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. Oxfordshire County Council (23 010 738) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in a child in need assessment and a Council officer not attending an arranged meeting. There is not enough evidence of injustice caused by fault to warrant investigation. Birmingham City Council (23 010 870) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's Education Safeguarding Team. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, and we cannot investigate complaints about what happens in schools. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (23 011 134) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's actions concerning Mr X. The matters he complains of are not separable from matters that either formed part of court proceedings or could reasonably have been raised in court. We cannot consider the Council's handling of Mr X 's complaint because the substantive matters complained of lie outside our legal powers. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (23 011 281) Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's actions in relation to its child protection involvement with her family because it lies outside our jurisdiction. This is because the matter has been subject to court proceedings and the law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been considered and decided in court. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (23 003 515) Summary: Miss F complains the Council has failed to provide her son, J, with education or secure his special educational needs provision since he started college. We found fault as the Council delayed holding an EHCP review and issuing an amended plan, failed to secure J's SEND provision and delayed providing support to enable him to participate in education. It has agreed to apologise and make symbolic payments to Miss F and J to remedy the distress and uncertainty caused. Surrey County Council (23 004 464) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to complete her son, Y's, Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment and produce an EHC Plan in line with statutory deadlines. Ms X also complains the Council gave Y's nursery incorrect information about when it should begin the process of applying for an EHC needs assessment. We find the Council at fault for missing statutory deadlines. We recommend the Council apologise to Ms X and make a payment to recognise the injustice caused. Norfolk County Council (23 004 527) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council exceeded the statutory timescales for completing an Education, Health and Care needs assessment for her daughter and failed to provide alternative education or personal budget for her when she was no longer able to attend school. We found fault by the Council on both matters. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment in recognition of Mrs X's daughter's missed education and a further payment for the distress and time and trouble caused because of the fault. Essex County Council (23 011 280) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's actions during an Education Health and Care Plan assessment. There are no good reasons the late complaint rule should not apply. Manchester City Council (23 011 356) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged failures in the educational provision for Miss X's child between October 2018 and January 2022. Miss X could have complained to us sooner and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate these late matters now. Westmorland and Furness Council (23 008 680) Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed considering a complaint under the children's statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint by progressing the complaint to stage two of the procedure and completing its investigation without further delay. It will also apologise and offer to make a payment to the complainant to remedy the time and trouble they have been too. Cheshire East Council (23 010 219) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint about information the Council provided to the court in proceedings relating to her daughter 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. Sheffield City Council (23 010 775) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the alleged failure of the Council to protect Mr X and his daughter from abuse by his ex-partner. The matters complained of are not separable from matters concerning who should have care of a child, which only a court could decide. Oxfordshire County Council (23 010 779) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about care proceedings or what the Council said in court. That is because the law says we cannot investigate what happened in court. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (23 011 045) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about promoting the Muslim faith to looked after children. She has not suffered any personal injustice. Liverpool City Council (23 011 323) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about children services' actions. It is reasonable to expect her to complete the statutory complaints' procedure. North Lincolnshire Council (22 009 253) Summary: Ms B says the Council delayed seeking a specialist school placement for her son, failed to ensure her son received education and delayed issuing her son's education, health and care plan following a review. There was some delay seeking a placement and in issuing the education, health and care plan. The Council failed to ensure Ms B's son received education for part of the period. An apology, payment to Ms B and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (22 013 964) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her daughter C, with education as set out in her Education, Health and Care Plan and failed to provide alternative education when C was out of school. Mrs X also says the Council failed to effectively monitor whether the school was delivering the correct educational provision. The Council was at fault for failing to provide C with alternative education. This caused C to miss her entitled provision and caused Mrs X distress and put her to the time and trouble of complaining. We do not find the Council at fault for failing to deliver C's provision when she was at school or for how it monitored C's provision. The Council has accepted our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused. Devon County Council (23 004 041) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about support the Council has provided for her child, Y, who has special Educational Needs. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council's actions following the Tribunal hearing in May 2023 and we cannot achieve the outcome she wants. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (23 007 131) Summary: Mr D complained how the independent appeal panel dealt with his appeals for places for his children at their preferred secondary school. We find some fault in how the panel considered Mr D's appeals. This means he cannot be satisfied the appeals process was carried out fairly. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault. Essex County Council (23 007 382) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed assessing her child, Y, for an Education, Health, and Care (EHC) plan. The Council was at fault. It delayed conducting an assessment with an Educational Psychologist which meant it has not decided whether to issue an EHC plan for Y. The Council agreed to pay Mrs X a symbolic payment to acknowledge the distress, frustration, and uncertainty the matter has caused her. It agreed to make a further payment to Mrs X to acknowledge any injustice caused by further delay until it has decided whether it will issue an EHC plan to Y, or when it has issued a final EHC plan to Y. Bedford Borough Council (23 010 242) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the costs she incurred in getting reports for an Education Health and Care Plan. The complaint is late, and we cannot investigate the same issues a Tribunal could have determined. Worcestershire County Council (23 011 201) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to issue an Education Health and Care Plan in accordance with the order of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. The failure to delete wording in Section I of the Plan did not lead to any change in provision for Mrs X's child in the year up to the next review. And the Council's re-issuing of the same wording following the latest review of the Plan carries with it a fresh right of appeal to the Tribunal. Essex County Council (23 011 979) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to provide home to school transport. That is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. North Yorkshire Council (23 001 247) Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to offer help and support when she asked and failed to act on safeguarding reports. The Council failed to communicate with its appointed early help champion and discuss the case with Miss X when it received early help referrals in line with its policy. The Council will apologise and take action to prevent reoccurrence. Wokingham Borough Council (22 003 426) Summary: The Council was at fault for delaying in issuing an Education, Health and Care plan following an annual review and for not putting all of the provision in place following a ruling from the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. This caused injustice as the child has been without provision they otherwise would have received. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council agreed to apologise and make a payment for the loss of education to the child. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (23 000 251) Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council handled alternative provision for her daughter after she stopped attending school in September 2022. The Council was at fault for not providing alternative provision. The Council agreed to remedy the injustice its actions have caused to Miss X and S. Surrey County Council (23 000 597) Summary: Mrs E complains the Council delayed its education, health and care needs assessment for her son, due to a delayed educational psychologist assessment. She also complains about the Council's poor communications. The Ombudsman upholds the complaint. The Council has agreed to our recommendations. Devon County Council (23 002 466) Summary: Miss F complained the Council caused delays and failed to provide her two children with a suitable education to meet the needs set out in their Education, Health and Care plans when they moved into the Council's area. We found the Council at fault for causing a short delay in arranging online educational provision, which caused some uncertainty and distress. There was no fault on other matters complained about. Devon County Council (23 002 982) Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed completing her son, F's Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment in line with statutory timescales and failed to put in place alternative provision. The Council failed to decide whether to issue F with an EHC plan within the statutory timescale, caused by a delay in obtaining Educational Psychologist advice. This caused a further delay in the Council issuing F's final EHC plan. It also delayed responding to Miss X's request for alternative provision for F and her complaint. The Council agreed to make payments to Miss X to acknowledge the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused to her and F as a result of the delays. London Borough of Waltham Forest (23 006 095) Summary: Ms X complained the school 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. The Council will arrange a fresh appeal with a different panel to remedy the injustice caused and remind staff of the appropriate process for recording appeals to prevent reoccurrence of the fault. Swindon Borough Council (23 007 965) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council refused to provide home to school transport for her child and did not give her a right of appeal. We discontinued our investigation. That is because the Council later offered Mrs X an appeal. It would be reasonable for Mrs X to use her right of appeal before the Ombudsman investigates. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (23 011 257) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the alleged poor conduct of a school headteacher. This is because the complaint concerns matters which are outside of our jurisdiction. Devon County Council (23 012 343) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the school admissions process. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or that Ms X has been caused a significant personal injustice. Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (23 002 805) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the financial support offered when her great granddaughter came to live with her. The complaint is late and there is no reason Mrs X could not have complained earlier. Even if the complaint was not late, we would not investigate. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which cases we investigate. North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (23 009 150) Summary: The Council was at fault for its failure to assess Mrs B as a foster carer when her granddaughter – who was a looked-after child – moved in with her. However, the Council has already offered suitable remedies for Mrs B's injustice and no further action is required. Cumberland Council (23 010 712) Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed considering a complaint under the children's statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint by progressing the complaint to stage two of the procedure and completing its investigation without further delay. I will also apologise and offer to make a payment to the complainant to remedy the time and trouble they have been too. London Borough of Enfield (23 011 103) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about historic child protection matters. Or involvement would not be likely to lead to a worthwhile outcome or the outcome Miss X is seeking. Manchester City Council (23 011 140) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council guiding Miss X into a court order and refusing to assess her as a kinship carer for her sister. The matters complained of are not separable from matters that were subject to court action. Surrey County Council (23 000 769) Summary: After the Council found out Mrs B's son was out of school for medical reasons, it delayed seeking medical evidence from his GP for around a month. This meant the alternative educational provision it eventually delivered was also delayed. It has agreed to apologise to Mrs B and make a symbolic payment to recognise her son's injustice. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (23 002 318) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to ensure her child, D, received special educational needs support set out in their Education, Health, and Care plan. The Council failed to arrange replacement Speech and Language Therapy for D in good time, after Mrs X told it this was not in place. The Council agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy, and issue a reminder to its staff with a copy of our decision. Essex County Council (23 003 491) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to fulfil the provisions in his daughters Education Health Care (EHC) Plan which was ordered by the Tribunal. The Council delayed in securing some provisions within the EHC plan. This is fault. Essex County Council (23 007 035) Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed completing her child, Y's, Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. The Council was at fault for the delay caused by a shortage of Educational Psychologists. