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. Somerset Council (24 003 239) Summary: As part of an earlier investigation, the Council agreed with us to provide speech and language therapy (SALT) for Ms B's daughter, Ms K, in line with her Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. It also agreed to make ongoing payments and, if it could not provide SALT, to complete a fundamental review of the situation and share this with Ms B and us. Ms B complained that the Council failed to provide the remedy as agreed with us. Ms B says this caused her distress and frustration and meant that her daughter missed the SALT she was entitled to. Derbyshire County Council (23 021 074) Summary: Mrs X complained her son, W, did not receive free school meals because their school failed to make adjustments for their needs. We cannot investigate this complaint, because we cannot investigate the actions of the school. Kent County Council (24 001 417) Summary: Mr X complained about how the failed to provide a suitable education for his son, Y, from September 2023. There was fault in how the Council arranged tuition for Y, failed to keep that tuition under review and took too long to reassess his needs. It also did not follow its policy when restricting how Mr X could contact the Council. The Council agreed to apologise, pay Mr X and Y a financial remedy and review the restrictions it has placed on Mr X's contact. It also agreed to remind its staff of the importance of following its unreasonable behaviour policy. Worcestershire County Council (24 002 872) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to put suitable alternative provision in place for her child, Z, when they stopped attending school in September 2022. We cannot investigate some parts of Mrs X's complaint and the Council was not at fault in the remaining part we can consider. Kent County Council (24 004 481) Summary: Miss X complained the Council has failed to make appropriate educational provision available for her daughter. She also said the Council's communication has been poor. We find the Council was at fault. This caused significant distress to Miss X and her daughter missed out on education. We make several recommendations to address this injustice caused by fault. Somerset Council (24 006 213) Summary: Ms X complained about the Council's handling of her son's education. The Council has already accepted fault for failing to provide all the provision set out in his Education, Health and Care Plan since October 2023. The Council has agreed to apologise and make payment to acknowledge the injustice its faults caused Ms X and her son. London Borough of Barnet (24 006 876) Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, about the Council's refusal to issue an education, health and care plan while it applied for a review of a tribunal decision. This is because it is inextricably linked to a matter subject to appeal and is therefore outside our jurisdiction. We cannot investigate a new complaint, about the Council refusing to make amendments to the final plan, because the complainant has not made a formal complaint to the Council about this yet. Leicestershire County Council (24 010 669) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's decision to refuse her application for free home to school transport for her daughter. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. Essex County Council (24 014 892) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss 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. St Paul's School for Girls, Edgbaston (24 014 974) 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. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (24 015 721) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's failure to issue her child's Education, Health and Care Plan within statutory timescales. Her complaint is late and there are no good reasons to consider it now. London Borough of Lewisham (23 019 471) Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed completing his daughter, Y's, Education, Health and Care needs assessment. He complained the Council denied the opportunity to meet him twice and issued the plan without his agreement. Mr X said Y did not have the provision she needed and the situation distressed the family. There was fault in the way the Council delayed issuing Y's plan, did not agree to meet with him and did not follow its complaint process. This distressed Mr X, frustrated his appeal rights to the Tribunal and Y missed plan provision. Mr X was also put to time and trouble to complain. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment and provide guidance to its staff. Leicester City Council (24 000 958) Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council dealt with her request to end her child's Education, Health and Care Plan and unnecessarily referred her to social services. Ms X said this caused her and her child stress and anxiety. We have not found the Council at fault. East Sussex County Council (24 001 453) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide alternative provision for her son, S, after she told the Council he was unable to attend school. She said S has missed education and socialising with his friends. This has caused S and his family distress. The Ombudsman has found the Council at fault for failing to manage and review S's situation. Somerset Council (24 001 883) Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed competing the Education Health and Care Plan for her son and failed to provide him with a suitable education. The EHC Plan should have been issued within 20 weeks but after 22 months the Council has still not issued the final version. It also failed to take appropriate action when provided with information that Miss X's son was not attending school. This is fault and a suitable remedy is agreed. Essex County Council (24 004 143) Summary: Summary: Mrs X complains on behalf of her son, Y, the Council has failed to provide suitable educational provision. Mrs X says this has caused her and her family a great deal of distress. We have found fault in the actions of the Council for failing to ensure provision was in place for Y. We recommend the Council issues and apology and pays a financial payment to Mrs X. Oxfordshire County Council (24 005 719) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to find a school her Miss X's child. This is because she has used her right of appeal to a tribunal. London Borough of Bromley (24 006 602) Summary: The Council was at fault because of a significant delay in reviewing and amending an education, health and care plan. This delay caused frustration and distress to the complainant and her son, and the Council has agreed to offer a financial remedy and write a letter of apology to reflect this. Dorset Council (24 010 005) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about home to school transport. This is because the Council has agreed to an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused. Derby City Council (24 011 073) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has reviewed Miss X's son's special educational needs. This is because Miss X has used her right of appeal to a tribunal and the issues she raises are not separable from that appeal. Essex County Council (24 014 536) 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. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (24 003 107) Summary: The Council has agreed to consider Mr X's complaint at stage three and respond to him directly. Mr X can approach the Ombudsman again if he is not happy with the Council's final response. The Ombudsman has decided to discontinue the investigation into Mr X's complaint. Lancashire County Council (24 011 407) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about what the Council recorded about Mr X during a child protection investigation. Doing so would be unlikely to lead to any worthwhile outcome as the Council decided not to take child protection action and closed Mr X's family's case without doing so. Another body is better placed than us to dela with any factual inaccuracy in the Council's records, and defamation is a matter only a court could decide. Staffordshire County Council (24 012 801) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's actions in its child protection involvement with her family. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is about matters that have been subject to court proceedings. We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about historic matters. This lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now. Coventry City Council (24 013 130) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about the actions of social workers involved with assessing who is best placed to care for and have contact with the children of his family. The matters he complains of are closely linked to or directly form part of court action. A permanent legal bar thus prevents us from investigating them. Hertfordshire County Council (24 014 504) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about a data breach by the Council. This is because complaints about data matters, such as this, are best considered by the Information Commissioner's Office. Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (24 014 598) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X complaint about a deprivation of liberty application the Council made. This is because the law prevents us from investigating the start of court action. We will not investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council delayed making the application, because investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Bedford Borough Council (23 019 060) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about her daughter's social worker not providing appropriate support during child in need interventions, and about delay in the Council dealing with her complaint under the statutory children's complaint procedure. This is because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. West Sussex County Council (24 011 635) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council's Local Authority Designated Officer failed to ensure an allegation was considered fairly and thoroughly. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council's part to warrant investigation. Suffolk County Council (24 011 666) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about her child's education. Ms X has appealed to a tribunal which places the matter outside our jurisdiction. London Borough of Waltham Forest (23 005 996) Summary: Ms X complained the Council named a mainstream school on her son, Y's, Education, Health and Care Plan and ignored her request for a special school. Ms X also complained the Council's communication with her was very poor and it delayed responding to her complaint. We found the Council delayed consulting a special school for three months and responding to Ms X's complaint. The Council will apologise to Ms X and pay her a symbolic amount of £300 to recognise the frustration this caused her. Bath and North East Somerset Council (23 019 676) Summary: The complainant complains her son missed out on education for 14 months due to fault by the Council. Our decision is there were two periods where the Council could have done more to ensure the school was providing more education and also the contents of the child's Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council has agreed to our recommendations. Surrey County Council (24 001 830) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her son Y with a suitable full-time education. We found fault by the Council which meant Y missed some education provision. It also caused Mrs X distress and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment in recognition of the injustice caused to Y and Mrs X. Leeds City Council (24 002 491) Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to put alternative provision in place when her child, W, stopped attending school. The Council was at fault for poor record keeping, failing to arrange provision when W's school refused to and for delay in carrying out an Education, Health and Care Plan assessment for W. This caused Miss X avoidable uncertainty, frustration and distress for which the Council will apologise and pay her a symbolic financial amount. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (24 011 090) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to take action to make appropriate provision for the complainant's son. The complaint is late and there are insufficient grounds for us to exercise our discretion to investigate it now. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (24 012 879) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of concerns about Mrs X's children. This is because the actions of the Council relate to the conduct of court proceedings about Mrs X's children. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about what happened in court. Somerset Council (24 000 836) Summary: Mrs X complained of the Council's handling of her Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) application after it delayed commissioning a contractor to carry out adaptations to her house for her disabled son (Y). The Council is at fault because it took 16 months after receiving Mrs X's DFG application to contact contractors and progress the adaptations. The Council agreed to make a payment to recognise the distress, frustration and uncertainty this has caused. However, the subsequent delay in completing the adaptations was outside the control of the Council. Norfolk County Council (24 000 966) Summary: The Council was not at fault for how its hardship service handled Miss X's request for financial support. Neither its correspondence with her nor its referral to its children's social care service were so obviously unreasonable that they amounted to maladministration. Nottinghamshire County Council (24 006 215) Summary: We have not investigated Miss X's complaint about the Council placing her daughter at risk of harm. The complaint is late. Cheshire East Council (24 011 395) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision to investigate a safeguarding concern including a social worker's conduct. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and an investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome. Buckinghamshire Council (24 011 638) Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Council's handling of concerns about Mr X's children. This is because the actions of the Council relate to the conduct of court proceedings about Mr X's access to his children. They either were or could reasonably have been raised in court. Suffolk County Council (24 012 166) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council allegedly reading, using and transferring data about Miss X incorrectly. The Information Commissioner's Office is better placed than us to deal with a complaint about data processing. Oxfordshire County Council (24 014 169) 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. Buckinghamshire Council (23 015 340) Summary: There was fault by the Council as there was delay providing full time education for two children with Education, Health and Care plans who moved into the area. The Council did offer travel costs for the children to stay at their old school and tuition which their parent felt was unsuitable. The Council accepted it was at fault when it considered an official complaint and offered a suitable remedy to the injustice of a payment, plus an apology before the Ombudsman considered the complaint. Devon County Council (24 002 702) Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to ensure her child, Y received Speech and Language provision in line with their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. Y did not receive daily Speech and Language provision in line with their EHC Plan between November 2023 and November 2024 which was fault. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to Miss X to acknowledge the injustice caused. Dorset Council (24 003 542) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide a suitable education for her daughter, Y, between November 2023 and July 2024 when she was unable to attend school due to anxiety. The Council was at fault. It will apologise to Ms X and pay her £2,400 to recognise the period of suitable alternative provision Y missed, and the distress this caused Ms X. Surrey County Council (24 005 320) Summary: Miss X complained about delays during the annual review of her child's Education, Health and Care Plan and the Council failing to ensure occupational therapy provision was provided. Miss X said the delay meant her child missed provision and support in school leading to a deterioration in his mental health and no longer being able to attend mainstream school. We found fault by the Council but consider the action it had already offered of an apology and symbolic payment provided a suitable remedy. West Northamptonshire Council (24 006 290) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's handling of the Education, Health and Care Plan process for Mrs B's son following an annual review. The Council accepted it was at fault for causing delays in the process and how it communicated with Mrs B. The Council will make an apology, financial payment and service improvements to remedy the injustice its faults caused. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (24 007 183) Summary: Ms X complains that the Council wrongly refused her application for a place at a school for her child and the Independent Appeal Panel did not properly consider her appeal. The appeal panel was at fault as it did not properly consider Ms X's appeal which caused uncertainty to her. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising to Ms X. Birmingham City Council (24 010 470) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in reviewing an Education, Health and Care Plan. We cannot investigate complaints about schools and there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council which caused a significant personal injustice. Coventry City Council (24 011 807) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a school admission appeal panel in refusing an infant class place for Mrs X's child. There is not enough evidence of procedural fault by the panel to warrant our further involvement. London Borough of Wandsworth (24 012 370) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the education provided to his son. Mr X appealed to a tribunal and so the case is outside our jurisdiction with no discretion to investigate. Kent County Council (24 013 114) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the contents of an Education Health and Care Plan for Mr X's child. This is because it is reasonable for Mr X to use his right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal. Middlesbrough Borough Council (23 020 396) Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council treated her and her husband as foster carers. The Council is at fault for not fully following the standards of care process and delaying its response to Mrs X's request for a stage two investigation. This caused distress and uncertainty to Mr and Mrs X. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment and remind staff of the importance of following the full standards of care process. London Borough of Croydon (24 001 323) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's response to child protection referrals. This is because investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Warrington Council (24 010 598) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's actions in respect of Mr X. The matters complained of are closely linked to the conduct of court proceedings concerning the care of a child. Shropshire Council (24 011 421) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council substantiating a child protection concern about Mr X. The Local Authority Designated Officer for child safeguarding reached a decision they were entitled to reach based on the evidence before them. Investigation by us would be unlikely to find fault. London Borough of Lambeth (24 014 089) 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. Surrey County Council (23 016 411) Summary: Ms X complained her child was out of school since April 2022 and received no education. The Council upheld her complaint, and we found it offered a suitable remedy. The Council also said it would put alternative provision in place. We found the Council failed to do so, but it has agreed to provide a further remedy for the additional missed education. South Gloucestershire Council (23 017 976) Summary: Miss X complains the Council unreasonably denied transport assistance for her child, and refused to backdate the support once the decision was overturned. The Ombudsman finds no fault with the Council for how it reached the decisions made on Miss X's application for travel assistance. Brighton & Hove City Council (23 020 374) Summary: Ms X complains the Council delayed providing education to her child after she could no longer home educate Child Y. This meant Child Y was without suitable education. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for delaying providing education, however the Council has already remedied the injustice. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (23 021 071) Summary: Ms B complained about the provision of therapies and activity sessions in accordance with her son D's Education, Health and Care Plan between September 2020 and July 2022. We found some fault. We consider the Council has offered an adequate remedy for the Occupational Therapy and Speech and Language Therapy but did not acknowledge the failure to provide the activity sessions. The Council has agreed to pay £1165 for the missed sessions and to improve its procedures for the future. North Yorkshire Council (23 021 317) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide her daughter, Z, with the education and support in her Education, Health and Care Plan. She also complained its communication with her was poor. There was fault in the Council's communication with Ms X, which caused her frustration. The Council has already provided an appropriate remedy for this. We have not investigated the complaint regarding the educational provision, as this was connected to a matter which Ms X appealed to a tribunal. Kent County Council (23 021 427) Summary: The Council significantly delayed carrying out an Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment for Ms X's child, Z. Its communication and complaint handling was also delayed. These faults caused Ms X and Z uncertainty, frustration and distress. In recognition of the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to pay Ms X £700. As service improvements are already underway at this Council, we have not repeated the recommendations again here. Tunbridge Wells Girls Grammar School (24 004 996) Summary: Mrs X complains about a school admission appeal panel's decision to refuse her appeal. The appeal panel was at fault as it failed to properly consider all the evidence submitted by Mrs X in support of her appeal. As a result, Mrs X cannot be satisfied that she received a fair appeal. The School has agreed to remedy this injustice by arranging a fresh appeal for Mrs X. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (24 010 347) Summary: We have upheld this decision because the Council delayed considering a request for a reassessment of a child's Special Educational Needs. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by offering to make a suitable payment to the complainant to remedy the injustice this cause Suffolk County Council (24 012 314) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision not to provide his child with free transport to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (24 012 551) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's refusal to provide free school transport for her child, and matters related to her appeal. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. Herefordshire Council (24 008 653) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council treated Mrs X when she sought to complain about a safeguarding matter. A legal bar prevents us investigating the substantive matter underlying the complaint, and a court ruling prevents us investigating how the Council dealt with Mrs X's complaint about it. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (24 009 717) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about what happened during court proceedings. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that are being, or have been, considered in a court. Warwickshire County Council (24 011 354) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council making Mr X subject to a child protection plan when he was under 18. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement. London Borough of Harrow (24 011 365) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of Miss X's complaints. We cannot investigate complaint handling in isolation where the substantive matters of the complaint are ones we could not investigate. The substantive matters are ones that either directly formed part of court action, or could reasonably have been raised in court proceedings. We also could not investigate earlier matters from 2020 robustly even if they were unconnected to the court action. Coventry City Council (24 015 188) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the content of court ordered reports written by the Council. The law prevents us from investigating what happens in court. Liverpool City Council (24 008 492) Summary: Mr X complained the Council forced him to leave his home under duress and failed to follow correct Initial Child Protection Conference procedures. Mr X said the Councils actions have resulted in mental, physical and emotional harm to himself and his wife, and emotional and mental harm to his children. We have found the Council at fault for failing to provide Mr X with the necessary information ahead of the Initial Child Protection Conference and for not following its appeal and complaints procedures. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mr X to remedy the injustice caused. Sunderland City Council (24 006 786) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint regarding delays in issuing an Education Health and Care plan as further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. It is reasonable for Mrs X to use her right of appeal to the tribunal. London Borough of Lewisham (23 020 345) Summary: Miss X complained the Council wrongly decided her son did not meet the criteria for support from its Children with Complex Needs Team. She also complained the Council's assessment contained inaccurate or misleading information. Miss X said the Council's actions caused her avoidable distress. We found fault in how the Council handled Miss X's complaint. However, we have not investigated Miss X's complaint that the Council wrongly decided her son did not meet the criteria for support and that the Council's assessment contained inaccurate information. This is because the Council has agreed to continue its investigation of these complaints via the statutory children's complaints procedure. 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