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 Merton (23 015 226) Summary: Miss D complained her child had not received access to a full-time education since January 2023. We upheld the complaint finding some fault in the extent of alternative provision made for Miss D's child while out of school. Also, for its response when Miss D complained about specific incidents in January 2024. We considered these faults led to some distress for Miss D and some loss of education provision for her child. The Council accepted these findings. At the end of this statement we set out the action it has agreed to take to remedy this injustice and improve its services. London Borough of Bromley (23 016 526) Summary: Miss Y complains about failures in the annual review process for her son's Education Health and Care Plan. She says the Council failed to comply with a Tribunal order because it did not consider her son's need for increased Speech and Language therapy. The Council accepts it failed to carry out the review process properly and has agreed to provide additional therapy to make up for the shortfall caused by fault. Devon County Council (23 017 297) Summary: Mrs X complained about F's education and his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan between September 2022 and January 2024. The Council delayed amending F's EHC Plan following an annual review and was at fault for poor complaint handling. It agreed to make a payment to Mrs X to remedy the injustice this caused. Mrs X appealed F's amended plan to the SEND tribunal between April and November 2023 which puts that period outside of our jurisdiction. Surrey County Council (23 017 721) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to complete a needs assessment and issue an Education, Health and Care plan for her child, Y, within the statutory timeframe. Mrs X says this has impacted her mental health, caused stress and anxiety for Y and has had a significant financial impact on the family. We have found the Council at fault. The Council has agreed to apologise and provide a financial remedy to Mrs X and Y to recognise the distress and frustration caused by the faults identified. Devon County Council (23 018 140) Summary: Mrs Y complains the Council failed to make alternative provision available for her son, D, when he stopped attending school at the end of 2022. She also complains about the decision not to issue an EHC plan for D. In our view, there is no fault in how the Council made its decision not to make provision available when D stopped attending school. It considered medical evidence and decided he had an accessible school place available for him. We have not investigated the second part of Mrs Y's complaint because she had a right of appeal to the Tribunal which she has already used. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (23 018 377) Summary: Mrs H complained the Council failed to ensure her son received all the provision set out in his Education, Health, and Care plan, and it failed to adhere to the statutory timescales following an annual review. We found fault by the Council. It should apologise and make payment to acknowledge the injustice Mrs H and her son experienced. Cornwall Council (23 018 694) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the education provision for the complainant's daughter. The complaint is late and there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Leeds City Council (23 019 487) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide alternative provision of education for her child while they could not attend school since October 2023. We found fault with the Council failing to provide education for Ms X's child from 24 November 2023 until 18 December 2023. We did not find fault with the Council's actions after this point. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her £400 for her child's missed education. Hertfordshire County Council (24 004 756) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's failure to put in place speech and language therapy for her son. This is because the Council has offered a suitable remedy and it is unlikely we would recommend anything more. Shropshire Council (24 004 810) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alleged failure to deliver speech and language therapy. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. If the complainant wanted to challenge the content of their daughter's Education, Health and Care Plan, it was reasonable for them to use their appeal rights. Wiltshire Council (23 016 428) Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council's actions with a safeguarding referral it received about their child. They said it inappropriately acted with prejudice and on an untrue view of their religion. We did not find fault with the Council's decision making process. We are satisfied with the Council's apology with some fault it identified, and this is appropriate for the injustice it caused. Bracknell Forest Council (24 004 516) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council's Children's Service. That is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Worcestershire County Council (23 016 331) Summary: Mrs Y complains the Council failed to ensure her daughter, D, received suitable alternative provision when she was unable to attend school. In our view, the Council made provision available at a level which was appropriate for D. However, there was some delay in putting the agreed level of provision in place which caused injustice. The Council has agreed to implement the remedial actions listed at the end of this statement. North Yorkshire Council (23 017 397) Summary: Mrs B says the Council delayed completing an education, health and care needs assessment and in issuing a final plan, failed to respond to her communications and delayed responding to her complaint. There is no evidence of failure to respond to communications. However, the Council delayed when completing the needs assessment and in issuing the final plan and delayed responding to the complaint. An apology, payment to Mrs B and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy. Somerset Council (23 018 437) Summary: Ms X complained that the Council failed to issue her son's Education Health and Care Plan or provide a suitable education for him between Summer 2022 and March 2024. We found there was significant delay by the Council and during 2023/24 the Council did not provide a suitable education. We recommended an apology and payment to recognise the distress caused and the education that was lost. Suffolk County Council (23 021 024) Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to complete an Education, Health and Care needs assessment for her son within statutory timeframes. We found the Council at fault for significant delays. The Council has now offered a proportionate remedy and we are satisfied this is appropriate to recognise the injustice caused. Coventry City Council (24 002 455) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council wrongly shared personal information about the complainant's child. The Council has already apologised. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome. We will also not investigate their complaint the Council has failed to provide their child a fulltime education. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Suffolk County Council (24 002 498) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education, Health and Care plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the delay. London Borough of Islington (24 004 353) Summary: Miss X complains about poor communication and information handling by London Borough of Islington (the Council) and Whittington Health NHS Trust (the Trust). We will not investigate her complaints. An investigation is unlikely to find fault in the Council's communication with her before it started an assessment. The injustice to Miss X from any poor information handling is not enough to justify an investigation by the Ombudsmen and the Information Commissioner may be better placed to consider these issues. London Borough of Haringey (22 012 173) Summary: Ms D complained the Council has failed to provide the provision detailed in her son's Education, Health and Care Plan. We find the Council was at fault for failing to secure the provision in Ms D's son's Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault. Wokingham Borough Council (23 013 538) Summary: Ms X complains the Council has failed to properly communicate with her about her child's education and provision in her Education, Health and Care Plans and it has failed to provide her with a suitable education. The Council is at fault and this caused injustice. