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. Medway Council (23 020 486) Summary: We have completed our investigation. The Council was at fault. It delayed deciding Y's special educational needs support and failed to communicate properly with Miss X. This caused Miss X undue confusion and distress. This distress continues as the delay is ongoing. The Council should apologise to Miss X, make a payment to her to recognise the delay and distress caused and reach a decision to ensure appeal rights are engaged. Buckinghamshire Council (23 020 944) Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed in completing Occupational Therapist and Speech and Language Therapist assessments of her child as part of an Education, Health and Care Plan assessment. Ms X also complained the Council failed to provide suitable education for her child since July 2023. We found fault with the Council for failing to provide suitable education for Ms X's child from 21 September 2023 to 4 February 2024. We did not find fault with the Council delaying in completing Occupational Therapist or Speech and Language Therapist assessments. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her £1,800, in addition to the £900 reimbursement already paid, for her child's missed educational provision. Essex County Council (24 003 444) Summary: Ms C complains the Council has delayed in completing an Education, Health, and Care needs assessment for X. The Council is at fault for failing to assess X within the statutory timescales. This has caused Ms C frustration, time, and trouble. To remedy the complaint the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms C and make her a symbolic payment. West Sussex County Council (24 006 497) Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed issuing an Education Health and Care Plan for a child. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by issuing the Plan and offering to make a suitable payment to the complainant to remedy the injustice its delays cause. West Northamptonshire Council (24 006 838) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about how the Council delivered the content of her child, Y's, Education, Health and Care Plan to them between 2020 and summer 2023, about matters relating to free school meals, or issues regarding school transport. This is because the complaint is late, and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate now. Matters after summer 2023 are new complaints. Buckinghamshire Council (24 006 900) Summary: We upheld Ms X's complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care needs assessment process for her child, Y. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 007 063) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education, Health and Care Plan process for the complainant's child. This is because it was reasonable for Mrs X to use her appeal rights. We will not look at complaint handling as a standalone issue. Devon County Council (24 008 112) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the cost of travel to school. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Essex County Council (24 009 022) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more. Southampton City Council (23 014 074) Summary: Ms M complains a social worker misrepresented her son's needs in a social care assessment. There is no fault in the Council's assessment. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault. Sunderland City Council (23 019 185) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decisions relating to foster children that were placed with Mrs X. This is because there are ongoing court proceedings that are closely linked to the matters Mrs X is complaining about. Warwickshire County Council (24 005 566) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about safeguarding. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement. Kent County Council (24 006 913) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's refusal to award a Blue Badge. We are unlikely to find fault. Lincolnshire County Council (24 008 624) 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 provide her with information without the written consent of a person with parental responsibility for the child the complaint concerns. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (23 009 491) Summary: There was fault by the Council. It failed to amend Y's Education, Health and Care Plan following an annual review in December 2021 and failed to complete annual reviews in 2022 or 2023. It also failed to secure the special educational provision in Y's Plan and delayed responding to Ms X's complaint. This caused a loss of special educational provision, a loss of appeal rights, avoidable frustration, distress and time and trouble complaining. The Council will issue an apology, make payments for missed educational provision, complete a further annual review and devise a new policy and training for officers. Somerset Council (23 018 047) Summary: We upheld Ms X's complaint about a Council's delay in completing the Education Health and Care (EHC) Needs Assessment and Plan process and failure to consider whether to arrange alternative educational provision for Y. This caused avoidable distress, uncertainty, frustration and a delay in appeal rights. The Council will issue Y's final EHC Plan, apologise, make a payment of £1000 and provide evidence of the steps taken to increase caseworker capacity. Buckinghamshire Council (23 018 832) Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not deliver a suitable education to her child. We found no fault with the Council's actions when delivering alternative provision for Miss X's child. We found the Council at fault for miscommunication regarding Miss Y's child's school placement. This caused Miss X and Y avoidable distress. We have recommended an apology, symbolic payment and service improvements to remedy Miss X's injustice. Dorset Council (23 019 593) Summary: The Council was at fault because it did not issue an amended EHC Plan for Y within statutory timescales. This caused avoidable frustration, distress, uncertainty and a delay in appeal rights. The Council did not secure educational provision in Y's Education, Health and Care Plan for half a term. This caused Y a loss of educational provision to which he had a legal entitlement. The Council will apologise, make payments of £150 to Ms X and £1000 to Y and issue Y's amended Education Health and Care Plan without further delay. Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (23 019 616) Summary: There was fault by the Council in failing to review and amend an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan in time for a transition between post-16 placements, so Mr Y had no setting to attend for the 2023/24 academic year. As a result, Mr Y missed out on education in his EHC Plan, and the family was caused unnecessary distress. The Council will apologise, reimburse the family, make a symbolic payment and service improvements. The complaint is upheld. Lancashire County Council (24 001 300) Summary: The Council was at fault for causing a delay when finding Mr X a new post-16 educational placement. This meant he was out of education for more than two terms longer than he needed to be. It has agreed to make symbolic payments to recognise the injustice caused to Mr X and his mother, and it will take steps to improve its service. Staffordshire County Council (24 004 987) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in 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. West Sussex County Council (24 005 949) Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed issuing an Education Health and Care Plan for a child. