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. London Borough of Wandsworth (22 015 117) Summary: Miss X complained the Council's housing team: delayed in dealing with her homelessness application and wrongly treated her as a domestic abuse victim; provided unsuitable emergency accommodation outside its area between September and December 2021; provided unsuitable alternative temporary accommodation in Council B's area from December 2021 onwards; and following a complaint, identified an alternative temporary property for the family in November 2022 but had not given them a date to move there. Miss X complained the Council's education and children's services: delayed in transferring her son, Y's, Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan to Council B after the family moved to temporary accommodation there; and failed to provide assistance with home to school transport for Y. Cumbria County Council (22 013 705) Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to make alternative education provision for her daughter Y when she could not attend school. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision that it did not have a duty to provide alternative education provision for Y. The Council is at fault for not recording its decision that Y's high school could meet her needs, for not providing an update to Ms X as to whether it would commence legal proceedings and for failing to consider Ms X's complaint in accordance with its complaints procedure. These faults caused distress to Ms X which the Council will remedy by apologising and making a symbolic payment of £200 to her. North Northamptonshire Council (22 017 245) Summary: The complainant (Miss X) said the Council failed to follow the right process when assessing her daughter's (Y) Education Health and Care (EHC) needs and issuing her EHC plan. Miss X also complained about the Council's failure to provide Y with education for many months, its complaint-handling and inadequate communication. We found fault with the Council which caused injustice to Y and Miss X. The Council agreed to apologise and make payments to recognise Y's loss of provision and Miss X's distress. The Council also agreed to carry out some staff training and review its processes. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (23 001 242) Summary: Mr B complained the Council did not secure the provision in his son's, education, health, and care plan, delayed issuing a final plan, and did not tell him about his son's personal budget. Mr B said C missed provision and this impacted his health and his behaviour. We found the Council delayed the education, health, and care plan review process and did not secure the physiotherapy provision in C's plan. The Council will make a financial payment to Mr B to remedy the injustice to him and his son and make service improvements. London Borough of Sutton (23 001 885) Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to provide a suitable school placement for his daughter who was excluded from school in October 2021. We do not intend to find fault with the Council. Dorset Council (23 001 987) Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council delayed arranging a suitable school placement for her child and communicated poorly with her. Mrs X said this caused unnecessary and avoidable distress and frustration, and caused her child stress and anxiety. We find the Council at fault for communicating poorly. We are satisfied the Council has already remedied the injustice caused. We do not find the Council at fault for the school placement. Surrey County Council (23 003 545) Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to provide her son with alternative education since March 2022. We find fault with the Council for failing to provide alternative education causing Ms X frustration and distress. We have agreed a financial remedy for the injustice. Surrey County Council (23 003 740) Summary: The Council failed to decide whether to issue K with an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan within statutory timescales due to a delay in obtaining Educational Psychologist advice. The Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment to Mrs B to acknowledge the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused to her and K as a result of the delay. Derbyshire County Council (23 004 857) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has not dealt properly with her son Y's Special Educational Needs. The Council is at fault because it delayed the production of Y's Education Health and Care Plan. Y lost special educational provision as a result. The Council has apologised and offered to pay Mrs X £250 for her time and trouble. It should also pay Mrs X £3000 for Y's missed provision. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (23 012 258) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to not provide school transport for Ms X's son. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it made its decision. Swindon Borough Council (22 016 228) Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X's complaints about a Council's safeguarding enquiry and a court report about her stepchild, C's, welfare because they concern matters that have been considered by the courts. We will also not investigate Ms X's complaint the Council failed to take her views into account during C's Education, Health and Care Plan process. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Coventry City Council (23 004 772) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's failure to respond to his 2021 complaint. It lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now. We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision not to investigate his complaint that it provided false information about him to a third party. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council's decision not to consider it without third party consent. London Borough of Hackney (23 012 322) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to protect Ms X and her daughter from witchcraft manipulation and spiritual abuse. Doing so would not lead to a different or better outcome than that provided by the Council's investigation. Devon County Council (23 013 183) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a report produced for court. The law prevents us from investigating what happened in court, which includes the content of reports written for the proceedings. Somerset Council (23 003 121) Summary: The Council is at fault for failing to issue Y's final Education, Health and Care plan following an annual review meeting in October 2022. This caused avoidable frustration due to a delay in appeal rights, but no loss of educational provision because the Council offered alternatives which Mrs X rejected. The Council will apologise, make Mrs X a symbolic payment and issue Y's final plan. Devon County Council (23 004 707) Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council failed to ensure the provision in her daughter C's Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan was in place from September 2022, failed to provide her with a full-time education from January 2023 when she was no longer able to attend school, failed to carry out annual reviews and failed to communicate properly with Mrs B. We have found fault with the Council's actions. The Council has agreed to pay Mrs B £300, C £1000 and to improve its procedures for the future. Cornerstone CofE (VA) Primary School (23 008 512) Summary: We found no fault on Mrs M's complaint about the way her admission appeal was dealt with against the School governor's decision to refuse her