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 Waltham Forest (24 002 861) Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed completing her child's phased transfer annual review process. As a result, Ms X's appeal rights were delayed and she could not challenge her child's secondary school placement until several months after she should have been able to. We found the Council at fault for delaying consulting with schools and producing a final Education, Health and Care Plan for the child's phased transfer to secondary school. We also found the Council at fault for not issuing an amended Education, Health and Care Plan after an annual review in 2023. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise to Ms X, make a payment to her to recognise the avoidable distress and uncertainty and carry out a service improvement. West Sussex County Council (24 003 881) Summary: There was a delay of almost six months in completing a post-16 transfer review and amendment of an Education, Health and Care Plan. This meant there was inadequate transition and the right to appeal the placement before the start of the school year was lost. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment and carry out service improvements. The complaint is upheld. Birmingham City Council (24 007 502) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to offer Mr X a personal transport budget rather than a taxi to travel to college. The Council acted properly by considering the evidence presented and could decide the budget and independent travel training were sufficient to meet his need. There is not enough of evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement. Leeds City Council (24 007 849) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about several issues related to the Council's intervention with her and her child. She complains the Council failed to obtain correct assessments for her child's Education, Health, and Care plan, manipulated a social services report, and about the actions of an officer during a home visit. This is because some matters are out of the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault and an investigation would not lead to any worthwhile outcomes. Surrey County Council (24 008 869) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care Plan process, any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained. In addition, any injustice is not significant enough to warrant our investigation. Isle of Wight Council (24 010 212) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to refuse free home to school transport for the complainant's child. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the matter to justify an investigation. Leeds City Council (24 010 259) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the contents of an Education Health and Care Plan. This is because it is reasonable for Mr X to use his right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal. Hampshire County Council (24 010 301) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about a data breach because the Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to address that. We cannot investigate complaints about what happens in court or about reports prepared for court proceedings. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (24 010 423) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to arrange suitable education provision for a child. This is because the complainant has used their right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal, and this matter is not separable from that appeal. North Northamptonshire Council (24 010 932) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's decision not to provide her son with free transport to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Southend-on-Sea City Council (24 000 158) Summary: Mr X complains that the Council delayed in issuing a final Education, Health and Care Plan for his child Z. The Council was at fault as there was a delay in receiving an Educational Psychologist's report and delay in issuing Z's final Education, Health and Care Plan. The delays caused distress and frustration to Mr X and his family and Z missed specific special educational needs provision for a period of 17 weeks. The Council also failed to discuss a personal budget with Mr X. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice by apologising to Mr X and making a symbolic payment of £1300 to acknowledge the distress caused to him and his family and to acknowledge Z's missed special educational provision. Hampshire County Council (24 000 702) Summary: The complainant alleged that the Council delayed in finding his son an alternative school placement when it became aware that he would have to leave his current placement. We have found some fault by the Council causing an injustice. The Council has agreed to provide the recommended remedy. We are therefore closing the complaint. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (24 008 032) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to provide the complainant with appropriate support for the care of his grandchildren. This is because the Council has accepted that the complainant was a connected foster carer and we would not seek to achieve anything further at this point. Bristol City Council (24 009 954) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's response to her complaint and safeguarding concern relating to her ex-partners child and girlfriend. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (23 012 842) Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed identifying a special school place for her child, Y, which led to them missing education. Miss X also complained the Council failed to provide Y with suitable school transport. We cannot investigate Miss X's concerns about Y's education because she had a right of appeal to the special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) tribunal about Y's school placement. We have ended this investigation about Y's school transport. The Council has put in place service improvements, the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement and there is nothing worthwhile we can achieve by pursuing this matter further. Kent County Council (23 016 096) Summary: Miss B complained the Council failed to deal with her son's Education, Health and Care Plan within the legal timescales when she moved to its area. She says the Council failed to reassess her son as agreed, and it has failed to provide him with the specialist educational provision in his Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council was at fault for its delay in dealing with Miss B's son's Education, Health and Care Plan. It was also at fault for its communication with Miss B about the reassessment, and for its failure to secure some of the special educational provision in the Plan. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault. Somerset Council (24 002 684) Summary: the Council took too long to amend Ms M's son B's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and B received only part-time education until the Council found a new school place. The Council has agreed a remedy for the impact on Ms M and B. