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 Croydon (23 020 130) Summary: Miss D complained the Council placed her in unsuitable accommodation and it failed to take timely action to address the issues with the accommodation. She also complained the Council failed to provide her with appropriate redress for the damage caused to her possessions and the impact on her mental and physical health. We find the Council was at fault for how it dealt with Miss D's accommodation and how it dealt with her complaint about the matter. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault. Somerset Council (24 001 955) Somerset Council (24 001 955) Isle of Wight Council (24 007 216) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to adequately assess her son, Y's, social care needs. She said Y has not had social care respite to meet his needs. There was fault in the way the Council did not complete the statutory complaints process. It also did not consider combining Ms X's complaints. This frustrated Ms X and caused her uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment and complete the statutory complaints process. Manchester City Council (24 007 955) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about an incident which led to her being arrested. This is because an investigation by this office could not add to the response the Council has already provided via its own investigation of the matter. Also, we cannot investigate the police's or the school's actions in relation to the incident. Cheshire West & Chester Council (23 017 458) Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to find education for Mrs X's son after he moved into its area. This caused him an injustice. Mrs X was also caused avoidable distress, as she went to significant efforts trying to secure education for her son. The Council has agreed take action to remedy their personal injustice, and it will take steps to improve its service. Isle of Wight Council (23 020 587) Summary: Ms X complained about the Councils handling of her son, Y's, Education, Health and Care Plan. She said the Council failed to complete a transition review and failed to secure education and the provision in the plan. Ms X said this distressed and frustrated her and Y missed education and plan provision. There was fault in the way the Council delayed starting consulting with other educational provisions, distressing Ms X. The Council has apologised. This is a suitable remedy. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (24 010 221) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to provide transport for Miss X's child to start late each morning at school. This is because the Council reached its decision properly after considering the evidence Miss X provided, and we are therefore not able to substitute another view. Norfolk County Council (24 010 291) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not naming the complainant's son's preferred college in his Education and Health Care Plan (EHCP) in accordance with a tribunal decision. This is because there is no evidence the tribunal made such an order and we have no legal jurisdiction to decide what should have been ordered as part of those legal proceedings. Further, the naming of an educational placement in an EHCP carries a right of appeal to the same tribunal which we consider the complainant could exercise. Surrey County Council (24 011 087) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the education provision for a child. This is because the issues raised have either previously been considered, are inseparable from an appeal to the SEND Tribunal or have not caused a significant injustice to the complainant. Hertfordshire County Council (24 000 869) Summary: Mr X complains the Council delayed issuing his son Y's Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan). We find fault with the Council for delay in issuing Y's EHC Plan, poor communication and missed education and provision. We have suggested financial remedies for the frustration and distress caused. Oxfordshire County Council (24 004 019) Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to find education for Mr X after he moved into its area. This caused – and continues to cause – him an injustice. His mother was also caused a financial injustice, as she had to pay for support while Mr X should have been in college. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy their personal injustice, and it will take steps to improve its service. London Borough of Croydon (24 009 688) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about a data breach by the Council because the Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to deal with that complaint. We will not investigate the complaint about the steps the Council took after the data breach was identified because we could not add to the Council's investigation. Hertfordshire County Council (24 010 017) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council failed to put in place suitable full-time education for his son Y between December 2022 and April 2024. This is because the Council considers Y's school suitable to meet his special educational needs and his non-attendance at school is a consequence of its decisions firstly to refuse to carry out an assessment of his needs and then to name the school in his Education, Health and Care Plan. Hertfordshire County Council (24 010 050) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the alleged failure of the Council to include the agreed provision in Mrs X's child's Education Health and Care Plan. Only the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal can decide what provision should be included when this is in dispute, so it would be reasonable for Mrs X to use her right of appeal. Staffordshire County Council (24 010 193) Summary: We cannot investigate some of Miss X's complaint about the Education, Health and Care process regarding her child because she appealed to a Tribunal. We will not investigate some of Miss X's complaint because she had a right to appeal to a Tribunal. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable through an investigation into the remaining issues. South Gloucestershire Council (24 009 812) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker in making Ms X's child subject to a child protection plan. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the decision was reached to warrant investigation by us. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (24 011 452) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement in the care of Ms X's child. This is because it is about matters that have happened in court. Kent County Council (23 016 999) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to ensure her son, Y received a suitable education and the specialist provision in his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan between 2020 and 2024. The Council was at fault. It failed to ensure Y received the provision in line with his EHC Plan between March 2021 and May 2022. It also failed to fully complete an EHC needs reassessment and then failed to follow a tribunal order to put tuition in place between October 2023 and January 2024. It also significantly delayed responding to Mrs X's complaint by 20 months. The period prior to March 2021 is late and the period between May 2022 and October 2023 is outside of our jurisdiction because Mrs X had appealed to the SEND tribunal. The Council agreed to make payments to acknowledge the injustice caused to Mrs X and Y. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (24 009 726) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) service. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing significant injustice. The ICO is better suited to considering Mr X's data retention concerns. Devon County Council (22 013 614) Summary: Ms D complained the Council failed to arrange suitable full-time education or special educational needs provision for her son. We found fault which caused injustice to Ms D and F. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms D to remedy this. Somerset Council (23 021 499) Summary: Ms X complained about the Council's failure to pay for the transport costs when her daughter was receiving alternative education. We have found that our jurisdiction does not permit us to look into this complaint. We are therefore discontinuing our investigation. Derby City Council (24 001 084) Summary: Ms J complained about the time the Council took in issuing an Education, Health and Care plan for her child. She said the Council also failed to provide alternative educational provision in the meantime. We found the Council at fault for the time it took to issue a plan and to implement tuition. The Council agreed to make a recognition payment to Ms J and her child, and to carry out service improvements to avoid this happening again. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (24 001 504) Summary: Mrs X complained about delays in the Education, Health, and Care Plan process and in issuing a final EHC Plan for her son. We found the Council's failure to adhere to the statutory timeframe is fault. This fault has caused Mrs X and her son an injustice. Buckinghamshire Council (24 005 209) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council took too long to respond to her request for a change to her child, Y's, Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council was at fault. This caused Mrs X upset and frustration and meant Y missed out on special educational provision. To remedy Mrs X's injustice, the Council will apologise. It has already paid her £300, which is an appropriate sum. If Mrs X feels the Council's fault impacted on Y's development and education, she can seek additional provision as part of her ongoing appeal to the SEND Tribunal. The Council will issue a staff reminder to prevent the fault happening again. Buckinghamshire Council (24 006 147) 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. Reading Borough Council (24 009 329) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council has been at fault in addressing the complainant's son's special education needs. This is because it was reasonable for Mr X to use his right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). An appeal remains the best option for Mr X to achieve his desired outcome. An investigation by the Ombudsman could not give Mr X what he wants. London Borough of Croydon (24 002 094) Summary: Mrs H complained the Council failed to ensure her son (X) received all the provision set out in his Education, Health, and Care plan since 2021. We found the Council was responsible for a service failure which caused a short delay in putting occupational therapy in place in 2024, and it failed to issue a decision notice following an annual review. It should apologise to Mrs H and make a symbolic payment to acknowledge the short delay X experienced to receive occupational therapy. There was no other fault, and parts of Mrs H's complaint was late. Surrey County Council (24 002 447) Summary: We have found fault with the Council for not arranging suitable full-time education after Mr X's son, Y was permanently excluded from school. This caused Y and his family avoidable distress. The Council agreed to apologise and make a remedy payment to Mr X in recognition of the missed education and distress caused. West Northamptonshire Council (24 005 017) Summary: Miss X complained about delays in the Education, Health, and Care Plan process and in issuing a final EHC Plan for her son. We found the Council's failure to issue a final EHC Plan within the statutory timeframe is fault. This fault has caused Miss X and her son an injustice. North Yorkshire Council (24 009 379) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint that the Council's actions have led to her son missing school. This is because the education provision in place is not separable from Mrs X's tribunal appeal. Other matters have not caused a significant enough injustice to justify investigation. Derbyshire County Council (24 009 427) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council delayed reviewing a child's Education Health and Care Plan and personal budget. This