daughter a place there. The panel properly considered her appeal. North Yorkshire Council (23 012 272) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about document sharing as the Council has now shared the documents. We cannot investigate if Education Health and Care Plans were adequate as Mr X appealed to the Tribunal. North Yorkshire Council (23 012 334) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's actions in relation to an Education Health and Care plan. This is because the complainant has used their right of appeal to a tribunal which places the matter outside of our jurisdiction. North Yorkshire Council (23 012 297) Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint about the actions of social workers and the level of contact with his child. It is unlikely we could add anything to the response Mr B has received. Thurrock Council (23 012 390) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's response to Mr X's concerns about his children. The matters he complains of concern who is best placed to care for the children and issues of contact. They are matters only a court can resolve. Mr X has a right to go to court it would be reasonable to use. Kent County Council (23 012 398) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about child protection. This is because the matters complained of are not separable from matters subject to court proceedings. Birmingham City Council (23 012 420) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council's children's services. This is because the complaint concerns the Council's involvement in court proceedings which places the complaint outside of our jurisdiction. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (23 012 782) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement in Mr X's children's case. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about what happened during court proceedings. Westminster City Council (23 000 535) Summary: Mrs D complained about the way the Council dealt with her son's education, health and care plan and personal budget. We found fault which caused Mrs D distress and time and trouble and caused her son to miss out on education. The Council should make payments to Mrs D and her son to remedy this. There are some elements of Mrs D's complaint that are out of our jurisdiction as she appealed to the SEND Tribunal. Devon County Council (23 003 255) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed completing her son, F's Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment in line with statutory timescales and delayed putting in place alternative provision. The Council was at fault. It 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 considering Mrs X's request for alternative provision. The Council agreed to make payments to Mrs X to acknowledge the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused to her and F as a result of the delays. It will also review its alternative provision procedures. Surrey County Council (23 003 549) Summary: Mr X complains the Council delayed completing an Education, Health and Care needs assessment for his daughter. He also complains the Council and its staff failed to demonstrate basic standards of professionalism and courtesy when dealing with him and his family. Mr X says this caused him avoidable distress, uncertainty, financial loss and time and trouble. Based on the information provided, we have found fault by the Council. We recommend it reimburse him the full cost of getting a private Educational Psychologist report for his daughter and make him a symbolic payment. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (23 004 170) Summary: The Council delayed issuing an Education Health and Care plan after an annual review. It also failed to make sure Child B received full-time education, and the provision in the plan, for a year while B was out of school. The Council has agreed to apologise and make payments to B and Ms X. Isle of Wight Council (23 004 656) Summary: Mrs G complained the Council failed to provide her son (X) with alternative provision since Spring 2023 when he was unable to attend his school. She said it caused delays and communicated poorly with her. We found no fault in the process the Council followed to reach its view that X should attend his school with the reasonable adjustments that had been put in place. Nor, was there fault in its complaints handling or how it communicated. West Berkshire Council (23 007 357) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the cost of carrying out a task Y needs in order to attend school. The Council has now agreed to pay this cost and to back date the payment. Cheshire East Council (23 007 380) Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it arranged the delivery of Mrs X's son's special educational needs provision. It looked into how his school was delivering the provision and decided it had no concerns. London Borough of Harrow (22 016 751) Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council used false and inaccurate information during child protection inquiries to create a negative assessment of her and her family. She also said the Council did not communicate properly and failed to consider her human rights. We found the Council was at fault in that it included inaccurate and irrelevant information in various documents causing Mrs X distress. In recognition of the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to amend the documents, apologise to Mrs X and make a payment to her. Suffolk County Council (23 009 032) Summary: The Council was at fault for how it assessed Mr B and Mrs C's son's needs and made plans for his care. However, it has already offered suitable remedies for the injustice caused and no further action is required. London Borough of Waltham Forest (23 012 363) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's alleged discrimination towards Mr X when it was involved with his family. This is because the complaint relates to matters that took place more than 12 months ago and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate them now. Further, even if we did exercise discretion an investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome. Medway Council (23 012 958) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement in Miss X's children's case. The courts are currently involved and we are prevented in law from investigating complaints about what happens during court proceedings. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (23 001 385) Summary: The Council avoidably delayed reviewing Ms X's son, G's, Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan by more than a year. It then significantly delayed in finalising G's EHC Plan following the annual review and delayed confirming its decision regarding G's education placement. In recognition of the periods of uncertainty, frustration and distress caused by these faults the Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X £600 and carry out service improvements. It has also agreed for this case to be considered by the Council's education scrutiny committee. Thurrock Council (23 004 040) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council wrongly refused her application for school transport for her son to the school named in his Education, Health and Care Plan. We have found fault in the way the Council considered the application and applied its policy of parental preference. The Council will apologise, make payments for the uncertainty caused and the financial costs, reconsider Mrs X's request to change the transport option agreed and take action to prevent reoccurrence. Surrey County Council (23 004 236) Summary: Ms B complained how the Council has handled her son's special educational needs. She says the Council failed to meet statutory timescales during the Education, Health and Care needs assessment process, its communication with her was poor and it failed to provide her son with alternative provision he can access after he stopped attending school. We find the Council was at fault for its delays during the Education, Health and Care needs assessment process and its communication with Ms B. It was also at fault for how it handled Ms B's son's alternative provision. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault. Leicestershire County Council (23 005 679) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council caused delays during the Education, Health and Care needs assessment for her son. The Council delayed the assessment. The Council will apologise and make payment to recognise the injustice caused by the delay. Surrey County Council (23 012 301) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's decision not to provide her son with free transport to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. Surrey County Council (23 012 302) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's decision not to provide her daughter with discretionary post-16 transport to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (23 001 178) Summary: Mrs X, who was a foster carer, complained about the Council's failure to properly investigate her complaint about inaccurate statements made by a social worker. We have found the Council to be at fault because it failed to carry out a specific enquiry and failed to amend inaccurate records in response to her complaint. To remedy the injustice to Mrs X, the Council has agreed to apologise and correct the relevant records. We did not find fault with the Council's decision to make a safeguarding referral to the private fostering agency. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (23 011 086) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about child protection action carried out by the Council in respect of the complainant's child. This is because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council. Cheshire West & Chester Council (23 011 725) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about children services' actions. The Council has now agreed to follow the Children Act statutory complaints' procedure. Dorset Council (23 004 203) Summary: There was no fault by the Council, in the way it sought to make arrangements for alternative provision for a child who was not attending school. We have therefore completed our investigation. Pudsey Grammar School (23 004 738) Summary: Mrs X complained about her daughter, F's school admission appeal. The clerk did not record the reasons for the panel's decision not to uphold Mrs X's appeal in their notes. However, this did not influence the outcome of the appeal as the decision letter to Mrs X did contain sufficient detail about how the panel arrived and its decision. The School agreed to remind its clerks to clearly record how a panel arrives at its decision in their notes. North Somerset Council (23 004 913) Summary: Mrs M complains the latest annual review of her son B's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan did not comply with the statutory Code of Practice. Mrs M does not consider the Plan reflects B's needs. We have not investigated Mrs M's complaint. The complaint is effectively a challenge to B's EHC Plan, so it would be appropriate for Mrs M to use her right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal. Devon County Council (23 007 384) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed issuing her son, G's Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan, failed to properly consult with her preferred choice of school, and about the content of the final plan. The Council delayed issuing G's final EHC plan by two months following the EHC needs assessment. The Council agreed to make a payment to Mrs X to acknowledge the injustice this caused. The Council has now named Mrs X's preferred choice of school for F following mediation. Mrs X has appealed the content of the EHC plan to the SEND tribunal and so I have not investigated those points further. Devon County Council (23 008 137) Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed completing her son, F's Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment in line with statutory timescales. The Council has failed to decide whether to issue F with an EHC plan within statutory timescales, caused by a delay in obtaining Educational Psychologist advice. The Council agreed to make a payment to Ms X to acknowledge the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused to her as a result of the delays. It also agreed to make a further payment to acknowledge the continuing injustice once it decides whether to issue F with an EHC plan. Suffolk County Council (23 008 337) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council has failed to make appropriate educational provision for the complainant's daughter. The Council has accepted some fault and it is unlikely we could add to its response. Mrs X has now appealed to a tribunal which places the remainder of the complaint outside our jurisdiction. Bristol City Council (23 012 248) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council consulting with potential education settings for her children before she had responded to the draft Education Health and Care Plans. The matters complained of are not separable from the settings and provisions contained in the Plans, where Ms X had an alternative remedy available by way of a right to appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal it was reasonable to use. Central Bedfordshire Council (23 008 191) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's support for his disabled child and about the Council's motive for beginning child protection proceedings. The Council was at fault for failing to use the statutory children's complaints procedure to investigate Mr X's complaint, and for giving him confusing information. This caused Mr X undue frustration and meant he went to unnecessary time and trouble. The Council will apologise, pay Mr X £150 in recognition of his injustice and consider Mr X's complaint at stage two of the statutory procedure. Blackburn with Darwen Council (23 010 306) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to tell him about a significant issue in his children's lives and failed to respond to his complaints. The Council was at fault for failing to reply to Mr X's complaint. It will apologise and pay Mr X £200 to recognise the frustration he felt and time and trouble he went to. It will carry out a stage two investigation into Mr X's complaint and explore why its systems did not register the complaint. We have not investigated Mr X's complaint about the Council's communication because he needs to complete the complaints procedure first. Hampshire County Council (22 018 078) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to put in place suitable alternative education provision for her child, B. We cannot investigate Mrs X's substantive complaint. Mrs X lodged appeals with the SEND Tribunal for the periods in question. Whether B received suitable education provision is therefore inextricably linked to matters considered at appeal. There are other parts of Mrs X's complaint that we can investigate. We have not found the Council at fault, or have not investigated these matters. We explain why in our statement. 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