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (24 004 043) Summary: Ms M complains about her son B's education. The Council failed to arrange home invigilation for B's GCSEs as required by his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan, and he had to change subjects late in the day due to an examination clash that should have been foreseen. We cannot evaluate the impact on B's results, but we have recommended a symbolic remedy the acknowledge the stress these faults caused. Kent County Council (24 008 415) Summary: Ms X complained that the Council delayed in agreeing to pay a personal travel budget for her child's transport to school and delayed in making agreed back payments. We found the Council delayed in agreeing to pay a personal travel budget. However, we were satisfied with the action it took to resolve the matter. Suffolk County Council (24 009 327) 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. Central Bedfordshire Council (24 009 895) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council's actions led to a breach of a child arrangement order. This is because an investigation would not lead to any further findings or outcomes. Hertfordshire County Council (24 010 090) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the education provision in place for Mrs X's child. This is because she used her right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal. Leicestershire County Council (24 010 101) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education, Health and Care Plan process for the complainant's child. The Council has offered a suitable remedy and an investigation would not achieve anything more. We will not look at the Council's complaint handling as a standalone issue. Surrey County Council (24 010 336) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education, Health and Care Plan process for the complainant's child. This is because the complainant has used their right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). This places the complaint outside our jurisdiction. Birmingham City Council (24 010 951) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about school transport provision. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Reading Borough Council (24 008 148) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about children services' actions. We have upheld Mrs X's complaint as the Council has now agreed to follow the Children Act statutory complaints' procedure. Northumberland County Council (24 009 808) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about financial support provided to him as a Special Guardian because the complaint is late and there is no good reason to our exercise discretion. There is also no evidence the Council is at fault for offering different support to foster and kinship carers. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (24 009 930) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint that the Council delayed in responding to her complaint at stage two of the children's statutory 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. Peterborough City Council (24 010 156) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about how the Council handled child protection action relating to his family. This is because there is not enough evidence of injustice to warrant investigation and we could not achieve the outcome Mr X wants. Redcar & Cleveland Council (24 010 512) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's actions concerning him and his family. The matters complained of are either complaints about what happened in family court proceedings, or could reasonably have been raised there. An absolute bar prevents us investigating these matters. Only a court could determine if the Council's actions amounted to direct discrimination, so it would be reasonable for Mr X to go to court if he is seeking to pursue that matter. North East Lincolnshire Council (24 011 037) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about changed appointment dates resulting in loss of earnings. This is because investigation by us would be unlikely to add to the Council's own investigation or result in a significantly different outcome. London Borough of Sutton (24 013 333) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with child protection matters concerning Mr X's children. This is because the complaint is made late, and I see no good reason why it could not have been raised sooner. Also, the issues raised have been, or could reasonably have been mentioned during court proceedings. London Borough of Havering (24 013 876) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement in Mr X's children's case. The law prevents us from investigating matters that have been raised in court. Wokingham Borough Council (24 015 060) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about alleged lies by a social worker in a court report and verbally in court, or the evidence of Mr X's child's mother in court. An absolute legal bar prevents us investigating matters that have formed part of court proceedings. Surrey County Council (23 018 505) 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 right of appeal. Suffolk County Council (23 019 811) Summary: The Council took too long to issue a final Education Health and Care Plan. It also failed to properly consider whether it should make alternative educational provision when Miss B's child could not attend school. This caused Miss B distress and meant that her child missed out on education. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the impact on Miss B and her child. Nottinghamshire County Council (24 001 433) Summary: The complainant (Mrs X) said the Council had failed to arrange alternative provision for her son (Y) when he could not attend his school. We found fault with the Council which meant Y lost some education. The Council's fault also caused injustice to Mrs X. We did not investigate anything that happened from the second week of March 2024 as Mrs X appealed the Education Health and Care Plan issued for Y at this time and alternative provision was closely linked to the appeal issues. The Council agreed to apologise, make payments to recognise Y's and Mrs X's injustice and carry out some service improvements. Suffolk County Council (24 001 970) Summary: The complainant (Ms X) said the Council had failed to consider her complaint about the delays with an Education Health and Care needs assessment for her daughter (Y). We will not investigate this complaint as at the time when Ms X brought her complaint to the Council any injustice caused by the delays would not have been sufficient to justify our involvement. Suffolk County Council (24 001 995) Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide adequate education for her child, Y, while excluded from school. We find the Council at fault resulting in a loss of educational provision for Y. We recommend the Council apologises and makes a payment to Miss X. Isle of Wight Council (24 002 111) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to complete an Educational Psychologist assessment of her child despite it agreeing to do so following the 2023 Education, Health and Care Plan annual review meeting. We