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Miss X £400 to recognise the frustration and uncertainty the delay caused her. Essex County Council (23 007 793) Summary: There was fault in the Council delaying issuing an Education, Health and Care plan for Mrs X's son. Those delays caused Mrs X an injustice because of uncertainty about her son's special education provision and the school he would go to. The Council have already apologised for delays and have agreed to pay a financial remedy to Mrs X, to properly recognise her injustice. Blackburn with Darwen Council (23 010 529) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council consulted on school transport. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. In addition, the Council's actions have not caused the complainant a significant injustice. Emmaus C of E and Catholic Primary School (23 011 220) 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 merits of the panel's decision. Peterborough City Council (23 012 016) 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 (22 004 553) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide her daughter with suitable education since September 2021. Ms X also complained about delays in issuing Education Health Care (EHC) Plans and the content of the EHC Plans. We found fault with the Council failing to provide suitable education for Ms X's daughter for nearly a full academic year. We also found fault with the Council delays in production of EHC Plans totalling 19 months. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her £500 for the delays in production of the EHC Plans. The Council also agreed to pay Ms X £5,000 for her daughter's missed education. Kent County Council (22 011 323) Summary: The Council was at fault for delaying in completing a child's Education, Health and Care plan, not putting in place adequate special educational provision and for failures in complaint handling. This caused injustice as if there had not been delays the child would have received the special educational provision they were entitled to receive much sooner. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise, make a payment for the loss of provision to the child and consider what changes it could make to its procedures around communication. Somerset County Council (22 016 914) Summary: Ms X complained that the Council took too long to issue an Education, Health and Care plan for her son after an annual review in November 2021. She also complained her son was not provided with school transport and the Council did not include his views in the final plan. We found there was significant delay, a failure to include Mr Y's views in the plan and a lack of 'suitable' annual review in 2021 and 2022. The Council agreed to apologise, make a payment to Ms X and Mr Y and provide him with additional services. Norfolk County Council (23 003 629) Summary: Ms X complains there were failings in the way the Council considered her concerns about a needs assessment on her child and carried out an investigation into her complaints through the statutory children's complaints process. Based on the information provided we consider the findings of the Council's investigation were fair and appropriate. The Council has already taken action on the recommendations. So, we have completed our investigation. London Borough of Haringey (23 010 525) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a child protection conference and the way the Council dealt with Mr X's complaint. The injustice caused by faults for which the Council has apologised is not sufficient to warrant our involvement. Hampshire County Council (23 011 031) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions concerning Mr X's children. The matters complained of directly relate to matters of contact and residence, which can only be decided by a court. It would be reasonable for Mr X to use his right to go to court to seek different arrangements. Kent County Council (22 011 633) Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council delayed in completing an Education, Health and Care (EHC) assessment and issuing an EHC plan for her daughter C. It also failed to provide suitable alternative education while she was unable to attend school, communicated poorly with Mrs B and delayed excessively in responding to her complaint. We found fault causing injustice. We have asked the Council to apologise to Mrs B, make a financial payment and improve its procedures for the future. Southampton City Council (23 000 028) Summary: The Council was not at fault for how long it took to reassess Mr Y's special educational needs in 2022, or for its decision not to hold a review meeting during the reassessment. However, the Council was at fault for delays in its provision of social care support in 2023. It has now agreed to deliver the missed support to Mr Y, make symbolic payments to recognise the injustice caused, and explain how it will avoid similar delays in future. Gloucestershire County Council (23 003 522) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about how the Council has managed her child's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan annual review process. This is because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome and Ms X has a right of appeal to a tribunal about the school named in the current EHC Plan. Ursuline High School, Wimbledon (23 004 179) Summary: Ms C complained about the way the school admission appeal panel dealt with her appeal for a secondary school place for her child. She said the admissions authority prioritised children who listed Ursuline High School as their first choice. Her child's appeal was unsuccessful, and she did not have a school place for September 2023. We found the appeal panel for Ursuline High School did not follow the correct procedure when it considered D's appeal, and this was fault. Ursuline High School has agreed to offer Ms C a fresh appeal and provide training to those involved in running appeals. Essex County Council (23 004 198) Summary: There was fault by the Council in ensuring the implementation of provision set out in an education, health and care plan. The Council was also entitled to refuse the complainant's request for a personal budget, but it was at fault because it did not inform her she had the right to request a review of this decision. The Council has agreed to apologise for this, invite her to request a review now, and remind staff of this requirement. London Borough of Ealing (23 011 000) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about post-16 home to school transport for a young person with special educational needs. There is insufficient evidence of fault and it is unlikely an investigation would come to a different outcome. Gloucestershire County Council (23 011 052) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the quality of a report prepared to inform the content of an Education Health and Care Plan. The matter complained of is not separable from the nature of the special educational needs of a child as laid out in an eventual Plan, where Mr X has a right to appeal to a tribunal it would be reasonable to use. Surrey County Council (23 011 070) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed appropriate remedies. Kent County Council (23 011 297) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to reimburse Mr X the cost of his son's school uniform. There is not enough evidence fault by the Council caused the claimed injustice. We cannot therefore achieve the outcome Mr X wants. Surrey County Council (23 007 408) Summary: Mr A complains about a Council employee and a Trust employee sharing sensitive information in 2011. We will not take further action as the Council and the Trust have responded appropriately and an investigation would not achieve the outcomes Mr A wants. 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