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.

West Northamptonshire Council (23 013 038)

Summary: Ms C complains the Council delayed in completing an Education Health Care (EHC) plan and failed to provide full time education to X. The Council is at fault for delays in the EHC plan process and providing suitable education. This meant X did not receive the education she needed and caused distress to Ms C and her family. To put things right the Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment to X and her family and make service improvements to prevent future reoccurrence.

Suffolk County Council (23 013 678)

Summary: Ms M complains the Council has not arranged the specialist occupational therapy in her daughter G's December 2021 Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan, and has not reviewed the Plan. The Council offered payments for the missed provision and recognises the need to review the Plan. The Council has contacted a therapist identified by Ms M to arrange the provision.

Somerset Council (23 016 278)

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council's handling of her sons' Education, Health and Care Plans after they moved into the Council's area in summer 2023. She says that as a result her sons missed education and essential Special Education Support that they were entitled to. We found the Council was at fault for the delay in finalising the transfer process and for not keeping Mrs X informed about the progress of her complaint. The Council agreed to our recommendations on how to address the injustice its actions caused the family.

Derbyshire County Council (23 017 942)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan for her daughter. She also complained the Council did not provide adequate provision while it reviewed the plan, delayed paying invoices and delayed providing a personal budget. Mrs X says the Council's actions caused avoidable distress and prevented her daughter from accessing education. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to provide an apology and a financial remedy, and to provide evidence of the steps it is taking to improve its service.

North Northamptonshire Council (23 018 564)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed in providing education for his son, Y when Y moved to live with him in the Council's area. The Council delayed three months in providing education and specialist educational provision to Y when it became responsible for his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan in December 2022. Y missed out on education and special educational provision for three months and Mr X was caused frustration and distress. The Council will apologise and make a payment of £2,600 to Mr X for the injustice caused to him and Y and remind relevant staff of its duties to children transferring to its area with an EHC Plan.

Essex County Council (23 019 010)

Summary: Mrs F complained about the Council's handling of her son's education since late 2021. We found the Council at fault for failing to provide all the provision set out in his Education, Health, and Care Plan since January 2024. The Council should apologise and make payment to acknowledge the injustice its faults caused Mrs F and her son. We could not investigate Mrs F's concerns about her son's education and her needs assessment requests from before December 2023 as the Council's decisions carried appeal rights to the SEND Tribunal.

West Northamptonshire Council (23 020 202)

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint the Council did not name a school, or suitably consult with schools, when it issued an Education, Health, and Care Plan. Nor can we investigate her complaint the Council delayed providing alternative provision for her son when they were not at school. Mrs X has appealed the Council's decision to the SEND Tribunal and her complaints are not separable from her appeal about the content of an Education, Health, and Care plan. Therefore, the law says we cannot investigate.

Essex County Council (24 001 603)

Summary: The Council was at fault because it failed to ensure Y received speech and language therapy in line with his Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused a loss of special educational provision, avoidable distress and time and trouble complaining. The Council will apologise and make payments of £100 and £200.

Somerset Council (24 002 753)

London Borough of Bexley (24 005 613)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about delays in the review of her child, Y's, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This is because the complaint is late. In addition, Miss X had a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal about the content of the EHC Plan. The Council also apologised for poor communication.

London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (24 006 084)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about a report the Council prepared for the court because we cannot investigate complaints about court proceedings.

London Borough of Waltham Forest (23 016 128)

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to or delayed in completing the recommendations made after it considered a complaint she made through the children's statutory complaint procedure. The Council failed to carry out all the recommendations, which caused Ms X avoidable frustration and uncertainty and put her child at risk of harm. The Council will apologise to Ms X, make a payment for the injustice caused to her and her child and complete a review into its short breaks arrangements.

Luton Borough Council (23 016 281)

Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of Mr O and Mr P that the Council failed to investigate their complaint through the statutory complaints procedure. Mr X said the Council has failed to provide answers to their complaints, and it has caused unnecessary and avoidable distress. We find the Council at fault, and this caused injustice. The Council has agreed to investigate Mr O and Mr P's complaint through the statutory complaints procedure without delay.

