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. Devon County Council (23 006 302) Summary: There was excessive delay by the Council in completing an EHC Plan and its own complaint process. There was also a failure to provide suitable fulltime education. This caused unnecessary distress, frustration, and loss of education. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment to acknowledge loss of education and carry out service improvements. The complaint is upheld. Essex County Council (23 006 438) Summary: Ms X complained about the time the Council took to carry out an Education, Health and Care needs assessment and issue a final Education, Health and Care plan for her son, causing her and her son frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and make a payment for the frustration and uncertainly caused by the delay. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (23 007 034) Summary: the Council took too long to amend Mrs M's son B's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan following the annual review in October 2022. The Council's apology is a suitable remedy. There was disruption to B's tuition caused by the availability of the tutor. The Council, however, is ultimately responsible. The Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment to recognise the impact. Yesodey Hatorah Senior Girls School (23 008 149) Summary: Mr D complained how the independent appeal panel dealt with his appeal for a place for his daughter at the School. We find the panel was at fault for failing to record why it was accepting late evidence. However, this fault did not cause Mr D a significant injustice. Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (23 010 303) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about matters of educational provision, social care assistance and housing. Ms B appealed to a tribunal about the matters of educational provision so this part of the complaint is outside our jurisdiction. The other matters happened in 2022 so complaints about them are late and there is no good reason for us to investigate now. Even if the complaint had been made in time, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Leeds City Council (23 013 545) Summary: The Council failed to carry out an Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment for Ms X's child, Z, within the statutory timeframes. This was largely due to a shortage of Educational Psychologists. We are satisfied with the Council's action plan to increase its access to Educational Psychologists. However to recognise the personal injustice caused to Ms X and Z by the Council's fault, the Council has agreed in addition to pay Ms X £100 for each month of delay in concluding Z's needs assessment. Hampshire County Council (23 017 280) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to carry out Education Health and Care needs assessments for the complainants two children. This is because the matter is subject to an appeal to a tribunal. Cheshire East Council (23 017 625) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council failing to amend an Education Health and Care Plan following the Tribunal's decision. There are no good reasons the late complaint rule should not apply. North Yorkshire Council (23 017 674) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Education Health and Care Plan process for his son. This is because Mr X appealed to a tribunal and so the case is outside our jurisdiction. Wokingham Borough Council (23 018 090) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's decision to refuse her application for free school transport for her son. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council. Dorset Council (23 012 932) Summary: We will not investigate X's complaint about money lost in a children's home. We are unlikely to find fault or achieve a different outcome to the Council's replies. Essex County Council (23 017 205) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's communication with him regarding his child, Y, who is a looked after child. The Council has already apologised for delays in sending a report, and further investigation is unlikely to achieve a different outcome. London Borough of Haringey (23 019 861) Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed considering a complaint at stage two of the children's statutory complaints procedure between May 2022 and August 2023. The Council has agreed to make a payment to the complainant to remedy the time and trouble they have been too. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council has dealt with the complaint since August 2023. Kent County Council (22 012 872) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to ensure her son, Y, received alternative tuition from April 2022 to July 2022. Mrs X also complained the Council failed to ensure Y received education when the tutor went on holiday for two weeks in May 2022 and a week in June 2022. Mrs X said Y missed out on education. There was fault in the way the Council did not ensure Y received any education for the three weeks detailed and did not follow its complaint process. Mrs X was frustrated by the Council's actions and was put to time and trouble to complain. Y missed out on education. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a financial payment. North Northamptonshire Council (23 008 172) Summary: Mrs D complained about the Council's handling of the Education, Health, and Care Plan process and the education it provided her son (X). We found the Council at fault for failing to adhere to the statutory timescales and to provide X with alternative educational provision he could access and was entitled to from February 2022. The Council will apologise to Mrs D and make payment to remedy the injustice this caused her and X. Somerset Council (23 011 711) Summary: The Council was at fault because it missed the statutory deadline to review a young person's educational arrangements, and then proposed to cease his education, health and care plan based on a misunderstanding. The Council also did not engage promptly with the complainant to address these matters. It has agreed to offer a financial remedy to reflect the distress and frustration this caused. