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. Central Bedfordshire Council (23 009 225) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to issue Mrs X's daughter with an Education Health and Care Plan. It was reasonable for the complainant to appeal the Council's initial decision to a tribunal. Mrs X then used her appeal rights. The complaint is outside our jurisdiction. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (23 009 260) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not seeking Mr X's permission to process an application for his child to change school. Only a court could decide if changing a child's school is a major decision that requires the consent of both parents with parental responsibility, or award significant compensation. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (23 004 831) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to make adequate alternative educational provision for her child when they were excluded from school. We have discontinued our investigation of Mrs X's complaint because we cannot investigate a substantive part of the complaint and further investigation of the remaining matters would not lead to a worthwhile outcome. Leicestershire County Council (23 006 535) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide education for her child from November 2021 to June 2022. Ms X has appealed to the tribunal about her child's Education Health Care Plan which is inextricably linked to their loss of education. We cannot investigate complaints when a person has appealed to the tribunal about the same matter, so I have ended our investigation. Lancashire County Council (23 007 584) Summary: We will not investigate Dr X's complaint about the school nursing service at the Council. This is because there is no indication of serious injustice caused by any fault. South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (23 009 289) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's response to a child protection referral and preventing Mr X's contact with his child. Mr X has a right to go to court to seek contact it would be reasonable to use. Kent County Council (22 017 780) Summary: Mrs X complained there was a failure to provide Occupational Therapy (OT) support that is part of her daughter's EHC provision. She also complained the Council failed to respond to her complaint. We found the Council had failed to provide the required support over a prolonged period and it had not responded to her complaint. We recommended the Council made a payment to Mrs X and to her daughter and that it developed an action plan to address the lack of Occupational Therapist resources that led to the problem in her daughter's case. Suffolk County Council (23 000 434) Summary: The Council failed to review and finalise Ms X's son, Z's Education, Health and Care Plans (EHC plans) between January 2022 and June 2023 within the statutory timeframes. It failed to use the EHC plan process to carry out work in preparing him for adulthood and failed to ensure he received the occupational therapy he was entitled to receive. In recognition of the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise and pay Ms X and Z £3,900. It has also agreed to carry out several service improvements. Derbyshire County Council (23 003 655) Summary: there is no fault in the Independent Appeal Panel's decision not to admit Ms M's daughter to a secondary school. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions made without fault. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (23 004 216) Summary: The Council was not at fault for refusing Ms B's application for support for her son to travel to college. It considered the available evidence and properly explained its decision. As there were no procedural errors undermining the Council's decision-making, we have no power to question the outcome. North Lincolnshire Council (23 007 452) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Child in Need assessment and support. This is because we could not add to any previous investigation by the Council and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Hampshire County Council (23 009 158) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaints about her son's working document for her appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Education Needs and Disability) because they relate to the appeals process. We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's late payment of invoices because the matter has not caused significant injustice. London Borough of Lewisham (23 009 344) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's decision not to issue her son with an Education Health and Care Plan. The is because it is reasonable for Miss X to use her right of appeal to a tribunal. Cumberland Council (23 003 870) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about leaving care. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement. Swindon Borough Council (23 008 540) Summary: I uphold this complaint that the Council denied the complainant the opportunity to escalate her complaint about its care of her child while looked after by the Council. The Council has agreed to resolve the matter by offering the complainant the opportunity to escalate her complaint to Stage 2 of the statutory procedure for complaints about children's services. Norfolk County Council (23 009 203) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the wording of a policy in place when the Councill's Local Authority Designated Officer dealt with a concern about a child's treatment at school. This is because the events occurred some five years ago and there is no good reason why the late complaint rule should not apply. Bedford Borough Council (23 009 355) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a comment in an email sent by a council officer following a fostering review. This is because we could not add anything to the Council's response or achieve anything more. We cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants. Westminster City Council (23 009 734) Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council failed to consider a complaint about a child in need under the statutory children's complaints procedure. The Council has offered to resolve the complaint by considering the complaint at stage two of the statutory procedure and offering to make a payment to the complainant to remedy the injustice caused by not doing so sooner. Kent County Council (22 014 731) Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed her daughter, Y, starting at a school in September 2021. She said Y did not start until November 2021. Miss X also complained the Council delayed Y's annual review and there were delays in the complaint process. Miss X said Y missed education and her Education, Health and Care Plan was not up to date to her needs. Miss X said she has been frustrated by