Isle of Wight Council (23 018 644)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council stopped paying her the Special Guardianship Order (SGO) allowance. She said this caused her distress and impacted her financially. There was fault in the way the Council delayed completing its stage one response. This frustrated Mrs X. The Council will apologise and repeat its offer of completing the statutory process.

Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (24 005 150)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's fostering services. The Council has agreed to consider the complaint through the children's statutory complaint procedure. That is an appropriate resolution to the complaint; it would not be proportionate for us to investigate.

Suffolk County Council (24 005 626)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alleged data breach. The Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to deal with this complaint as it has powers we lack to determine if there has been a data breach and to impose penalties.

Milton Keynes Council (24 005 844)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in preventing the complainant from having contact with his grandchildren. This is because the complaint concerns a matter which could have been taken to court.

Coventry City Council (24 005 909)

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint about the actions of the Council and one of its social workers because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating matters which have been considered in court.

City of Wolverhampton Council (24 006 072)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council's decision not to consider her complaint whilst there are ongoing legal proceedings.

North Somerset Council (24 006 077)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's response to allegations made against the complainant as a foster carer. This is because investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Liverpool City Council (24 006 091)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of adoption records. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (24 006 391)

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about evidence a social worker provided to the court in family court proceedings because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that are being, or have been, considered in court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so.

Cambridgeshire County Council (24 006 759)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Section 7 report. We cannot consider complaints about matters that were or could have been discussed in court.

Archbishop Beck Catholic College (24 005 932)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the School's Admissions Appeal Panel's failure to provide her child with a place at this school. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused them to lose out on a school place.

Essex County Council (24 008 733)

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.

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (23 012 486)

Summary: Miss X complained about delays in the EHC Plan process and in issuing a final EHC plan which meant her son was unable to start school in September 2023. Miss X also complained her son is still not receiving an education or the provision specified in his EHC Plan. We find the delay in completing the EHC Needs Assessment and issuing a final Plan is fault. As was the failure to provide a full-time education. This fault has caused Miss X and her son an injustice.

Derbyshire County Council (23 017 175)

Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to respond to her request for an education, health and care needs assessment for her child, Y, it failed to provide Y with a full-time education when she was unable to attend school and it failed to respond to her concerns. The Council acknowledges it was at fault and it has adequately remedied the injustice caused and made service improvements. There is nothing further the Ombudsman can add.

Essex County Council (23 020 035)

Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to complete an Education, Health and Care needs assessment within the statutory timeframe. We have found the Council at fault for the delay in completing the assessment and issuing the final Education, Health and Care Plan which has caused distress and frustration to Mrs B and her child. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified.

London Borough of Lambeth (24 004 257)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about an Education Health and Care Plan delay as it is not significant enough fault. It is reasonable to expect Ms X to appeal to the Tribunal over its content and to approach the Information Commissioner's Office about a failure to supply documents complaint.

Lancashire County Council (24 005 371)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in the annual review of an Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because the injustice from the delay is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Leicestershire County Council (24 005 594)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays to an Education, Health, and Care needs assessment. The Council has acknowledged the delays and made a suitable offer of a financial remedy to address the injustice caused by the delay.

Southend-on-Sea City Council (24 005 657)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's decision to refuse her application for home to school transport for her child, Y. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

West Northamptonshire Council (24 005 842)

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 Newham (23 018 409)

Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council dealt with her child's direct payments and that it failed to respond to her about this matter. The Council was at fault for not considering Ms X's complaint through the statutory children's complaints procedure. The Council will apologise, make a payment to Ms X for the distress and frustration caused and consider her complaint further.

West Northamptonshire Council (24 001 382)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement in court proceedings. The law prevents us from doing so.