is because the Council has now completed the reviews and offered a suitable remedy for the delay so investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (24 009 990) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the conduct of a review panel that considered the permanent exclusion of Miss X's child from a school. This is because the school is an academy and we have no legal power to investigate the conduct of review panels for academy school. Hampshire County Council (24 013 767) 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. Kent County Council (24 010 057) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision not to provide his children with free transport to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Wokingham Borough Council (23 019 257) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly consider a safeguarding referral she made. We did not find fault in the Council's actions. London Borough of Harrow (24 012 895) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's reports to court in relation to Ms X's children. The law prevents us from investigating what happened during court proceedings. Staffordshire County Council (23 017 526) Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed completing her child Y's Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment and failed to ensure she received appropriate provision in the meantime. The Council was at fault for delay in issuing Y's EHC Plan and for failing to consider whether it had a duty to arrange alternative provision for Y. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and make payments to acknowledge the distress, frustration and uncertainty this caused. Surrey County Council (23 020 951) Summary: Ms T complains the Council delayed completing an annual Education, Health and Care Plan review for her daughter X from November 2022. There was fault by the Council. It has already provided a suitable financial remedy for the injustice to Ms T. The Council also agreed a service improvement. London Borough of Hounslow (24 005 278) Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mrs X's complaint about the Council's children's social care service. Most of the complaint is out of time. And the rest is about professional misconduct, which is a matter for the professional regulator, not the Ombudsman. Surrey County Council (24 008 909) Summary: Ms T complains about delays by the Council regarding her daughter's Education, Health and Care Plan annual review. There was fault by the Council. However, the fault did not cause significant injustice to Ms T or her daughter that warrants a remedy. Essex County Council (24 010 613) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to act on reports of overcrowding on a school bus. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The complainant bought her child's bus ticket direct from the bus company. The complaint is therefore out of our jurisdiction as the matter is not an administrative function of the Council. London Borough of Bexley (24 004 916) Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Miss X's complaint about how the Council refused services to her disabled son. An independent investigation has already found no fault in what the Council did. It is unlikely that further investigation of the same issue would lead to a different outcome for Miss X. Derby City Council (24 006 716) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly consider a complaint she raised about the way the Council completed an assessment of her family and arranged support for her child, Y, through the children's statutory complaint procedure. The Council failed to complete the children's statutory complaint procedure which caused frustration and distress. The Council will complete the statutory complaint procedure without further delay. London Borough of Enfield (24 011 816) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's actions in its child protection involvement with her family. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council's decision not to consider her complaint whilst the matter is subject to ongoing court proceedings. Essex County Council (23 020 084) Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to issue her child's education, health and care plan within statutory timeframes after an annual review. She said the Council delayed by nearly a year. Miss X said this meant her child's needs were not met and it caused unnecessary and avoidable distress. We find the Council at fault, and this caused injustice. The Council will make a payment to Miss X to remedy the injustice. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (23 021 366) Summary: Delay by the Council amending B's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and finding a new school meant he was without a full-time school place for almost four terms. He received some alternative provision for much of this time, but we have no way of knowing whether this was enough. The Council has agreed a remedy. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (24 000 689) Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to adhere to the statutory timeframes for completing an education, health and care assessment for her son and failed to provide him with access to suitable full-time education. Mrs B says this has impacted her son's emotional and social wellbeing. We have found the Council at fault. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy and issue the final education health and care Plan. Liverpool City Council (24 000 784) Summary: We found fault with the Council's failure to ensure delivery of all special educational provision to the complainant's (Miss X) daughter (Y). We also found fault in the way the Council communicated with Miss X and handled her complaint. The Council's fault caused injustice to Y and Miss X. The Council has agreed to apologise, to make payments to recognise Y's educational loss and Miss X's distress and to carry out some service improvements. Derbyshire County Council (24 004 217) Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Miss X's complaint about the way the Council dealt with Y's education. The Council has already investigated her complaint, accepted mistakes, and offered suitable remedies. As a result, there is nothing we can add. St Thomas More Catholic School, Willenhall (24 005 106) Summary: Mrs X complained the independent appeal panel failed to properly consider her appeal against the School's decision to refuse her daughter a place in Year 7. We found the failure to record the panel's consideration and the reasons for its decision at stage 1 of the appeal is fault. As is the failure to explain or provide a summary of the issues the panel considered and the reasons for the panel's decision in the decision letter. These faults have caused Mrs X an injustice. Cheshire East Council (24 008 889) Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed issuing an 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. We will not investigate other matters because they are either made late or have been subject to an appeal to a tribunal. Central Bedfordshire Council (24 009 173) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about Education Health and Care Plan issues going back six years. There are no good reasons why the late complaint rule should not apply. Leeds City Council (24 009 255) Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed carrying out an Education Health and Care needs assessment 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. London Borough of Harrow (24 009 288) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council refusing a Blue Badge application because it is unlikely we would find fault which has caused her to lose out on a Blue Badge. Durham County Council (24 009 482) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the support and advice provided by the Council's special educational needs and disability information, advice, and support service (SENDIASS). This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Essex County Council (24 009 589) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the release of a personal budget to Miss X to meet her child's special educational needs. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement. Peterborough City Council (24 009 966) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council delayed making educational provision for the complainant's son. This is because investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Leeds City Council (24 012 320) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint about how the Council considered a request for an Education Health and Care needs assessment. This is because Mrs X has used her right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal. Cambridgeshire County Council (24 009 458) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about how the Council handled her service complaint. There is no evidence of significant injustice to Mrs X to warrant investigation. Additionally, the Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to consider complaints about data protection matters. Nottinghamshire County Council (24 009 668) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker. These are closely linked to matters concerning the contact and/or residence arrangements for Mr X's children, which were the subject of court action. We are legally prevented from investigating these matters. North Yorkshire Council (24 009 718) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker. This is because these actions were in the context of preparing a report for the Court and we therefore have no jurisdiction to consider them. Blackburn with Darwen Council (24 013 347) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's handling of her complaints. It would be disproportionate to investigate the Council's complaint handling in isolation when we are investigating the substantive issue of her complaint separately. Cheshire East Council (24 001 618) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed putting Occupational Therapy provision in place as outlined in her daughter's (Y) Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan following a SEND tribunal order. The Council is at fault for delaying providing some of the Occupational Therapy provision Y requires. This caused Mrs X distress, frustration and uncertainty and impacted Y's development. The Council should make a payment to recognise this. Nottinghamshire County Council (24 004 388) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to properly assess her son (Y's) application for school transport assistance and unreasonably rejected the appeal of this. The Council considered Y's application and appeal in line with the relevant law and policies without fault. JCOSS (24 006 425) Summary: Mr X complained how the appeal panel dealt with his appeal for a place for his son at the School. We have found fault because details of the panel's discussions and decision have not been recorded in sufficient depth. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise and arrange a fresh appeal. Hertfordshire County Council (24 007 412) Summary: We have decided not to investigate this complaint about the Council wrongly sending a letter to Ms X's home address after receiving a referral about domestic abuse. The Council has upheld the complaint and has agreed to remedy Ms X's injustice by an effective apology and a payment of £500. Kent County Council (24 009 724) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about the conduct of a Social Worker. The complaint is late and the Social Worker's report has more recently been considered by the court. Hampshire County Council (24 009 757) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint the Council has failed to provide her daughter with a suitable education. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. If Mrs X wants to challenge the school named in her daughter's Education, Health and Care Plan, then it is reasonable she uses her right of appeal to a tribunal. Sheffield City Council (24 012 636) 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 its decision. 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