the process and delay. There was fault in the way the Council did not provide Y with alternative education until she started school, delayed the annual review, delayed issuing an updated plan and did not complete the complaints process appropriately. Miss X was put to time and trouble to complain and was frustrated by the delay. The Council should apologise and make a financial payment. Surrey County Council (22 015 806) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to commission an Educational Psychology (EP) report for her son, Y, as part of his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan review. Mrs X also complained the Council refused to investigate her complaint. We find fault with how the Council communicated with Mrs X and its refusal to consider her complaint. We recommend the Council apologise to Mrs X and make a payment to recognise the uncertainty caused. Kent County Council (22 017 592) Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council provided support for his son, Mr Y's, special education needs. The Council was at fault for delays in reviewing Mr Y's EHC plan, delays confirming Mr Y's ongoing education, failing to provide some of the support in his plan, poor communication and in how it replied to Mr X's complaint. This caused avoidable uncertainty, distress, time and trouble for which the Council agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy. Liverpool City Council (23 000 304) Summary: The Council accepts it did not take sufficient steps to ensure Miss Y received all the support in her Education, Health and Care plan when she was out of school in 2021-2022. It has offered a payment that is appropriate to remedy the injustice caused to Miss Y and the avoidable time and trouble her mother, Ms X, was put to in pursuing the matter. Lancashire County Council (23 001 569) Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council arranged support for her son, Y's, special educational needs. There was fault in how the Council failed to arrange all the provision in Y's Education Health and Care plan and failed to review the education it did provide for over four months. This caused avoidable distress and uncertainty to Ms X and Y. The Council agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy and review how it arranges and monitors home education. Oxfordshire County Council (23 008 868) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about issues with home to school transport. The injustice is not significant enough and we could not add anything to the Council's response or achieve anything more. Lancashire County Council (23 009 575) 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. Cornwall Council (23 000 866) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's care of Ms X's child. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation. Cumberland Council (23 006 534) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions in response to a referral to the Local Authority Designated Officer because we would not achieve anything significant by doing so. Wakefield City Council (23 006 725) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker because it concerns matters which are the subject of private law proceedings. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (23 007 776) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the recalculation of the complainant's Special Guardianship Order allowance because there is no evidence of fault on the Council's part. Cheshire East Council (23 009 352) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to escalate Ms X's complaint about the Council closing a case. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council's action in closing the case to warrant investigation. It is not a good use of resources to investigate complaint handling issues where we are not investigating the substantive matter. Lincolnshire County Council (23 009 731) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint about evidence the Council provided in court proceedings because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been considered and decided in court. Hampshire County Council (22 011 991) Summary: Mr B complained about the financial remedy offered for the delay in ensuring the therapies in his daughter C's Education, Health and Care Plan were provided. We found fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to increase its remedy to include the delay in obtaining the specialist chair and the delay in responding to the stage three complaint. Staffordshire County Council (22 012 088) Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to secure the provision set out in her son, Y's, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. Miss X also complained the Council failed to properly review Y's EHC Plan or respond to her request for a personal budget. We find the Council at fault for failing to secure provision, not reviewing Y's EHC Plan in time, and for how it considered Miss X's personal budget request. We also find fault with the Council's complaint handling. We recommend the Council apologise to Miss X, make a payment to recognise the injustice caused and act to prevent recurrence. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (22 013 229) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council unreasonably delayed amending Child Y's EHCP on separate occasions. She complains this meant Child Y did not have access to the provision they were entitled to. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for delaying the decision to amend the EHCP, and for delaying issuing the EHCP on two occasions. The Ombudsman also finds fault with the Council for failing to deliver the agreed provision. The Council has agreed to pay a financial remedy for the delay and lost provision. Cheshire East Council (22 013 706) Summary: Mrs Y complained the Council failed to deliver all Miss Z's special educational needs provision in her Education Health and Care Plan. We have found fault by the Council in failing to issue Miss Z's plan within the statutory timescale and the delay and failure in delivering parts of her special educational needs provision from September 2022 to July 2023. This fault has caused injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising to Mrs Y and Miss Z, making payments to recognise the impact of the missed provision on Miss Z, and to reflect Mrs Y's distress, time and trouble and reporting to us on the position regarding the missing provision. It has also agreed to make a service improvement. Cornwall Council (22 014 122) Summary: Ms Y complained the Council delayed completing her child's Education, Health and Care needs assessment and issuing an Education Health and Care plan. She also complained the Council failed to make any alternative provision for her child when she was unable to attend school. We have found fault by the Council in failing to complete