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by offering to make a suitable payment to the complainant to remedy the injustice this cause. Surrey County Council (24 007 050) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about missed education provision and the Council's consideration of an Education, Health, and Care Plan for his child. The law does not allow us to investigate, because Mr X has used his right of appeal, and these are matters which were linked to his appeal. Lincolnshire County Council (24 008 544) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's decision her daughter does not qualify for free home to school transport. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (24 010 010) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to concerns about bullying in a school. This is because the complaint flows from the internal management of a school which we have no jurisdiction to consider. The law says we cannot consider complaints about the actions of councils in relation to matters that are outside our jurisdiction. Essex County Council (24 010 082) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more. Manchester City Council (24 010 518) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about an unsuccessful school admission appeal. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault for us to be able to question the panel's decision. London Borough of Bromley (24 011 260) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about school admissions. We have no powers to consider complaints about academy schools. Hertfordshire County Council (23 013 721) Summary: We uphold complaints Miss Q has made about the service she received from a Care Provider (Abbots Care) which the Council contracted to provide care to her disabled child. We also find the Council failed to provide enough support to Miss Q after the Care Provider withdrew its service. These actions caused distress. The Council has accepted these findings. At the end of this statement, we set out action it will take to remedy this injustice to Miss Q as well as improving its service to avoid a repeat. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (24 000 880) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with a complaint about a report it produced for the courts. This is because the matter is subject to court proceedings. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (24 006 734) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about children services support to her as a foster carer. There are no good reasons the late complaint rule should not apply to her 2023 complaint. And it is reasonable to expect her to complete the Council's complaint procedure on her June 2024 complaint. Oxfordshire County Council (24 006 767) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has been at fault in the course of child protection and child in need action in relation to the complainant's family. This is because we would not add to the investigation which has already been carried out and our intervention is not therefore warranted. London Borough of Brent (24 007 296) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's housing actions in 2018 and 2019. Miss X could have complained sooner and there is thus no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate these late matters. London Borough of Ealing (23 017 512) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to secure J's special educational provision and delayed issuing a final Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. Ms X also said the Council failed to discharge its education duties when J stopped attending school. We have found the Council at fault for the delay in issuing J's EHC Plan and for parts of its complaint handling. We have made recommendations to remedy the injustice we believe this caused. We have found the Council at fault for not properly recording its decisions about alternative education provision. However, this did not cause an injustice. We have not found the Council at fault for failing to secure the special education provision in J's EHC Plan. There are parts of Ms X's complaint we cannot investigate. We explain why in our decision statement. Dorset Council (23 018 030) Summary: Miss Y complained about the way the Council dealt her child, Z's special educational needs support and alternative provision. We have found finding fault by the Council, causing injustice, in failing to: provide Z with a suitable education; and complete the EHC Plan review process within statutory timescales. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice by apologising, making a payment to reflect the distress caused and the impact on Z of the missed education. Herefordshire Council (23 018 878) Summary: Ms X complains the Council did not properly safeguard her and her children. Ms X says the Council failed to recognise the impact of this, despite her complaints being upheld by the statutory complaints process. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for its actions during the statutory complaints process. The Council has agreed to pay a financial remedy and carry out service improvements. Bath and North East Somerset Council (23 018 920) Summary: Miss Y complains about delays in arranging alternative provision for her child when they stopped attending school in 2022. Miss Y also complains about delays in the Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan process. We have not investigated the complaint about alternative provision because the matters complained about happened more than one year ago and there is no good reason for us to exercise discretion. In our view there is fault in the second part of Miss Y's complaint because the Council took too long to issue her child's EHC plan. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused by fault with the actions listed at the end of this statement. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (23 019 437) Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to ensure her son, Mr Y, received suitable education or support for his special educational needs. There was fault by the Council which caused Mr Y to miss special educational needs support. It also caused avoidable distress for Mr Y and Miss X. The Council agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy, and properly consider Miss X's request for a Personal Budget for Mr Y's Education, Health, and Care Plan. The Council will also issue reminders to staff in its special educational needs service. Cheshire East Council (23 019 884) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide suitable full-time alternative provision for her son Y when he was unable to attend school from September 2023 until July 2024. The Council delayed in responding to Ms X's concerns which caused her frustration. The Council was not at fault in its actions around Y's attendance and education. The Council should apologise to Ms X for the avoidable frustration she was caused. Essex County Council (24 002 410) Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed issuing a final Education Health and Care Plan. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by offering to make a suitable payment to the complainant to remedy the injustice this cause. Cornwall Council (24 006 545) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the lack of notice given by the Council about a change to school transport arrangements. Further investigation will not lead to a different outcome. Leeds City Council (24 006 555) Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed completing an Education Health and Care needs assessment. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by offering to make a suitable payment to the complainant to remedy the injustice this cause. Leeds City Council (24 006 589) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X'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 pay her £100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more. Westmorland and Furness Council (24 006 630) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about interim education provision or the Council's use of an Education Psychologist report. Mr X has used his right to appeal to the SEND Tribunal and these are matters which are linked to his appeal and can be considered there. We will not investigate his complaint about the Council's use of its unreasonable customer policy. It is unlikely we would find fault. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (24 006 841) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's decision not to assess her child for an Education, Health and Care Plan. Mrs X appealed to a tribunal which places the matter outside our jurisdiction. Warwickshire County Council (24 007 227) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to provide Ms X's child with free transport to school. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the matter to justify an investigation. Durham County Council (24 007 952) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's decision her son does not qualify for free home to school transport. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council. London Borough of Barnet (24 009 232) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the school named in an Education, Health and Care Plan. It is reasonable for Mr X to use his appeal rights. Manchester City Council (23 010 228) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council's children's services. This is because some matters have been, or could reasonably be, considered in court. We could not add to the Council's investigation into some matters and others should be raised with the Information Commissioner. Southend-on-Sea City Council (23 018 379) Summary: Mrs Y complains about the Council's decision to approve her as a connected foster carer. As a result of that decision, Mrs Y says she has experienced financial loss because the Council has not paid the relevant fostering fees. We have not investigated the whole complaint because the Council's initial approval happened in 2014 and Mrs Y could have complained sooner. We find fault in some of the more recent matters complained about and the Council has agreed to complete the remedial actions set out at the end of this statement. London Borough of Bromley (24 002 318) Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to follow its own procedures and statutory responsibilities in relation to the care of his grandson. Mr X says this caused him and his family distress. We have found fault in the actions of the Council for failing to follow the Children's Statutory Complaint procedure and recommend the Council completes the process. North Yorkshire Council (24 003 773) Summary: Mr X complained the Council would not progress a complaint he made to the final stage of the children's statutory complaints process and would not arrange an independent panel to consider his complaint. There was no fault in the Council's actions as its decision was in line with statutory guidance. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (24 006 366) Summary: We upheld Miss X's complaint because the Council failed to consider her complaint through the children's statutory complaints procedure. The Council agreed to proceed with the complaint, apologise to Miss X, and pay her a financial remedy for the frustration caused. West Sussex County Council (24 008 546) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a council social worker including the content of a Section 7 report. We cannot consider complaints about matters that were or could have been discussed in court. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council's decision not to consider Mr X's complaint whilst there are ongoing court proceedings. Redcar & Cleveland Council (24 005 034) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in the course of child protection action and in its response to the complainant's subsequent complaint. Investigation would not lead to a different outcome and is not therefore warranted. London Borough of Southwark (24 007 243) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in the course of child protection action relating to the complainant's son. This is because we would not achieve anything significant by doing so. Redcar & Cleveland Council (24 007 294) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to properly investigate the circumstances of a referral to children's services. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council's part, and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants. Lancashire County Council (23 015 318) Summary: Miss B complains the Council did not attend or acknowledge the annual reviews in 2022 and 2023 for her son's Education, Health and Care Plan and did not provide alternative provision for him after being made aware he was put on a reduced timetable. She also complains about the Council's handling of her complaints and the lack of communication. There was fault by the Council. It did not meet annual review statutory timescales and did not arrange alternative provision for Miss B's son after it was made aware he was out of school. Miss B suffered distress and frustration, and the Council's failure to meet statutory timescales delayed her appeal rights to the Tribunal. Miss B's son suffered a loss of education. The Council will apologise to Miss B, make a symbolic payment, and provide staff training. Wiltshire Council (23 016 356) Summary: Mrs N complains about the actions of the Council's Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Team regarding her daughter's Education, Health and Care Plan. This includes the new placement it proposed for her daughter, the way it arranged transition planning and poor communications. We cannot look at the school named in the Plan, as the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Tribunal is better suited to look at that issue. But we have upheld some of Mrs N's complaints; principally about the Council's lack of oversight of the delivery of the outcomes of the Education, Health and Care Plan and the provision of alternative education for Mrs N's daughter. The Council has agreed to our recommendations of remedies. London Borough of Haringey (23 018 072) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with a young person's education provision. This is because the Council's decision to cease an Education Health and Care Plan had a right of appeal that it is reasonable for the complainant to have used. There is insufficient fault with how the Council dealt with a recent request for support. West Sussex County Council (23 019 058) Summary: Ms X complains about the Council delaying assessing her child, Y's, needs and issuing her education, health and care plan. There is evidence the Council was at fault and this caused an injustice to Mrs X and to Y. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused. Peterborough City Council (24 006 770) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the advice the Council secured during an Education, Health, and Care needs assessment. Miss X can appeal the Council's decision here, and it would be reasonable to expect her to use this appeal right. Surrey County Council (24 007 583) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care Plan process. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome. Mr X has now appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). This places the content of the Education, Health and Care Plan and any ongoing provision outside our jurisdiction. Reading Borough Council (24 005 642) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with Mr X and child protection and child in need matters relating to his children. The Council has already investigated and responded to Mr X's concerns under all three stages of the statutory complaint procedure. It has upheld most of his complaints, apologised and offered a payment to remedy the injustice caused. We could not add to the Council's response or make a different finding of the kind Mr X wants. Buckinghamshire Council (24 006 356) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of Council Social Workers and reasonable adjustments. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. Swindon Borough Council (24 006 998) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's response to incidents when her children were in foster care. Doing so would be unlikely to add to the Council's own investigation, or to lead to a different or worthwhile outcome. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (24 007 978) 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 her case is subject to ongoing court proceedings. Reading Borough Council (23 014 327) Summary: Ms F complains the Council did not properly deal with her request for a personal budget to deliver some of her son's SEN provision in May 2022. We have ended our investigation. This is because Ms F used her right to appeal to the SEND Tribunal, which puts it out of our jurisdiction. Reading Borough Council (23 018 057) Summary: Mr F complained about the Council's decision to refuse school transport for his son, who has special educational needs. We found no fault. Somerset Council (24 000 474) Summary: Miss X complained that the Council had failed to consider a funding request from her son's school. She said the Council had failed to stick to deadlines and her son has been out of education. We find the Council was at fault. This cause significant distress to Miss X and her son missed out on education. The Council has agreed to make several recommendations to address this injustice caused by fault. London Borough of Bromley (24 000 963) Summary: Ms A complained the Council has declined a mediation meeting about its decision not to assess her child for an Education, Health and Care Plan. We discontinued our investigation as we cannot investigate the Council's decision as it is caught by Ms A's appeal to the Tribunal, which the law does not allow us to consider. Suffolk County Council (24 006 649) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X complaint about delay in issuing an Education Health and Care Plan. We are unlikely to achieve a significantly different remedy than already offered. We cannot investigate the content of the EHC Plan. And it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council's decision not to offer alternative education. Essex County Council (24 006 837) 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. Devon County Council (24 007 018) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about her child's school, the contents of their Education, Health and Care Plan and the Council's decision not to reassess their needs sooner. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mrs X to have used her right of appeal to a tribunal. London Borough of Redbridge (24 007 556) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about school catchment areas. There are no good reasons the late complaint rule should not apply. Nottinghamshire County Council (23 005 588) Summary: Ms X complained the Council has not implemented the recommendations made as a conclusion to its statutory complaints process. We consider there is some fault with the Council's actions but have not recommended any remedy. Norfolk County Council (24 002 937) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how a safeguarding concern was dealt with. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault causing a significant injustice to justify our involvement. The Information Commissioner is better placed to consider the complaints concerns about data protection matters. Cumberland Council (24 004 450) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's delay completing the statutory children's complaints process because we are satisfied with the actions agreed to remedy this. Cornwall Council (24 006 033) Summary: We will not investigate Dr X's complaint that the Council failed to respond to her stage two complaint under the statutory children complaint procedure within the required timescales. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 006 314) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about matters that have been subject to court proceedings because it lies outside our jurisdiction. We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about a social worker's communication with him because the Council has not considered it via its full complaints procedure. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (24 006 583) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's refusal to reassess her suitability to care for her grandchildren and for failing to pay for her travel expenses to visit her grandchildren. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, one complaint element is premature as it has not completed the Council's complaints procedure. Kent County Council (24 007 053) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to take action to identify the complainant's daughter's needs and put appropriate provision and therapies in place to address them. This is because part of the complaint is late and there are no grounds to consider it now, and investigation would not achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking. Middlesbrough Borough Council (24 009 176) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council failing to deal with her complaint appropriately under the statutory children complaints procedure. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Miss X. 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