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (23 016 750) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to make educational provision for the complainant's daughter. This is because the complaint has been upheld and investigation would not lead to a different outcome. London Borough of Brent (23 017 354) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of an Education Health and Care Plan appeal. This is because we cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. Torbay Council (22 014 861) Summary: On behalf of her child, X, Mrs Y complains the Council failed to properly investigate her complaint that X's educational and social care needs were unmet over a prolonged period. We found the Council should provide further financial remedies to recognise the impact of missed education provision between November 2021 and April 2022, and for failing to ensure Mrs Y had access to documents relevant to X's educational arrangements. We found the Council at fault for restricting the role of X's advocate during the Review Panel hearing. However, this did not cause Mrs Y or X a significant injustice. We have recommended the Council act to improve its services. We did not find the Council at fault for how it considered Mrs Y's complaints about social care provision, or the suitability of a tutor. There are parts of Mrs Y's complaint we cannot or will not investigate. We explain why in our decision statement. Salford City Council (23 005 200) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council have dealt with matters concerning a safeguarding matter. This is because the complaint about the Council's original involvement is made late, there is no evidence of fault in the Council's recent actions, and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant seeks. Surrey County Council (23 010 083) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council deciding Miss X's child should be subject to a Child Protection Plan. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation. Surrey County Council (23 016 290) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about children services' actions. We have upheld Ms X's complaint as the Council has now agreed to follow the Children Act statutory complaints' procedure. Blackpool Borough Council (23 017 558) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council's decision to place her complaint on hold until the ongoing court proceedings have concluded. Suffolk County Council (23 019 579) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about a Children Act complaints' procedure process. There is not enough direct personal injustice to warrant an investigation. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (22 012 545) Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council dealt with her child, Y's, Education, Health and Care Plan annual review. There were faults by the Council with its delays in dealing with Y's annual review and with issuing her final Plan. The Council was also at fault for its delays in dealing with Ms X's complaint. This caused injustice to Ms X. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused. Somerset Council (23 004 037) Summary: The Council failed to ensure Y received a suitable education when he was unable to attend school. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice this caused. Leicestershire County Council (23 004 614) Summary: Mrs X complains about how the Council handled her son, S's, Education, Health, and Care Plan assessment. Mrs X said the Council's failures caused avoidable stress to her, but also S who was upset about not having a school place in September 2023. The Council was at fault for the delays in assessment, securing a school place and responding to Mrs X's complaint. The Council offered her a financial remedy, and we consider it to be in line with our guidance. Surrey County Council (23 006 551) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to meet statutory deadlines to complete an Education, Health and Care needs assessment for her daughter, Y, and produce an Education, Health and Care Plan. We find the Council at fault for missing statutory deadlines. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and make a payment to recognise the injustice caused. Derbyshire County Council (23 007 246) Summary: Mr X complains about how the Council has managed the Education, Health, and Care Plan process for his daughter Ms A. He said the Council failed to meet deadlines; his daughter missed full-time suitable education and therapies with limited educational provision in place between September 2022 and September 2023. He also said the Council's communication has been poor. We found the Council was at fault. This caused significant distress to Mr X and Ms A. The Council agreed to remedy the injustice its actions have caused Mr X and Ms A. Derbyshire County Council (23 008 335) Summary: There was fault by the Council. It has failed to issue a final EHC Plan when the deadline to do so was May 2023. It has failed to ensure that a suitable education was available to Ms B's son when he was too ill to attend school. The Council also did not always respond to Ms B's contact or keep her informed of its actions. The Council's shortcomings caused Ms B and her son distress and frustration. It also meant that K did not have access to suitable education for two terms of his final year of school. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice to Ms B and K. Leeds City Council (23 010 727) Summary: Mrs F complained about delays by the Council in completing an assessment of her son G's special educational needs, issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan, finding a suitable placement and ensuring he had a suitable education during the period of delay. We found fault with the actions of the Council. It has agreed to increase its payment to Mrs F and provide evidence of the steps it has taken to improve its procedures for the future. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (23 011 333) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council delayed reviewing and amending Child Y's EHC plan, causing them to miss out on provision and a suitable placement. