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. Suffolk County Council (22 009 902) Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council has handled her son, F's Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan and education since June 2022. The Council was at fault. It delayed issuing F's amended EHC plans following annual reviews in both 2022 and 2023. F was also without provision and education in line with his EHC plan during the 2022 autumn term. The Council agreed to make payments to Miss X to acknowledge the injustice these faults caused. West Sussex County Council (22 012 781) Summary: We uphold a complaint made on behalf of Mrs C, that the Council was at fault for delay in issuing an education, care and health plan for her son and in answering a complaint. We also found fault in the Council's approach to seeking specialist advice as part of the assessment. These faults caused uncertainty for Mrs C and impacted on her son's education. The Council has accepted these findings. At the end of this statement, we set out the action it has agreed to take to remedy this injustice and make service improvements. Leicestershire County Council (22 015 597) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to respond appropriately to a complaint about officer conduct, the Council was responsible for a breach of a child's data and that the Council failed to adhere to the agreed wording for an Education and Healthcare Plan (EHC plan) ordered by a Tribunal. We found there was fault in the council's complaint handling and it failed to initially adhere to the agreed wording for her son's EHC plan. This led to avoidable time and trouble which warrants a remedy. There was no injustice to Mrs X as a result of the data breach. Wiltshire Council (23 004 915) Summary: The Council's failure to deliver the remedy it agreed following Mrs X's complaint that it had not secured all the provision in her child's Education Health and Care plan was fault. The Council has agreed to apologise, make the agreed remedy, make payments to Mrs X and the child, and act to improve its services. Somerset Council (23 005 542) Summary: Miss X said the Council delayed carrying out an annual review of her Education, Health and Care plan. The Council was at fault. This caused Miss X avoidable uncertainty for which the Council will apologise and pay her £350. The Council will also clarify with staff that they must carry out annual reviews within twelve months of the previous review. Essex County Council (23 007 924) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to award Mrs X free home to school transport. This is because we would be unlikely to find fault with the Council's actions. London Borough of Bexley (23 008 200) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not providing transport to school taster or transition sessions. This is because the claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation. Also, we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants. Hampshire County Council (22 012 027) Summary: The Council accepted that it acted with fault when the complainant and his partner agreed to care for their two nieces under a Special Guardianship Order. However, the complainant considered the Council had not fully recognised the adverse impact on them and their nieces, and he wanted to ensure the Council had improved procedures for all special guardians for the future. We accept the Council's findings and are satisfied that the Council has made a series of service improvements to prevent a recurrence of the faults in this case. We did, however, recommend some additional service improvements and a personal remedy for the complainant and his family, which the Council has accepted. We are therefore closing the complaint. West Sussex County Council (23 007 946) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about children services' actions following her referral in 2019. There are no good reasons the late complaint rule should not apply. Durham County Council (23 008 128) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss X's child's wellbeing in foster care. Miss X's complaint follows previous complaints to us, all of which are essentially disputing the Council's decision about where the child should live, which was subject to a court order. Miss X has a right it would be reasonable to use to go to court to seek changes to her child's residence arrangements. Norfolk County Council (23 008 295) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with safeguarding concerns about a child. This is because the complainant does not have the authority to complain on the child's behalf. Kent County Council (23 008 522) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about information held on the Council's files relating to the complainant's children. This is because investigation would not achieve anything significant. Salford City Council (22 015 574) Summary: Miss X complained about the way the Council handled her son's special educational needs, including providing all the provision set out in his Education, Health and Care plan. Miss X said the missed provision had an impact on her son, and it caused her unnecessary distress and frustration. We find the Council at fault and this caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise. London Borough of Wandsworth (22 018 079) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's decision to only backdate a remedy payment for failure to provide SEN support for her son, Y, to 2020, rather than 2019. The Council was not at fault. We are satisfied that the Council considered Mrs X's request for an increased remedy payment but decided the request for a remedy for the earlier period was made too late. This was a decision the Council was entitled to make. Hertfordshire County Council (23 007 573) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about funding provided for Mrs X's child's special educational needs at an independent school. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation because the Council also named a maintained school in her child's Education Health and Care Plan, which means she has a free alternative available, and she had a right of appeal to a Tribunal to remove the Council's chosen school from the Plan. Mrs X could ask the Council to remove the alternative maintained school and appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal if it declines to do so. It would be reasonable for her to use this right. Central Bedfordshire Council (23 004 643) Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mrs B's complaint about how she was deregistered as a foster carer. She still has a right of complaint to the Council, so we cannot investigate further. West Northamptonshire Council (23 006 783) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about post adoption letters. The Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to consider inaccurate information. Staffordshire County Council (23 007 969) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's alleged failure to carry out a parental assessment for Miss X's ex-partner or to appropriately safeguard her child Y. This is because the complaint concerns matters which took place during court and are therefore outside our jurisdiction. Further, an investigation would be unlikely to result in finding of fault. Buckinghamshire Council (23 009 281) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council's children's services team. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. Surrey County Council (22 017 510) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed completing an Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment for her son with particular reference to excessive delay in her son being assessed by an educational psychologist. Mrs X says she has suffered avoidable distress and uncertainty about the outcome. We have found fault by the Council but consider the agreed action of an apology and symbolic payment provides a suitable remedy. West Northamptonshire Council (23 005 106) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to produce the final Education Health Care Plan for her child within the statutory timescales. Mrs X says the delay caused her child to miss educational support. We found fault by the Council for delays outside the statutory timescales, caused by a delay in obtaining an Educational Psychologist's advice. The Council will pay Mrs X £300 for the distress and uncertainty the delay has caused. Milton Keynes Council (23 006 574) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about missed physiotherapy sessions for the complainant's daughter. This is because the Council has offered a suitable remedy and investigation by the Ombudsman would not achieve anything more. Wiltshire Council (23 007 461) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about a refusal to grant home to school transport. It is unlikely we would find fault. Reading Borough Council (23 007 984) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint the Council considers her partner a risk. That is because the Council has started court proceedings therefore the complaint is outside our jurisdiction. We will not investigate her complaint about how the Council conducted child protection meetings. That is because we could not add to the Council's investigation. West Sussex County Council (23 008 865) 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. Surrey County Council (23 000 872) Summary: We have stopped investigating Miss X's complaint about how the Council dealt with concerns about the safety and wellbeing of her child. An investigation into the parts of the complaint we are not prevented by law from considering is unlikely to find fault and we cannot achieve the outcome Miss X wants. Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (23 006 695) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the circumstances of the removal of the complainant's daughter from her care. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council's part. South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (23 006 886) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about child protection action relating to the complainant's children and about how the Council handled his subsequent complaint. This is because we would not achieve anything significant by doing so. Peterborough City Council (23 007 994) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about an attempt by the Council to remove Ms X's child. The matter complained of is not separable from matters that either have been or could reasonably be raised in court. Plymouth City Council (23 008 236) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to proceed with a foster placement. This is because we cannot achieve anything significant by doing so. Warwickshire County Council (23 008 692) Summary: I uphold this complaint because the Council was at fault in delaying its response under the statutory process 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 by the delay. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (23 009 172) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's failure to follow the Children Act complaints' procedure. It has now agreed to do so. Bedford Borough Council (23 010 102) 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 with the Council's decision to suspend its investigation into some elements of the complaint until proceedings have concluded. London Borough of Waltham Forest (23 009 567) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the school admissions process. This is because the Council has accepted it was at fault and it is unlikely we could add anything to its response. Derbyshire County Council (22 011 497) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed issuing her child, Child Y's final amended Education Health and Care plan following a Tribunal order and a delay in providing the personal budget and reasonable expenses. The Council was at fault, which caused Mrs X distress, uncertainty, time and trouble and caused Child Y distress. The Council will apologise for the delays and pay both Mrs X and Child Y a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused. Kent County Council (22 015 185) Summary: Miss X complained about Council delays in issuing her child's Education Health and Care plan and managing her complaint. We find the Council at fault and recommend it apologises to Miss X and makes a payment of £4500 in recognition of her child's missed special educational provision and £500 for uncertainty and distress. Lancashire County Council (22 016 408) Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mr C's complaint about how the Council met his son's care needs. Following the Council's own investigations into the complaint, neither Mr C nor his son have any remaining injustice significant enough to justify our involvement. Derbyshire County Council (23 003 846) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed completing her child, Y's, Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. The Council was at fault for the delay. It has agreed to apologise and pay Mrs X £500 to recognise the frustration and uncertainty the delays caused her. Latimer Arts College, Kettering (23 006 585) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful school admission appeal the complainant could not attend. This is because the School's offer of a fresh appeal is a suitable remedy. New Longton C Of E School (23 007 507) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint from a parent about the handling of his school admission appeal. This is because there is no sign of fault in the appeal processes which affected the result. Surrey County Council (23 008 047) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to refuse her application for school transport for her son. We have not seen evidence of fault in the way the Council's review committee considered her appeal. Manchester City Council (23 008 914) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about school admissions. This is because the complainant has appealed to a tribunal. Cheshire East Council (23 007 890) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's failure to disclose information regarding his children's welfare. This is because the Council has accepted fault and an investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Westmorland and Furness Council (23 001 448) Summary: Mr X complained about the outcome of the Council's investigation under the statutory children's complaints procedure into its involvement in his daughter, F's care and its decision to try and obtain a care order. The Council properly investigated Mr X's complaints but failed to provide an adequate remedy for the injustice caused by the faults it identified. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and make a payment to acknowledge the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused. West Sussex County Council (23 007 536) 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 considered in court. We have no discretion to do so. Bristol City Council (22 015 100) Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to provide his son, Y, with the provision set out in his Education and Health Care Plan. We find fault by the Council in failing to ensure Y received a suitable education as set out in his Education and Health Care Plan. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and implement additional provision to remedy the injustice caused. Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (22 015 862) Summary: Ms X complained that the Council failed to deliver the provision set out in her daughter's education, health and care plan and failed to put in place alternative provision when she was unable to attend school because of ill health. We found the Council was at fault because there was a delay in starting speech and language therapy and because it failed to put in place alternative provision from September 2022. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and make a payment to her. Hampshire County Council (23 001 686) Summary: Miss X complained about the support the Council provided for her son, Y's, special educational needs. There was fault in how the Council consulted schools, arranged alternative education, reviewed Y's education health and care plan and communicated with Miss X. The Council agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy, review Y's plan and review its practices. Hampshire County Council (23 001 692) Summary: Miss X complained about the support the Council provided for her son, Z's, special educational needs. There was fault in how the Council consulted schools, arranged alternative education, reviewed Z's education health and care plan and communicated with Miss X. The Council agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy, issue Z's amended plan and review its practices. Surrey County Council (23 002 055) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide suitable education provision for her daughter and delayed in dealing with her requests for an Education, Health and Care plan. The Council is at fault as it failed to consider if Y's education provision met her needs and was reasonably accessible to her when she could not attend school on a full time basis and when the strategies put into place by the school failed. This caused uncertainty to Mrs X but we cannot conclude the Council would have found the education provision to be unsuitable. There was also fault in how the Council dealt with Mrs X's complaint which caused uncertainty to her. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and make a payment of £300. Tunbridge Wells Girls Grammar School (23 009 340) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful school admission appeal. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault for us to question the panel's decision. Birmingham City Council (22 015 049) Summary: Mrs X complains about the way the Council ended foster placements of three children, the investigation it carried out before removing the children and the way it communicated with her. I have found no fault with the Council's investigation of the substantive issues Mrs X complained about. I have found fault with the Council's handling of Mrs X's complaint. The Council has offered to apologise and pay Mrs X £300 for the injustice caused by this. Warwickshire County Council (22 018 190) Summary: The complainant raised concerns about the time her daughter spent in the care of the Council. The Council carried out a thorough investigation, upholding most of the complaints and agreeing to take remedial action to improve services for children in care. The complainant wanted to be reassured that the recommended service improvements had been implemented. We accept the findings of fault already made by the Council, and it has provided evidence that most service recommendations have been carried out. There were some outstanding issues which the Council has agreed to address. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (23 002 214) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council causing Miss X a loss of earnings by not permitting other family members to care for foster children when she needed to work. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation. Essex County Council (23 007 958) Summary: We found fault with the Council's delay in completing stage two of the children's statutory complaint procedure for the complainant (Mrs X). This fault caused Mrs X injustice. The Council agreed to apologise, complete the stage two investigation and make a symbolic payment to recognise Mrs X's distress. The Council also agreed to review any overdue complaints considered at stage two of the children's statutory complaint procedure and prepare a plan of action to prevent any further delays. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (23 008 143) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has breached the complainant's confidentiality. This is because another body is better placed to consider the matter. Essex County Council (23 008 838) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the content of a Section 7 report and the social workers involved with the complainant's family. This is because we cannot consider complaints about matters that were or could reasonably have been raised in court. Kent County Council (23 003 403) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's Independent Appeal Panel's decision to refuse his child, Y's, appeal for a place at a grammar school. The Council was at fault. The Clerk's notes did not explain how the Panel reached its decision. This caused Mr X uncertainty about its decision. The Council has agreed to arrange a fresh appeal with Mr X. It will also remind staff of the importance of keeping an accurate record of appeal hearings. 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