Derby City Council (23 014 206)

Summary: Ms Y complained about the way the Council dealt her child, Z's special educational needs support and alternative provision. We have found fault by the Council, causing injustice, in failing to: complete Z's educational health and care needs assessment within the statutory timescales; provide Z with a suitable education and monitor the delivery of Z's first education, health and care plan. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising to Ms Y, making payments to recognise the worry and distress caused and the impact on Z of the missed education, and service improvements.

Swindon Borough Council (23 015 852)

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council's decision to name a particular school on her child's education, health and care plan. Ms X also complains the Council failed to provide her child with a suitable education when he was unable to attend school. Although we are unable to investigate some aspects of Ms X's complaint due to them being outside of the Ombudsman's jurisdiction, we have found fault with the way the Council communicated with Ms X and its record-keeping. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice this caused.

Dorset Council (23 019 949)

Summary: Mrs C complained about the Council's decision not to assess her daughter for an Education, Health and Care Plan and a statutory Care Needs Assessment. We found the Council was at fault. This caused Mrs C unnecessary distress and meant that S missed two terms of education. The Council agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice its actions caused Mrs C and S.

Somerset Council (23 021 178)

Summary: We have completed our investigation. The Council was at fault. It delayed deciding Y's (Mrs X's child) special educational needs support and Y was without education for 5 months. The Council did not communicate with Mrs X properly, causing distress and undue confusion for Mrs X and her family. The Council should apologise to Mrs X and make a payment to her to recognise the loss of education for Y and the undue distress caused.

Hertfordshire County Council (23 021 442)

Summary: We have completed our investigation. The Council was at fault. The Council has apologised and offered a financial remedy to Mr X. To remedy the injustice suffered, the Council should increase the offer of the financial payment to Mr X, to be in line with our Guidance on Remedies.

Our Lady & St. Swithins Primary School (24 005 593)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful school admission appeal. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The School has now offered the complainant's child a place and so there is nothing further we could achieve.

Somerset Council (24 005 726)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about home to school transport. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Essex County Council (24 005 740)

Leeds City Council (24 007 231)

City of York Council (23 018 048)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to meet its duty under the Childcare Act 2006 to ensure sufficient childcare was available for working parents. We have found no fault by the Council.

Kingston Upon Hull City Council (24 005 434)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about alleged defamation by social workers and the prevention of an adoption by Mrs X and her family. The matters complained of involve the opinions recorded by social workers, and regardless of their accuracy, they are likely to have been closely connected with the court action in which Mrs X contested the Council's decision that the adoption they had planned should not go ahead.

East Sussex County Council (24 005 496)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the accuracy of a report completed by the Council. This is because Ms X can take the matter to the Information Commissioner's Office, which is better placed to consider this complaint.

Hertfordshire County Council (24 005 771)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about alleged inaccuracies in Council evidence and alleged lying in court. The matters complained of are not separable from matters that either were or could have been raised during court action. Any continuing dispute about parental fitness would be for a court to decide.

Shropshire Council (24 006 571)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council's decision not to consider her complaint whilst there are ongoing court proceedings.

Lincolnshire County Council (24 008 623)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's safeguarding processes as there is not enough evidence of fault.

London Borough of Sutton (23 013 412)

Summary: Miss L complains the Council did not ensure the contents of her son's Education, Health and Care Plan were met after he was excluded from school. And it did not arrange alternative provision. We uphold the complaint and the Council has agreed to our recommendations.

London Borough of Wandsworth (23 017 392)

Summary: Mr Y complains about how the Council considered the application for his children, D and E, to receive home to school transport assistance. In our view, the Council did not record its consideration of all relevant supporting evidence provided with the applications. The Council also focused on the home to school distance and did not properly consider whether D and E could travel to school safely. This fault caused uncertainty which the Council has agreed to remedy with the actions listed at the end of this statement.

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (23 017 736)

Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed in its duties to provide suitable education and Special Educational Needs support to her child, D. There was fault by the Council which caused D to miss education and SEN support. It also caused avoidable distress for D and Miss X. The Council agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy. It will also produce an action plan to address the faults identified in this case, and issue reminders to its staff.