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for the delay in reviewing and amending the EHC plan and failing to tell Mrs X about her rights during the process. The Council has agreed to make a financial payment and service improvements. London Borough of Ealing (23 012 231) Summary: the Council decided it is not reasonable to expect Ms M to accompany her son, B, to and from secondary school and offered independent travel training. The Council did not, however, offer any support until B successfully completed the training. We have recommended a remedy for the injustice this caused. Surrey County Council (23 012 416) Summary: Miss K complains about the Council's assessment of her child's Education, Health and Care needs and its provision of alternative education. My decision is we should discontinue our investigation, as the Council has already offered a suitable remedy. London Borough of Ealing (23 014 783) Summary: Mrs M complains about the Council's decision her daughter G is no longer entitled to a personal travel budget for home to school transport. The evidence shows the Council properly considered Mrs M's application and appeals. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (23 017 204) 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 in the way the Council made its decision. Devon County Council (23 017 563) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of an Education Health and Care Plan. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs X to use her right to appeal to a tribunal. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (23 005 100) Summary: Mrs B says the Council wrongly refused to award direct payments for her eldest son for respite and delayed reaching the decision. There was delay reaching the decision and although the Council's panel awarded direct payments for Mrs B's eldest son it told her it had not. An apology, payment to Mrs B, putting in place the additional respite for Mrs B's eldest son and procedural changes are satisfactory remedy. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (23 006 825) Summary: We found fault in the way the Council carried out its duties in relation to the complaints about the Council's children services. This fault did not cause injustice to the individual complainants. The Council agreed to review its documents to ensure compliance with the legislation, review current complaints about the children's services and train its staff dealing with complaints. Durham County Council (23 016 477) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions in respect of the care of a child. This is because the substantive matters have been decided in court, or are closely related to those matters. Buckinghamshire Council (23 017 259) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a safeguarding concern raised about a child. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Lancashire County Council (23 017 475) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's actions in response to Mr X's child protection concerns regarding his children. The matters complained of are closely related to the care arrangements for the children, which have been subject to court action. These matters either have been, or could reasonably have been raised during court action. A legal bar prevents us investigating them. Staffordshire County Council (23 019 766) Summary: We uphold this complaint that the Council delayed its response under the statutory process for complaints about children's services. The Council has agreed to resolve the matter by providing a suitable remedy for the injustice the complainant has been caused. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (23 010 546) Summary: The Council was at fault because it delayed issuing a revised education, health and care plan for a young person, and because of difficulties the complainant had in contacting relevant officers to discuss the young person's case. The Council has agreed to offer a financial remedy to reflect the distress and frustration this caused. Surrey County Council (23 011 897) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide any educational support, or education, for their child since April 2023. Ms X also complained the Council delayed in producing the Education and Health Care Plan for their child. We found fault with the Council for both matters. The Council has already paid Ms X £200 for delays in production of the Education and Health Care Plan. The Council also promised to reimburse educational costs Ms X incurred totalling £2,675.98 for the period September 2023 to November 2023. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her an extra £350 for the delays in production of the Education and Health Care Plan. The Council also agreed to pay pays Ms X £1,350 or reimburses her for the education provided for their child, whichever is higher, for the period 16 May 2023 to 21 July 2023. Coventry City Council (23 015 803) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to turn down Mrs X's application for free home to school transport on behalf of her child Y. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council's actions. Essex County Council (23 015 970) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care process or the education of her child, Y, because Miss X has a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal about the content of Y's Education, Health and Care Plan. Surrey County Council (23 017 437) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of a school transport appeal. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. Herefordshire Council (23 006 249) Summary: Ms X complained about the Council's actions after it removed her child D from her care. There was fault by the Council which prevented Ms X from receiving a response to her complaint via the statutory complaints procedure for children's social care services. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and consider the complaint via the correct procedure without delay. It will also share our decision with relevant staff, and ensure it is considered by the relevant scrutiny committee and cabinet member. Lancashire County Council (23 010 864) Summary: Mr X complains the Council has refused to provide him with financial support it agreed to in 2016. We will not exercise discretion to investigate Mr X's complaint outside the normal timeframes. Due to the passage of time, it is unlikely we would now be able to carry out an effective investigation. Bath and North East Somerset Council (23 011 595) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about a social worker's actions in 2020. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and I see no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now. Central Bedfordshire Council (23 019 538) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's recommendations to court. The law prevents us from considering matters that have been considered in court, and it would be reasonable for Miss X to raise her concerns as part of that process. London Borough of Redbridge (23 019 603) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's report to court. The law prevents us from investigating matters that have been before the courts. Kent County Council (22 010 451) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not issue an amended Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for her son Y after the annual review in May 2022. Mrs X also complained the Council failed to provide appropriate support for Y to attend school since November 2022 and failed to respond to her complaint about the matter. The Council delayed amending Y's EHC Plan, failed to consider if it should provide alternative provision for Y and significantly delayed in responding to Mrs X's complaint about the matter. The Council will apologise and pay Mrs X £4,350 to recognise the injustice caused to them both. Hertfordshire County Council (22 016 508) Summary: There was fault by the Council, arising from service failure, because it was unable to implement catch-up provision it had agreed for a child who had missed a significant period of education. It has agreed to offer a financial remedy for this. There was also fault by the Council because it did not attend or chair a meeting, and because it wrongly rejected the complaint about these matters, but these points did not cause any significant injustice. We have therefore completed our investigation. Cheshire East Council (23 004 511) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her child, Y, with suitable education and the content of their Education, Health and Care Plan. She also complained about the Council's communication. We ended the investigation about delivery of Y's Plan between September 2022 and January 2023 because it is unlikely we would find fault causing significant injustice. We also did not investigate a later period because Mrs X had a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal. There was fault in the Council's communication, but the Council has already apologised, which is an appropriate remedy. Essex County Council (23 010 114) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to amend her son, Y's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan in line with the statutory guidance, to provide a personal budget and to provide appropriate education for him between April 2022 and December 2023. The Council delayed issuing an amended EHC Plan and failed to provide the provision in Y's plan from April 2022 to November 2023. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X, reimburse her for the provision she paid for and pay her £6,500 to recognise the injustice caused to her and the provision Y missed. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (23 017 208) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's assessment of Mrs X's child's case. The complaint relates to matters considered by the courts, which the law prevents us considering. Westminster City Council (23 018 447) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of two council officers. This is because it is unlikely we could add anything to the Council's response. Lancashire County Council (23 019 484) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about a Council officer's comments about her child because the comments were made in a tribunal hearing, and we cannot investigate complaints about a council's actions in tribunal matters. We will also not investigate her complaint about the Council's use of a single point of contact, as we have already investigated that as part of another investigation. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (23 017 461) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to share Miss X's personal information with a third party. This is because the complaint relates to a data breach and the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) is best placed to investigate this complaint. Kent County Council (23 011 059) Summary: Mr B says the Council failed to process a request for life story work and information about his daughter's birth parents. The Council delayed taking action and failed to properly consider the regulations and statutory guidance. An apology, payment to Mr B and his daughter and arranging a meeting to discuss who will take forward the life story work is satisfactory remedy. London Borough of Hounslow (23 016 803) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's response to Mr X's complaint about retaining information about his family, the content and records of a phone call, and not answering his questions. The Information Commissioner's Office is better placed than us to consider these matters. Brighton & Hove City Council (23 017 159) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the decision making process to closing a nursery. There is not enough injustice to Mr X to warrant an investigation. Buckinghamshire Council (23 014 014) Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's children's services involvement with her family because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been subject to court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so. Hertfordshire County Council (23 008 214) Summary: Mrs F complained that the Council delayed assessing her daughter as a child in need, did not properly consider safeguarding concerns and failed to provide her with social care support. There was fault which caused uncertainty and distress to Mrs F and her daughter. The Council has agreed to make payments to remedy this and review its case note procedures. 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