault by the Council in failing to secure a school place or suitable alternative education for a child with an Education, Health and Care plan. There was also a failure to consider providing social care support and a failure to take into account duties under the Equality Act. The Council will apologise, make a financial payment and implement service improvements. The complaint is upheld. Hampshire County Council (22 016 271) Summary: The complainant alleged that the Council delayed in providing alternative, fulltime education when her son's special school ended his placement, and the Council failed to provide the therapies required by his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. We find fault with the Council's actions. The Council has agreed the recommended ways to remedy the resulting injustice. We are therefore closing the complaint. Hertfordshire County Council (22 017 066) Summary: Ms X complains about delay by the Council in completing her children's Education, Health and Care plans (EHCP's) after the annual review. We find fault with the Council for the delay, and have recommended a symbolic payment for the frustration and distress caused to Ms X. Luton Borough Council (23 002 757) Summary: There was fault by the Council, because it did not secure provision set out in a child's education, health and care plan. However, this did not cause any significant injustice. We have therefore completed our investigation. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (23 003 805) Summary: Ms X complained the admission appeal panel failed to properly consider her appeal for a school place for her child. The Council was at fault because the records failed to show how the panel reached its decisions. This left uncertainty about the decision reached. The Council will arrange a fresh appeal with a different panel to remedy the injustice caused and retrain staff to prevent reoccurrence of the fault. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (23 006 985) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council undertook child protection enquiries. The matter is currently being considered in the family court. It is open for Mrs X to complain after those proceedings have finished and she has exhausted the Council's complaint procedure. Birmingham City Council (23 007 610) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's completion of a transition review of Mr X's Education Health and care plan. Most of the parts of the complaint are not separable from the nature of Mr X's needs, where he has a right of appeal to a Tribunal it would be reasonable to use. The remainder of the complaint does not warrant investigation as there is not enough evidence of fault by delay. Hertfordshire County Council (23 007 611) Summary: Ms X complains about the Council failing to keep to the statutory timescales in completing her child's Education, Health and Care plan (EHCP) after the annual review. We find fault with the Council for delay, and have agreed a symbolic payment for the frustration and distress caused to Ms X. Devon County Council (23 007 888) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a home to school transport vehicle which collects and drops off a student close to the complainant's home. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. It is also unlikely we could add anything to the Council's response or achieve the outcome the complainant wants. Staffordshire County Council (23 006 787) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care of the complainant's grandchild. This is because the complainant cannot be treated as a suitable person to complain on the child's behalf. Any complaint about contact between the complainant and her grandchild is a matter for the courts. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (23 007 186) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council's children's services because the events complained about happened too long ago now and I see no good reason to exercise discretion and investigate them now. There is no evidence of fault with how the Council has dealt with the complainant recent contact. Other matters relate to what happened in court. Hartlepool Borough Council (23 007 287) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about children services' actions. We cannot investigate events involved in Court proceedings, we are unlikely to add to the Council's reply and the link between the claimed fault and injustice is not strong enough. Halton Borough Council (23 007 620) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's assessment of Mrs X's family circumstances. The matters complained of are not separable from the residence and contact arrangements for the family's children, which can only be decided by a court. Therefore, it would be reasonable for Mrs X to use her right to go to court. Leicester City Council (23 007 643) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council concerning Mr X. The matters he complains of concerning the safeguarding officer are not separable from matters that either were or could reasonably have been raised in court, and we cannot investigate them. The Information Commissioner's Office would be better placed than us to consider Mr X's complaint about data handling. Norfolk County Council (23 007 747) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement in the complainants' children's case. The matters complained about are inextricably linked to court proceedings. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (23 008 687) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions relating to Miss X's child. The matter is currently being considered in the courts, and the law prevents us from considering it. Essex County Council (23 004 613) Summary: Mrs X complained about delay and poor communications while the Council carried out an education, care and health needs assessment for her daughter. We upheld the complaint, finding delay. This caused injustice to Mrs X because of the resultant uncertainty created. The Council accepts these findings. At the end of this statement, we set out the action it has agreed to take to remedy Mrs X's injustice and make service improvements. Derbyshire County Council (23 004 833) Summary: There was fault in the Council delaying issuing an Education, Health and Care plan for Mr X's son. Those delays caused an injustice to Mr X because of uncertainty about his son's special education provision and education placement. The Council have already apologised for delays. It has agreed to pay Mr X a financial remedy to properly recognise his injustice. Hertfordshire County Council (22 011 513) Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to ensure her daughter, Y, received education in line with an Education, Care and Health plan and delayed in reviewing that plan. We upheld these complaints finding that Y had suffered a significant loss of service as a result. The Council has accepted these findings. At the end of this statement, we set out action the Council has agreed to take to remedy that injustice. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (22 013 221) Summary: Mr F complains the Council has not refunded top-up fees charged by nurseries where his son, B, received the Free Early Education Entitlement (FEEE). The Council has taken action to ensure a nursery's charges comply with Government guidance and offered Mr F a symbolic payment to recognise delay in its response. This is a satisfactory outcome. London Borough of Bromley (22 013 268) Summary: There was fault by the Council. The Council failed to amend an Education, Health and Care plan after annual reviews in 2021 and 2022, meaning a child's plan has not been amended for 3 years and names the wrong school. The Council also delayed obtaining an independent Occupational Therapy assessment and failed to amend the EHC plan to reflect the required increased Occupational Therapy provision at the annual review in 2022. Apologising, finalising the EHC plan, providing Occupational Therapy sessions to make up for lost provision and making a financial payment remedies the injustice to Ms X for her distress and uncertainty and for her child's loss of provision. Suffolk County Council (22 016 127) Summary: I have discontinued my investigation because Mr X has asked a Tribunal to consider a remedy for the same injustice that he has asked the Ombudsman to consider. Section 26(6)(a) of the Local Government Act 1974 says we have no jurisdiction to investigate where someone has used a right of appeal, reference or review to a Tribunal about the same matter. Surrey County Council (23 001 364) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to complete and issue her daughter, Y's, Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan within the statutory timescale and failed to communicate with her properly. The Council was at fault. The Council will issue Y's final EHC plan without further delay and pay Mrs X a symbolic amount of £750 to recognise the frustration and uncertainty caused to her. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (23 003 423) Summary: There was fault by the Council in imposing a personal travel budget on a parent of an 'eligible' child without their consent when the Council could not recruit a passenger assistant. The appeal panel also failed to consider the relevant law. The inability to provide a passenger assistant for several months was service failure. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment for inconvenience and distress, and carry out service improvements. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (23 003 561) Summary: Mrs X complained about the outcome of her school placement application for her child, Y. The Council was at fault for not telling Mrs X the application did not meet the criteria of the exceptional circumstances panel. However, this did not cause Mrs X an injustice because the appeal panel properly considered all the evidence before it refused the appeal. The Council agreed to review its process to ensure there is no recurrence of the fault in the future. London Borough of Brent (23 004 128) Summary: The Council accepted fault when it investigated Mrs X's complaint about school transport for her Disabled child. However, the Council's failure to complete the actions agreed in its complaint response was further fault which caused Mrs X injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise, take the action it agreed to, make a payment to Mrs X and improve its services for the future. Leeds City Council (22 015 045) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not provide sufficient support to her adopted child and to her family. She says the Council's lack of action led to her child missing school and caused avoidable stress and upset. We found fault by the Council and the Council has agreed to provide a remedy to address the injustice identified. Buckinghamshire Council (23 000 392) Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mr B's complaint about how the Council dealt with a safeguarding allegation against him when he was a foster carer. He has made a claim to the Employment Tribunal about the same matters, so we cannot look at the complaint. Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (23 002 343) Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to deal with her concerns about an eye condition, delayed seeking treatment for it and failed to ensure she had an ID and passport causing distress. Ms X complains the Council has not offered an appropriate financial remedy after considering and upholding most of her complaints through the statutory children's complaints process. We consider the findings of the Council's investigation were fair and appropriate. The Council has already made service improvements. The Council has agreed to our recommendation for a revised financial remedy to recognise Ms X's avoidable distress caused by the Council's faults. Medway Council (23 007 406) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions in response to a referral received by children's services. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants. London Borough of Brent (23 007 546) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about comments recorded in a child protection report concerning the complainant, and about how this matter was investigated. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (23 007 742) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council ceasing to pursue a criminal injuries compensation claim on behalf of Mrs X's grandchild after she gained a Special Guardianship Order for the child. Despite there having been earlier fault by the Council, starting the claim in December 2021 was a satisfactory remedy and investigation by us would not add to that. Nor would investigation by us be likely to find the Council had a duty to pursue the claim once Mrs X gained parental responsibility for the child. Hampshire County Council (23 007 157) Summary: I uphold this complaint because the Council was at fault in refusing to allow the complainant to complete the statutory procedure for complaints about children's services. The Council has agreed to resolve the matter by providing a suitable remedy for the injustice the complainant has been caused. Somerset County Council (22 006 674) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's failure to provide his son, Y, with a suitable education and support for his special educational needs. We found the Council to be at fault. There was significant delay in the process, failure to make adequate alternative provision, poor communication and complaint handling. The Council's failure to issue an amended final Education, Health and Care Plan prevented Mr X lodging an appeal with the Tribunal. To remedy the injustice caused by these faults, the Council should apologise and make a payment to Mr X as well as taking action to improve its service. Reading Borough Council (22 014 091) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to recognise the loss of education and missed Special Educational Needs provision for her two children. As a result, Mrs X said her children's education, welfare, and development have suffered. Mrs X said the Council did not offer a suitable remedy for the impact. The Council was at fault for failing to provide educational provision and for failing to give all relevant information to its Special Educational Needs panel. Essex County Council (23 001 990) Summary: The Council took too long to issue the final Education Health and Care (EHC) plan for Miss B's son. Its communication with her was not always clear. It is not clear that the Council took account of its anticipatory duty to meet Miss B's need for reasonable adjustments and it is likely that this contributed to the delay. This caused Miss B distress and frustration, and meant her son missed out on the provision he was entitled to. The Council has agreed to remedy this. Surrey County Council (23 003 654) Summary: Miss L complained the Council failed to complete the assessment of her son's education, health and care needs within the statutory deadline. And that this delay is ongoing. This has caused distress, uncertainty and possibly lost provision. The Council accepts it is at fault for this failure. The Council has agreed to our recommendation of a suitable remedy. Oxfordshire County Council (23 006 672) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council delayed issuing an Education Health and Care plan. This is because the delay complained about is not long enough to have caused a significant enough injustice to warrant an investigation. There is no fault with the Council's decision not to consider a complaint that the provision in the plan is not being met. London Borough of Hackney (22 012 499) Summary: Mr E complained how the Council handled a child protection matter regarding his daughter. We find the Council was at fault for how it handled the child protection matter and for its delays during the statutory complaints procedure. The Council apologised to Mr E, offered him a financial payment, and has carried out service improvements. This is sufficient to remedy Mr E's injustice. We do not recommend anything further. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (22 013 341) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions in assessing Miss C and deciding to hold a child protection conference for her unborn child. Although the Council should have completed the statutory complaint procedure for children's social care complaints, this did not cause Miss X any injustice. This is because investigation by us would be unlikely to find fault in the substantive matters complained of. Sheffield City Council (23 004 734) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council's bias assessment led to the complainant's children being removed from the complainant's care. This is because the contents of the assessment have been considered in court, which places the matter outside of our jurisdiction. Other bodies are better placed to consider other elements of the complaint. Birmingham City Council (23 006 976) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about child protection action relating to the complainant's family. This is because we cannot add anything significant to the investigation which has been carried out under the statutory procedure for children's services complaints and cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (23 009 318) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's response to Miss X's complaint about a Council social worker's conduct. This is because we would be unlikely to provide Miss X with a different outcome. Suffolk County Council (22 017 403) Summary: Mrs X says the Council failed to provide a full-time education to her son from April 2022. There was no fault in the Council's provision to Mrs X's son until January 2023 when the Council failed to provide alternative provision. To remedy the injustice caused to Mrs X and her son, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a financial payment. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (23 001 471) Summary: There was fault by the Council in how it arranged a suitable education for Mrs B's son. It took too long to issue the Education Health and Care (EHC) plan. It did not retain sufficient oversight to make sure it was meeting its duty to provide an education when it became clear that Mrs B's son was not attending school. The Council also took too long to deal with Mrs B's complaint about this. I have recommended a remedy. Surrey County Council (23 001 641) Summary: Miss E complained the Council failed to provide her son with any education or specialist provision since it issued his final Education, Health and Care plan in November 2021. She adds it failed to carry out an annual review within the correct timescales. We find the Council was at fault for failing to secure the education and specialist provision in Miss E's son's Education, Health and Care plan. It also failed to follow statutory timescales after the annual reviews. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault. Nottinghamshire County Council (23 002 721) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's actions in relation to his child, Y's, education. This is because the Council has started court action against Mr X which is related to the same matter. We have no jurisdiction to investigate a matter which is subject to court action. Gloucestershire County Council (23 002 806) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to follow proper procedure and did not update her son's EHCP for over two years. She complains it then issued an amended final plan in early 2023 using out of date and inaccurate information and naming an inappropriate school. The Council's failure to follow the correct procedure in carrying out annual reviews is fault. This fault has caused Ms X and Y an injustice. Salford City Council (23 004 921) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to make appropriate educational provision for the complainant's daughter. Her complaint about the process of reviewing her daughter's Education Health and Care Plan is late, and there are no grounds to consider it now. We cannot Investigate consider whether the Council failed to make appropriate alternative provision because the complainant used her right to appeal to the First Tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). Oxfordshire County Council (23 005 484) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's communications with Ms X since making them subject to a single point of contact. The communications concern her child's educational provision, where Ms X now has a right of appeal against the Education Health and Care Plan issued by the Council that it would be reasonable to use. There is insufficient evidence of injustice or possible worthwhile outcome to warrant investigation by us. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (22 017 769) Summary: The complainant (Miss X) said the Council failed in the way it carried out the looked after children reviews for her son (Y). Miss X also said the Council failed to follow the right procedure when considering her complaint. We found fault with the Council for failing to consider Miss X's complaint at stage two of the children's statutory complaint procedure. During our investigation the Council has agreed to carry out stage two of the children's statutory complaint procedure. The Council also said it was reviewing and amending its 'Complaints and Representations Procedure' and training the staff dealing with complaints. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise Miss X's injustice. West Sussex County Council (23 005 718) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the refusal of an application for a blue badge. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision to warrant investigation. Darlington Borough Council (23 006 952) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council shared incorrect information with another Local Authority. The Council has accepted fault and offered an appropriate remedy. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome. Plymouth City Council (23 007 247) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement in the care of the complainant's children. This is because the matters have been subject to court proceedings. It is open for the complainant to appeal the courts decision. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council has dealt with a complaint about the ongoing support of the children. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (23 003 778) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a children's services report. We cannot investigate information used in court proceedings and the Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to consider a complaint about the accuracy of information held by a Council. 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