the assessment and plan within the statutory timescales. We have also found fault by the Council in failing to make alternative provision for the child in the period from March to September 2022, and with its complaint handling. These faults have caused injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising to Ms Y, making payments to recognise the impact on the child of the missed education, and to reflect Ms Y's uncertainty, distress, time and trouble, together with service improvements. Dorset Council (22 015 157) Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to provide alternative educational provision for her son, and communicated poorly with her. Mrs X said this impacted on her son's education and caused unnecessary distress. We find the Council at fault which caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to remedy the injustice. Leicestershire County Council (22 015 317) Summary: Mr X complains the Council was fault in the way it dealt with his daughter Y's Education Health and Care Plan following an annual review in May 2022 causing distress and uncertainty. The Council has accepted it was at fault as it delayed issuing an updated EHC Plan. The Council has already apologised, taken action and proposed a financial payment to Mr X in recognition of the distress caused which is suitable to remedy the injustice caused to Mr X and Y. So, we have completed our investigation. Surrey County Council (22 016 475) Summary: Mrs P complained the Council delayed its education, health and care needs assessment for her son, due to a delayed educational psychologist assessment. She also complained about the Council's poor communications. The Ombudsman upholds the complaint. The Council has agreed to our recommendations. Lincolnshire County Council (22 016 765) Summary: The complainant (Miss X) said the Council failed to safeguard her son (Y), to comply with the statutory timescales for Education Health and Care (EHC) plan reviews, to provide Y with suitable alternative education, to arrange transport for Y to his new school from the beginning of the autumn term 2022 and to communicate adequately with Miss X and Y's school. We found fault with the Council in most of the issues raised by Miss X. Some of these faults caused Y and Miss X injustice. We did not find fault with the Council's safeguarding. The Council agreed to apologise and make symbolic payments to remedy the injustice caused to Y and Miss X. Surrey County Council (22 016 823) Summary: Mrs K complained about the Council's delay in completing its education, health and care needs assessment for her son; largely caused by a delay in an assessment by its educational psychologist. But Mrs K had already commissioned her own educational psychologist assessment, which the Council belatedly agreed to use. Mrs K complained the Council could have earlier agreed to use the assessment. The Ombudsman upholds the complaint. The Council has agreed to our recommendations of remedies for the injustice to Mrs K. Somerset Council (22 018 230) Summary: There was fault in how the Council handled the special educational needs of Ms B's daughter. It took too long to issue the final Education Health and Care plan and to notify the college; and it has failed to provide the therapies set out in the plan. The Council did not always keep Ms B informed and did not always make the reasonable adjustments she was entitled to under the Equality Act. The Council's shortcomings mean that Ms B's daughter has not always been able to access her education fully and they have both been caused distress and frustration. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (23 001 343) Summary: There was fault by the Council. It took too long to respond to Miss B's complaint. It did not consider properly whether changes to the timetable would have a significant impact on Miss B's son and whether this was dealt with in accordance with his Education, Health and Care plan. The Council's shortcomings caused distress and frustration. The Council should take the action recommended to remedy the complaint. Surrey County Council (23 001 857) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has delayed the reassessment of Child Y's EHCP and refused to deliver alternative provision in the interim. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for delaying issuing the EHCP, and for failing to consider its duty to alternative provision. The Council has agreed to pay financial remedies for the delays and lost education, and implement service improvements. Blessed Thomas Holford Catholic College (23 004 659) Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the School Admissions appeal panel considered her appeal and refused a place for her son. We found fault with the failure of the panel to properly explain its decision making in its notes. The School has agreed with our recommendations. Norfolk County Council (23 008 278) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's lack of alternative education provision for her son. This is because she has used her right to appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. Lincolnshire County Council (23 008 520) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to provide school transport for the complainant's son. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council's decision-making process. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (23 008 878) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's decision to refuse her daughter's application for a free school bus pass. This is because the Council has, prior to our involvement, decided to issue the bus pass. London Borough of Bromley (23 008 958) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's failure to provide adequate support to her daughter, who has spent a considerable amount of time out of school. This is because the issue relates to the Council's decision to refuse Miss X's daughter's application for an education health and care plan and Miss X has appealed against that decision. Miss X may ask for a referral from the Council's occupational health team for support and if it refuses she may raise a new complaint about this decision. Lincolnshire County Council (23 009 133) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to provide suitable education for the complainant's daughter. This is because the complaint concerns decisions on the Council's part against which the complainant appealed, or could have appealed, to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability), as well as matters which are inextricably linked to those decisions. North Yorkshire Council (23 009 552) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a headteacher's handling of Mr X's child's education needs in school. This is because the matter relates to the internal management of a school, which falls outside of our jurisdiction. The law says we cannot consider