Surrey County Council (23 019 324)

Summary: There was excessive delay in finalising an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan after annual review and in consulting schools when a change of placement was recommended. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment to acknowledge distress and uncertainty, and carry out service improvements.

Devon County Council (24 001 682)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not issue her child with an Education, Health and Care Plan within statutory time frames. Miss X says this caused unnecessary and avoidable distress, delayed her appeal rights and meant her child's needs were not met. We find the Council at fault which caused Miss X and her child injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Miss X.

London Borough of Wandsworth (24 005 128)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to ensure Special Educational Needs provision was being met for two children. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.

Somerset Council (24 005 335)

Gloucestershire County Council (24 005 763)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about fault in the process of assessing the complainant's son's education, health and care needs. This is because the law prevents us from investigating matters relating to the content of the Education Health and Care Plan, and our intervention would not add anything to the apology the Council has already made for the delay on its part.

Bracknell Forest Council (23 003 968)

Summary: We have discontinued the investigation into Mrs X's complaint about the placement of her son C. This is because the matters Mrs X raises are the same as the grounds she put forward to the courts when applying to judicially review the Council. We have no jurisdiction to investigate a complaint after proceedings about the same matter have commenced.

Cambridgeshire County Council (23 012 673)

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain the Council was at fault in how it managed its child protection enquiry relating to their children following an incident in June 2023. We found the Council was at fault for delay in completing the Child and Family Assessment as well as the poor communication with Mr and Mrs X. The Council agreed to address the injustice its actions caused to Mr and Mrs X in line with our recommendations.

Lancashire County Council (23 016 086)

Summary: The complainant, Mrs X, said the Council failed to regard her grandson as a child in care and, if it had, the Council would have had to provide both financial and other support to her and to her grandson. We found the Council failed to properly consider its safeguarding duties and it did not give enough information to Mrs X about its decision about her grandson. The Council agreed to take the actions we recommended to address the injustice it caused to Mrs X.

City of Doncaster Council (23 018 010)

Summary: Mr Y complains about the actions of the Council when it placed a young person into an emergency foster placement with Mr Y in late 2023. The Council was at fault for failing to consider Mr Y's complaint under the children's statutory complaints procedure. This meant Mr Y went to unnecessary time and trouble going through the Council's corporate complaints procedure and then complaining to the Ombudsman. The Council has agreed to complete the remedial actions recommended at the end of this statement.

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (24 005 478)

Summary: We will not investigate X's complaint about damage caused to a family home. The courts are better suited to decide liability.

Southampton City Council (24 006 442)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the alleged neglect of Mrs X's child in foster care. The matters complained of are not separable from matters that have been subject to court action by Mrs X since the child was first taken into Council care several years ago. As the child is now approaching adulthood and the current court order will soon lapse, only a court could resolve any dispute about their care.

Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (23 001 456)

Summary: Ms X complained the Council has not updated her child's Education, Health and Care Plan for years meaning she cannot be sure her child is getting the support they need. We have found the Council at fault for not updating the Education, Health and Care Plan and for the way it handled Ms X's complaints about this. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and make payments to recognise the distress, loss of opportunity and time and trouble she experienced.

West Sussex County Council (23 012 062)

Summary: Ms M complains the Council delayed in the review process for her child's Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) and providing them with support. This has caused distress. She would like the Council to issue the final EHCP and provide the correct support for her child. The Ombudsman has found the Council at fault for delay in the EHCP review process and complaint process.

Suffolk County Council (23 014 605)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly asked him for a contribution to his son's post-16 school transport. There was fault with how the Council took too long to issue a final EHC plan for Y and how it decided whether to charge a contribution towards Y's school transport costs. It agreed to review its decision, apologise for the distress caused to Mr X and Y, and pay them a financial remedy.

