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. Leeds City Council (22 014 477) Summary: There was excessive delay by the Council in issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan. There was also a failure to provide alternative (s.19) education when a child was unable to attend school and a more suitable placement could not be identified. This caused loss of education, inconvenience, and distress. The Council will apologise, make a financial payment and service improvements. The complaint is upheld. London Borough of Bromley (22 015 630) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's actions in relation to her child's, Y, Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) and when Y was unable to attend school. The Council was at fault for failing to respond to Mrs X's request for a reassessment of Y's needs and support in the EHC Plan. It was also at fault for how it managed the annual review process and for delaying action when it became aware Y was not attending school. This caused Mrs X frustration and uncertainty. The Council has already apologised to Mrs X for some of the fault. The Council has agreed to extend its apology and provide Mrs X with a symbolic payment. It will remind staff to issue decision letters and review with staff the timescales of amending and issuing final EHC Plans in line with legislation. The Council will also review with staff its statutory duty in relation to children absent from school. Sheffield City Council (23 001 080) Summary: Mrs C complained the Council failed to find a special school placement for her son (X) and the alternative provision he received was inadequate. We found the Council caused a service failure as it was unable to find a suitable special school for X. It was at fault for failing to provide X enough alternative provision to ensure he received a full-time education, and it should have communicated better with Mrs C. The Council will apologise and make payment to Mrs C to acknowledge the injustice this caused her and X. Northumberland County Council (23 005 473) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed issuing her child, Y, with an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council was at fault for delaying issuing Y with an EHC Plan. The delay was caused by a shortage of educational psychologists. It caused Mrs X distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council has already apologised to Mrs X, which was appropriate. The Council has agreed it will provide Mrs X with a financial remedy to recognise the injustice caused. London Borough of Croydon (23 010 603) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the education provision for the complainant's child. Most of the complaint is late and there is no good reason Miss X could not have complained sooner. The Council has not yet been given a chance to respond to Miss X's concerns about more recent issues. South Gloucestershire Council (23 010 919) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the professional advice the Council considered and what content it deleted from Mrs X's child's Education Health and Care Plan. These matters are not separable from the content of the Plan, where Mrs X has used her right of appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. City of Wolverhampton Council (23 011 910) Summary: A parent complained about the school admission appeal panel's decision to refuse her appeal for a place for her child at her preferred primary school. But we will not investigate this complaint as there is no sign of fault by the panel. Surrey County Council (23 003 807) Summary: Mrs B says the Council failed to provide her with any advice, support or options when she took on care of her niece in 2020, unreasonably refused to consider her complaint about that and failed to provide her with any advice about securing a special guardianship order. The Council failed to recognise its involvement in setting up the placement in 2020, failed to consider Mrs B's complaint and failed to give her any advice about special guardianship. Backdated payments, funding for some legal advice for Mrs B and training for officers is satisfactory remedy. West Northamptonshire Council (23 010 630) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about whether a Council should remove a report from a children services record. The Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to consider this issue. Suffolk County Council (23 010 889) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about access to assessments. It is unlikely we could add to the Council's reply. South Gloucestershire Council (22 017 110) Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide appropriate education for her son Y, when he was unable to attend school from April 2022 and failed to respond to her complaint on the matter. There was no fault in how the Council considered Y's education. There was fault in how the Council considered Miss X's complaint. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss X and pay her £100 to recognise the frustration and confusion this caused. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (23 001 647) Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council ended the Occupational Therapy (OT) support, and other support, as set out in her daughter's Educational, Health and Care Plan when she moved schools. The Council has accepted fault and has agreed to reinstate the support. We find fault and have recommended ways to remedy the outstanding injustice, which the Council has accepted. We are therefore closing the complaint. London Borough of Brent (23 002 259) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed issuing her son, F's amended Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan following an annual review in December 2021. She also complained F was not receiving provision in line with his EHC plan between December 2021 and May 2022. The Council was at fault. It delayed issuing F's amended EHC plan by over five months. It also failed to carry out due diligence around F's provision which means on balance, F lost out on some of his provision in line with his EHC plan during this period. The Council should make payments to Mrs X to recognise the injustice this caused to both her and F. Kent County Council (23 002 539) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The Council was at fault, but it did not cause the complainant a significant personal injustice. Surrey County Council (23 003 425) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide suitable alternative education for her daughter when she was unable to attend school. The Council only provided a limited amount of tutoring for part of the period Mrs X's daughter was not attending school. This is fault and a suitable remedy is agreed. Staffordshire County Council (23 003 880) Summary: We found fault on Mr D's complaint about the way the Council handled his challenge of its refusal to award his son home to school transport. It delayed dealing with his initial challenge, failed to give reasons and show how issues raises were considered at both stages of the review process, and delayed responding to correspondence. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused. Worcestershire County Council (23 004 059) Summary: We found fault by the Council on Mr F's complaint about the appeal panel failing to follow procedure when it heard an appeal against the decision to refuse his son a place at his preferred school. There is nothing to show why the panel decided not to adjourn the hearing, the appeal documents failed to clearly explain the category his son came within under the admission criteria, and the records fail to show it considered the appeal properly under the first stage of the hearing. There was no injustice caused as a result. Royal Borough of Greenwich (23 004 389) Summary: Mr B complained that the Council failed to properly consider his admission appeal against the refusal of a place for his son C at their preferred school. The Council accepts that the notes of the panel's decision-making were unclear and has offered Mr B a fresh hearing. We consider that is a reasonable and proportionate way of resolving the complaint. London Borough of Sutton (23 010 653) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's decision not to provide her daughter with assisted transport to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. London Borough of Waltham Forest (23 000 435) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to implement the recommendations of the Review Panel held in December 2022 and it continues to repeat failings previously acknowledged. Mr X says it is emotionally and mentally draining to keep making the same complaint. The Council has taken action recommended by the Review Panel as well as making Mr X a payment of £650 to acknowledge his distress and time and trouble. While there is limited evidence regarding the "file review" and adopting a "fresh perspective" this is not fault. Coventry City Council (23 002 523) Summary: We have ended our investigation into Mr X's complaint about how the Council considered his complaint through the children's statutory complaints procedure. This is because Mr X started court action about the same matter. Staffordshire County Council (23 006 161) Summary: There was no fault the Council decided not to accept an independent panel's recommendation about a remedy for Mr and Mrs X's injustice. The Council considered the matter after a three-stage Children Act 1989 complaints procedure and it took a decision it was able to take. There is no obvious flaw or unreasonableness in its decision, and we therefore cannot criticise it. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (23 008 761) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about allegations of historic abuse whilst in the Council's care as a child. This complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate now. Cheshire East Council (23 010 853) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about a children services report prepared for Court proceedings. We cannot investigate reports which form part of Court proceedings. London Borough of Newham (23 010 947) Summary: We found fault in the Council's delay in completing stage three of the children's statutory complaint procedure for the complainant (Ms X) following our recommendations in Ms X's previous complaint. This fault caused Ms X injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise, complete stage three of the children's statutory complaint procedure and make a symbolic payment to recognise Ms X's distress. North Yorkshire County Council (22 015 220) Summary: Ms X complained about the Council's disproportionate enquiries into the education she provided to her child at home. We have found one area of fault because the Council took long to resolve the matter. This caused avoidable distress to Ms X. However, the Council has already apologised to her, and we consider this to be a suitable remedy. We did not find evidence that Ms X was bullied by the Council or that it should not have made the enquiries it did. Derby City Council (23 000 413) Summary: delay by the Council amending B's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan caused significant injustice to B and his family. B was without suitable education for more than a term, and Ms M had to take unpaid leave when B should have been at school. The Council has agreed a remedy for the injustice caused. Torbay Council (23 000 707) Summary: the Council took too long to issue B's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This was fault. The Council also accepts it has more work to do to effectively "co-produce" plans with parents. However, I cannot consider Mrs M's complaints about the contents of B's Plan because she has appealed to the SEND Tribunal. Leeds City Council (23 006 433) Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to review and update her Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for many years. She says she wanted to return to education last year but was unable to because her EHC Plan was not up to date. The Council accepts it made mistakes and has offered to provide support to allow Ms X to complete the course even though she will be over 25. This is a good outcome. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (23 009 486) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's handling of her child's Education, Health, and Care (EHC) plan. She says the Council decided to end her child's education placement without any transition plan in place. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Surrey County Council (23 010 317) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process and poor communication by the Council. This is because the Council has agreed appropriate remedies. Birmingham City Council (23 000 039) Summary: Following an investigation under the statutory complaints process, the Council accepted that it had not ensured it had an up-to-date assessment of a child's respite care needs. The Council has now completed the assessment. However it did not communicate properly with the child's father, making it very difficult for him to arrange respite care to meet the child's assessed needs. The Council also took too long to complete the complaints process. The Council's shortcomings caused distress, frustration, and uncertainty. I have recommended that it take additional action to remedy this. Manchester City Council (23 002 723) Summary: There was fault in how the Council decided to refuse a Youth Club's application for Holiday Activity and Food funding. This fault did not cause the Club any injustice because it did not provide the information the Council needed to decide the application properly. The Council's failure to show due regard for its Public Sector Equality Duty was also fault. The Council agreed and has already implemented our recommendations to improve its services. Devon County Council (23 009 812) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to escalate Mrs X's complaint. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to result in a worthwhile outcome. Medway Council (23 010 665) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decisions about safeguarding Mr X's children and its views of him. These matters are not separable from the question of who should care for his children, in respect of which Mr X has a right to go to court it would be reasonable to use. Where someone has already approached a court, we cannot investigate related matters. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (23 011 492) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's actions concerning Miss X. The matters complained of are not separable from matters currently subject to court proceedings. Worcestershire County Council (22 015 567) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's failure to provide her son with suitable education after his exclusion from school in April 2022. We have found fault because the Council failed to deliver suitable education. Mrs X has suffered avoidable frustration and distress in getting the issues resolved and her son missed out on education he should have received. To remedy the injustice caused by the fault, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mrs X and provide guidance to relevant officers. Essex County Council (23 002 047) Summary: Mrs C complained about how the Council dealt with her request for an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for her son and how it communicated with her. She also said it failed to provide him with suitable alternative provision. We found the Council at fault for failing to adhere to the statutory timescales to complete his EHC Plan and caused delays in responding to her communication and complaint. There was no fault on the other matters complained about, or Mrs C had appeal right to the SEND Tribunal. The Council agreed to apologise and make payment to Mrs C to acknowledge injustice this caused her and her son. Devon County Council (23 010 144) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about delay in the Council completing her child's Education, Health, and Care needs assessment. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Surrey County Council (23 010 624) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's actions in relation to an Education Health and Care Plan. Mrs X has appealed to the Tribunal, and we cannot investigate issues the Tribunal can consider. There was no significant delay in the Education Health and Care Plan production. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (23 011 932) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the processing of an application for a school place. This is because the complainant has used her right of appeal to a tribunal. Kent County Council (23 010 717) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a statement made by a Council social worker. This is because the Council has already suitably addressed the matter and an investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Bedford Borough Council (23 011 158) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about failings by the Council when after a foster child returned to the care of Mr X and his wife. Investigation by us would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome as the Council has already offered a suitable remedy for two points of complaint and we could not reach a robust view of a third point by investigation. Slough Borough Council (23 011 250) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a court report because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been considered in court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so. Wakefield City Council (22 015 822) Summary: Ms Y complained the Council failed to provide all the special educational needs support set out in her child's Education Health and Care Plan and delayed completing the annual review of the plan. We have found fault by the Council causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising, reporting to us on progress, making payments and service improvements. Suffolk County Council (22 016 835) Summary: We have found the Council at fault for not issuing Y's EHC Plan in line with statutory timescales, failing to provide Y with educational support for ten weeks, failing to provide Mrs X with information regarding supervision for Y during the school day and failing to follow its complaints process correctly. To remedy the injustice caused the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and make payments to reflect Y's missed education and the uncertainty and frustration caused. Surrey County Council (23 000 523) Summary: There was fault by the Council in failing to complete an EHC needs assessment within statutory timescales due to a shortage of Educational Psychologists. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment. The Council is already carrying out service improvements to address the shortage of staff and backlog of cases. The complaint is upheld. Thurrock Council (23 000 810) Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide alternative provision and support for her child, Child Y from October 2021 to September 2022. We have ended this investigation because Miss X should have complained to us sooner and she had already used appeal rights to the SEND Tribunal. London Borough of Bromley (23 001 250) Summary: Miss X complained there was a failure to find a suitable education placement, and a lack of alternative educational and EHC provision for her son following a move to a new council area. She also complained about communication issues and a refusal to consult a particular school. We found there was initial delay in taking action and a failure to review her son's EHC plan within the required timescales. This caused frustration and distress for which we recommended a remedy. We could not consider elements of Miss X's complaint affected by appeal rights. Buckinghamshire Council (23 009 185) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to start child protection enquiries. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. The Council has agreed to provide Miss X a financial remedy for delays in the statutory complaint procedure. We are satisfied that remedies any outstanding injustice. Essex County Council (23 010 607) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to name a mainstream school in a child's Education Health and Care plan. This is because the complainant has a right of appeal to a tribunal that it is reasonable for her to use. Gosforth Park First School (23 011 893) 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 and so we cannot question the panel's decision. Cambridgeshire County Council (23 008 416) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with matters relating to the care and contact arrangements of the complainant's children. Much of the complaint is about matters that have either been considered in court or are matters for the courts to decide upon. We could not add to the Council's investigation into other matters and some issues should be raised with the Information Commissioners Office. Kent County Council (23 010 596) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about child protection action by the Council. There is not sufficient evidence of fault by the Council in its actions to date to warrant investigation. London Borough of Lambeth (23 010 613) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions in removing Miss X's child. This is because the matters complained of are not separable from matters which have formed part of court proceedings. Cheshire East Council (23 011 239) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the content of telephone call. Investigating this would not lead to any worthwhile outcome. Birmingham City Council (23 009 850) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council has been at fault in the process of amending an Education Health and Care Plan and in failing to make alternative educational provision. The complainant has used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and this means the matters are not subject to investigation. Leicestershire County Council (22 016 864) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her daughter, Y, with a suitable education when she was unable to attend school due to health reasons, between April 2022 and February 2023. Mrs X further complained the Council delayed in completing an education, health and care needs assessment for Y and issued an unlawful education, health and care plan. The Council delayed in issuing a final education, health and care plan for Y. The Council agreed to pay Mrs X £400 to recognise the frustration caused to her. 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