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to provide an adequate remedy for the loss of education caused by delays in providing additional funding and avoidable distress. North Yorkshire Council (23 015 223) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council did not provide her with any documentation or communication after the annual review of her child's education, health and care plan. The Council acknowledges it has missed statutory timescales and it has agreed to our recommendations to adequately remedy the significant injustice to the family. Oxfordshire County Council (23 015 559) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to review and amend her son, Mr G's, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan in line with the statutory guidance. Also that it did not arrange a suitable college placement, did not provide funding for free school meals while Mr G did not have a suitable placement and failed to provide appropriate remedies after it upheld some of her complaint. The Council was at fault in failing to review Mr G's EHC Plan in line with the guidance which resulted in Mr G being without a college placement between September 2023 and February 2024. The Council will make a payment to Mr G to recognise the education he lost and make service improvements. Birmingham City Council (23 017 755) Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has not properly dealt with an application for transport assistance for her son Y. The Council is not at fault. Essex County Council (23 019 599) Summary: Mrs Z, an advocate, complained on behalf of Miss X about the Council's delay in reimbursing the costs she incurred educating her son, Y. We find the Council at fault for failing to keep proper records and for delaying the payment. This caused Miss X uncertainty, distress, and led to her falling into debt. The Council has offered to apologise and make a suitable payment to Miss X. Kent County Council (24 002 138) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed completing two annual reviews of her daughter's (Y) Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. The Council failed to decide whether to maintain, amend or discontinue Y's EHC plan within timescales following the annual review meeting. The Council agreed to make payments to Mrs X to recognise the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused. Worcestershire County Council (24 004 588) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in the Council issuing a personal budget payment for Mr X's child. This complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code. The Council has already apologised and explained what will do to improve. Further investigation by us could not achieve a different outcome. Essex County Council (24 004 599) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X and Mr Y's complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and Mr Y and pay them £100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more. Gloucestershire County Council (24 006 707) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's Schools Admissions Appeal Panel's failure to provide her child with a place at School Y. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused them to lose out on a school place. Birmingham City Council (24 005 255) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's actions in relation to a witness statement filed with a court. The law prevents us from considering what happened in court and the complaint is not separable from this. Dorset Council (23 015 263) Summary: The Council failed to ensure Y received suitable fulltime education, either by supplementing provision when Y was put on an extended part-time timetable by the school, or when Y became unable to attend school due to medical needs. This was fault and caused loss of education, distress, created additional caring responsibilities and caused unnecessary time and trouble. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic financial payment, and carry out service improvements. The complaint is upheld. Leicestershire County Council (23 019 899) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council did not arrange provision as specified in an Education Health and Care plan. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. North Yorkshire Council (23 020 674) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's delay completing her child, Y's Education, Health and Care needs assessment, and failure to provide Y with suitable alternative provision while out of school. We find fault, causing injustice to Y. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X. Birmingham City Council (23 021 225) Summary: We found fault in the way the Council carried out the Personal Budget process for the complainant's (Miss X) son (Y). This fault, however, did not cause significant injustice to Miss X or Y. The Council has agreed to carry out some service improvements in the way it considers requests for Personal Budgets for children with Education Health and Care Plans. Essex County Council (24 004 838) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education, Health and Care plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the delay. London Borough of Barnet (24 005 645) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's decision to refuse her request for direct payments to secure some of the provision listed in her child's Education, Health and Care Plan. There is insufficient injustice and we cannot achieve the outcome Ms X wants. Archbishop Blanch School (24 006 318) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel for us to be able to question the merits of its decision. Coventry City Council (24 006 526) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about a Council's school admissions appeal panel's decision as it is unlikely we would find fault. Kent County Council (23 000 916) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's delay when issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan, failure to provide her child (Y) with a suitable education and poor complaint handling. We found the Council to be at fault. To remedy the injustice to Mrs X, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to her to acknowledge her distress, Y's loss of education and support for his special educational needs. We did not investigate part of Mrs X's complaint because they related to matters that were appealable to the SEND Tribunal. Medway Council (23 008 179) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the support provided by Children's Social Care. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. London Borough of Barnet (23 003 744) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's response to a safeguarding referral concerning her son because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council's part. Herefordshire Council (23 008 650) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly investigate a complaint he raised about its Children's Services Department. He complains the Council discriminated against him, blamed him for its errors and failed to follow relevant guidance. We did not find the Council was at fault. However, we found some of its communication could have been better. Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (23 016 991) Summary: Mr X complained the Council has failed to properly safeguard his children and has sought to discredit their complaints and disclosures through false statements and unfounded allegations. The Council has taken appropriate action in response to safeguarding concerns relating to Mr X's children. However, the Council's decision not to investigate Mr X's complaint was fault. Bracknell Forest Council (24 004 511) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the support provided through Child in Need arrangements. The Council has upheld the complaint and offered an appropriate remedy. Further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome. 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