East Riding of Yorkshire Council (23 018 973)

Summary: Ms X complained the Council has failed to support her family or provide her son with a suitable alternative education and the provision in his EHC Plan. Ms X says the Council's delay in agreeing an education package and personal budget has had a detrimental impact on her son's wellbeing and has caused the family significant distress, stress, and frustration. The delay in holding an interim review and in issuing an amended final EHC Plan is fault. As is the failure to provide Y with suitable alternative provision between January 2023 and May 2024. These faults have caused Ms X and Y an injustice.

Cheshire East Council (24 000 705)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not provide information she requested about applying for a personal budget to secure the specialist educational provision set out in the Education, Health and Care Plans of her two children. The Council failed to provide Mrs X the information she requested which caused her avoidable frustration. The Council will apologise and now provide her with the personal budget information she requested.

Gloucestershire County Council (24 002 474)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed carrying out an agreed remedy from a previous Ombudsman investigation in November 2022. The Council had agreed to arrange and carry out an Occupational Therapy (OT) assessment for her daughter, F within one month of that decision. The Council delayed arranging the OT assessment by around six months. It agreed to make a payment to Mrs X to acknowledge the injustice this caused. It also agreed to update us on its action plan to address the shortage of therapists in its area within three months.

Liverpool City Council (24 003 928)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaints about her child, Y's, Education, Health and Care Plan or about delays in the Council's complaint responses. This is because the complaint is late. In addition, the Council has already offered a suitable remedy for part of the complaint, and an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve anything further.

Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (24 004 330)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to find a suitable educational setting for Ms X's child after a placement ordered by a Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal failed. Investigation by us would be unlikely to lead to any worthwhile outcome.

Lancashire County Council (24 005 437)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council failing to make educational provision for Ms X's child. Where a parent appeals against an Educational Health and Care Plan, a court judgement prevents us considering what educational provision is made for the child from the date of issue until the date of the Tribunal decision.

Suffolk County Council (24 005 447)

London Borough of Havering (24 008 046)

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about a Council's school admissions appeal panel's decision as it is unlikely we would find fault.

London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (24 008 085)

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's School Admissions Appeal Panel's handling of her appeal against the refusal to offer her child a place at her preferred school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant further investigation.

Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (23 020 692)

Summary: There was no fault by the Council, in its handling of referrals it received about child safeguarding issues. We have therefore completed our investigation.

Hampshire County Council (24 005 892)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss X's children's foster placement. The matter was considered as part of court proceedings, so we have no power to investigate it.

Lancashire County Council (24 006 148)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled Mr X's children's case and his more recent request for a practice review. The substantive matter is late, and we will not consider a complaint about more recent events in isolation.

Surrey County Council (24 008 413)

Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council failed to consider a complaint under the children's statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint by issuing a response 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.

Hampshire County Council (23 013 992)

Summary: Ms X complained that the Council failed to ensure her son, C, received the special educational needs provision set out in his education, health and care plan and unreasonably threatened to restrict her contact with officers. We found C did not receive all the one-to-one support set out in his plan. In recognition of the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and make a payment to her.

Somerset Council (23 017 227)

Summary: The Council failed to carry out an Education, Health and Care Needs assessment for Mrs X's child, Y, within the statutory timeframes. The Council's communication with Mrs X was also inadequate. These faults caused distress and frustration to the family. We are satisfied with the service improvements the Council is carrying out to resolve this issue. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the personal injustice to Mrs X and Y.

Kent County Council (21 004 563)

Summary: The Council was at fault because it failed to complete the annual review process for Ms Y and to issue an amended Education Health and Care Plan within the required timescales. The Council also failed to review restrictions on Mrs X's contact causing avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council also did not ensure Ms Y had the sensory equipment she needed at college. The Council will apologise, make payments, ensure the equipment is in place at Ms Y's new college and arrange mediation.


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

Food Blog

Thursday, October 24, 2024

New children and education complaint decisions

A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions

No comments:

Post a Comment