complaints about the actions of councils in relation to matters that are out of our jurisdiction. City of Wolverhampton Council (23 008 385) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to backdate financial support for the whole period during which the complainant has had care of her granddaughter. This is because the matter has been considered in Court. London Borough of Lewisham (23 008 820) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about a child and family assessment. We cannot investigate reports which are used in Court proceedings. Warwickshire County Council (23 008 959) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the actions of a Council social worker when carrying out a child and family assessment. This is because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (23 009 033) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to initiate safeguarding proceedings after receiving a referral regarding Miss X and her family. This is because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome for Miss X. Suffolk County Council (23 009 123) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council closing a case before contact between Miss X and her children was re-established, and consistently refusing to re-open the matter. The matters complained of are not separable from matters of contact with children, which have been subject to court proceedings, and which could only be decided by a court. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (23 009 242) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about a Council officer's actions outside of her work for the Council. This is because an investigation by this office would not be able to add to the response already provided by the Council via its investigation of the matter. Leeds City Council (23 001 702) Summary: There was fault in the Council delaying finalising an EHCP in line with statutory requirements. This delay caused Miss X avoidable frustration and distress. It also meant Miss X's daughter missed out on special education provision they would have been due, if but for the delay. The Council have already apologised and made an offer of a financial remedy. It has agreed to increase this offer to fully recognise the injustice to Miss X and her daughter. The Latymer School, Edmonton (23 003 754) Summary: We found fault on Mr M's complaint about the appeal panel failing to properly consider his appeal against the admission authority's decision to refuse his son a place at the preferred school. While the panel failed to find the admission arrangements did not comply with admission law, despite a decision from the Office of the School Adjudicator, this caused no injustice. Warrington Council (23 005 182) Summary: There was fault in the Council delaying arranging suitable alternative provision for a child out of school, and not bringing forward an annual review of an Education, Health and Care plan (EHCP). There was also fault it did not issue a final EHCP after the review within required timescales. The faults caused Mrs X and their child an injustice because of the uncertainty about future special education provision, and the lost education. The Council have already made an offer of a remedy for this injustice to Mrs X's child, and it has agreed to my further recommendations to fully remedy the injustice I saw. Essex County Council (23 005 214) Summary: There was fault by the Council which delayed obtaining advice from an Educational Psychologist and delayed issuing Y's final Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused avoidable distress, frustration and a delay in appeal rights. The Council will apologise, issue Y's final plan and make payments set out in this statement. Suffolk County Council (23 008 163) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not attending a review of Miss X's child's Education Health and Care Plan and poor communication with her. Investigation by us would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome given the Council has already apologised for these matters. Portsmouth City Council (23 001 222) Summary: Mrs D complained the Council wrongly advised her in relation to becoming a level three foster carer. She says she has missed out financially because of the poor advice. We find the Council was at fault for giving Mrs D the wrong advice. The Council's remedy from its investigation into Mrs D's complaint does not adequately remedy her injustice. The Council has agreed to our increased recommendation to reflect Mrs D's injustice. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (23 002 171) Summary: Mrs X complained she waited over a year for the Council to complete a child in need assessment for her disabled child, Y. She complained she had four allocated social workers and did not receive the assessment until one year after it was originally allocated to the social work team. Mrs X said Y was unable to access appropriate support and this impacted his health, as well as the rest of the family's health. There was fault in the way the Council delayed completing Y's assessment and did not complete the children's statutory complaints process. Mrs X was put to time and trouble to complain. Mrs X was frustrated by the delay and Y's needs were not assessed in a timely manner to ensure his needs were met. The Council should apologise, make a financial payment, conduct a review to identify the causes of the delays in this complaint and produce an action plan to address the causes of the delays identified. London Borough of Bromley (23 005 338) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's action in respect of a child protection case saying this caused distress and led to the wrong decision being made. The Council accepts there were inaccuracies in the report for the case conference and has taken action to remedy this. However, we cannot say this resulted in the wrong decision being reached. Thurrock Council (23 007 773) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about contact arrangements with his children. This is because this matter has already been considered by a court. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (22 017 528) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council has not provided any education or provision set out in the Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) for her son, Y, since the family moved to the area. Mrs X says Y has missed out on education and provision and this has affected the mental health of her and her family. There was fault in the way the Council did not provide any education or provision from the plan. Y did not receive any education or EHCP provision for two academic terms and Mrs X suffered distress dealing with this matter. The Council should apologise, make a financial payment and remind staff of the Council's responsibilities. 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