found fault with the Council delaying outside the statutory timescales in reviewing Ms X's child's Education, Health and Care Plan. We also found fault with the Council delaying completion of an agreed on Educational Psychologist assessment. The Council agreed to pay Ms X £500 for the avoidable uncertainty, frustration and lost opportunity caused by its delays. London Borough of Bexley (24 005 291) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss Y's complaint that the Council failed to provide her son, Mr B, with suitable education, special educational needs provision and school transport. This is because these matters are all closely linked to a SEND Tribunal decision. Birmingham City Council (24 008 533) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the wording of letters regarding post-16 transport decisions and other issues with communication. It is unlikely an investigation would add anything to the Council's response or achieve the outcomes Mrs X wants. Buckinghamshire Council (24 010 061) 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. Essex County Council (24 013 999) 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. Devon County Council (23 011 565) Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council dealt with the care of her children. The Council was at fault for not considering Mrs X's complaint through the children's statutory complaints procedure. The Council will apologise to Mrs X for the frustration and uncertainty this caused and consider her complaint further. Derby City Council (23 019 832) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to add to its records that a court document about Miss X had incorrectly stated she had twice declined mother and baby placements. The Information Commissioner's Office is better placed than us to deal with matters of alleged data inaccuracy as it has powers to require rectification and impose penalties that we lack. Hertfordshire County Council (23 020 273) Summary: Miss X complained about the Council's involvement in the child safeguarding procedure following an incident in September 2021. Miss X said the Council's actions caused her and her children avoidable distress. The Council was at fault for the delay in considering Miss X's complaint, and the lack of information around medical examinations for her children. We consider the remedies the Council offered to Miss X suitably address the injustice it had caused her. London Borough of Wandsworth (24 001 630) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about backdated Child Arrangement Order payments. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the decision-making process. Lancashire County Council (24 010 590) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about how the Council prepared a Section 7 report. This is because the matter has either been considered in court or could reasonably be raised in court. London Borough of Enfield (24 011 212) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council treating Mr X as vexatious and allegedly discriminating against him. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement. Oxfordshire County Council (24 012 015) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement in Mrs X's child's case. Care proceedings are ongoing, and the matters Mrs X complains about will be considered in court. Suffolk County Council (23 020 622) Summary: the Council delayed putting in place education for Mrs B's daughter when she could not attend school due to anxiety. An apology, payment to Mrs B and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (24 001 696) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide her son with a suitable education or update his Education, Health and Care Plan for two years after they moved into the Council's area. The Council failed to secure the provision in his EHC Plan for over two years, provided only a limited amount of tutoring and delayed reviewing the EHC Plan causing frustration and distress. A suitable remedy is agreed. Derby City Council (24 002 417) Summary: There was fault by the Council. There was a delay of 15 months in issuing a final Education, Health and Care Plan after a needs assessment. A child did not receive any education for two terms and there is no evidence of the Council reaching a proper decision that the 2.5 days a week provision for another term was suitable. An apology, financial remedy and consulting a school on a request for the child to repeat a school year remedies the injustice. Derbyshire County Council (24 002 510) Summary: We found fault on Mrs D's complaint about the Council's delay processing her application for an Education, Health and Care plan for her son, E. It also delayed checking her concerns about the school failing to make the required provision for him. There were communication failures. This caused them distress as E lost provision. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused. Derbyshire County Council (24 003 113) Summary: Ms X complained about the significant delays in the education, health and care plan process. She also said the Council's communication has been poor. We find the Council was at fault. This caused significant distress to Ms X and her son. To address this injustice caused by fault, we make several recommendations. Bristol City Council (24 004 556) Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to secure the special educational needs provision in her child D's Education, Health, and Care plan. The Council was at fault because it failed to secure the provision in the Plan, which caused D to miss special educational needs provision. It also caused avoidable distress to Miss X. The Council agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy. It will also review what happened in this case and produce an action plan to prevent similar issues in future. Hampshire County Council (24 006 426) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about delays in the review of her child's Education, Health and Care Plan because the Council offered a suitable remedy. We cannot investigate parts of Miss X's complaints because she used her right to appeal to a Tribunal. We cannot investigate Miss X's complaints about how her child was taught in school because the law says we cannot. We will not investigate the remaining parts of Miss X's complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault, and an investigation is unlikely to achieve any additional outcome. Surrey County Council (24 009 917) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision not to provide his daughter with post-16 transport to school. The Council has now agreed to provide transport for the rest of the academic year. An investigation could not achieve anything more at the current time. Devon County Council (24 010 292) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's compliance with an order of the SEND Tribunal. This is because the alleged injustice is speculative and not significant enough to warrant an investigation. Derbyshire County Council (24 010 313) Summary: We upheld Mr X's complaints about delays in the Education, Health and Care needs assessment of his child and the Council's poor communication. This is because the Council upheld Mr X's complaints and provided a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Essex County Council (24 013 249) 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. Suffolk County Council (24 001 971) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's concerns about the accuracy of Council records or her concerns about a member of staff. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. It is reasonable to expect Ms X to raise her concerns at court. West Sussex County Council (24 003 204) Summary: Mr B complained about the way the Council investigated his complaint about children's services. We have found fault with stage two investigation and the time taken to complete the process. The Council has agreed to pay Mr B £600. Hartlepool Borough Council (24 005 539) Summary: The Council was not at fault for its refusal to consider Mrs X's 30-year-old complaint. It properly considered its discretionary powers to consider old complaints and explained its decision to Mrs X. For the same reasons given by the Council, we will also not investigate the complaint. Birmingham City Council (24 010 446) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision that Miss X's children needed to be subject to child protection plans. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement. London Borough of Hackney (24 013 737) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about children services actions. The Council has now agreed to reply to his complaint, and it is reasonable to expect Mr X to comply with its requests. Brighton & Hove City Council (23 012 961) Summary: Ms X complains the Council has failed to deliver the provision set out in her child, Y's, EHCP and has failed to make alternative educational provision. We have concluded our investigation having not made a finding of fault. The evidence demonstrates the Council made offers of suitable alternative provision whilst it searched for a permanent placement for Y. Offers proposed by the Council were available and accessible to Y. Surrey County Council (23 017 161) Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council considers school transport applications for children in her village. We do not find fault with how the Council assesses these applications. We find the Council at fault for delays in considering Miss X's appeal. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the uncertainty caused. Surrey County Council (23 017 190) Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council considers school transport applications for children in her village. We do not find fault with how the Council assesses these applications. We find the Council at fault for delays in considering Mrs X's initial application and stage one appeal, and for providing incorrect information. We recommend the Council apologise and make a payment to recognise the uncertainty caused. North Yorkshire Council (23 019 663) Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council handled her child, Z's education and special educational provision between 2019 and 2024. The Council was at fault for failing to ensure Z received all the provision in their Education, Health and Care Plan between March and June 2023 and delayed in considering Mrs X's complaint. The Council will apologise to Mrs X and Z for the avoidable frustration, uncertainty and distress they were caused and make a symbolic payment of £800 to recognise the same. Staffordshire County Council (24 000 475) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to deliver the provision in her son's Education, Health and Care Plan and failed to respond to her complaint about this. She also complains the annual review of the EHC Plan was delayed and that all this caused distress and uncertainty. The Council did not provide all the Occupational Therapy and Speech and Language Therapy which is fault. It also delayed completing by the annual review. A suitable remedy is agreed. Birmingham City Council (24 001 483) Summary: Mr D complained about the Council's handling of his son's (X) Education, Health, and Care plan process and his requests for more provision and a different school placement. We found the Council failed to adhere to the statutory process and timescales following an annual review. However, this did not cause X or Mr D a significant injustice, its apology was therefore appropriate. Other parts of the complaint carry appeal right to the SEND Tribunal, which we would expect Mr D to use. Westminster City Council (24 010 127) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's actions when her son's Education, Health and Care Plan was transferred to it from another Council's area. This is because we are unlikely to find fault and any injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation at this stage. London Borough of Hillingdon (24 010 142) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint about her child's lack of education. The reasons her child is not attending school is integral to her Tribunal appeal. Kent County Council (24 010 676) Summary: Ms D complained the Council failed to resolve her son's direct payments package by the agreed deadline following a previous complaint she made to us. The Council was at fault for failing to act on our recommendation by the agreed deadline. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the further injustice caused to Ms D and her son. Cornwall Council (24 010 987) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's decisions not to assess her child for an Education, Health and Care Plan. Miss X either had appeal rights or has used them. This places the matter outside our jurisdiction. Kent County Council (24 011 981) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's decision not to provide a partial refund or pause payments for his child's Travel Saver bus pass. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. Essex County Council (24 013 217) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's decision not to carry out an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment for her child. This is because it would be reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to the SEND Tribunal. East Sussex County Council (24 007 649) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions in respect of Mr X. It was entitled to make a child protection referral to another council when it discovered Mr X's partner was expecting a child on the basis of his previous convictions. As Mr X's children from a previous relationship live with a former partner it would not be fault for the Council to work with her rather than him. Hampshire County Council (24 009 542) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's fostering application process. It is unlikely we would find enough significant Council fault to warrant further investigation. Somerset Council (24 001 955) Summary: We have completed our investigation. There was no fault in how the Council carried out an assessment about Mr X's child and his family. However, the Council failed to respond to Mr X's complaint using the statutory children's complaints procedure. This was fault by the Council. The Council should apologise to Mr X and make a symbolic payment to him. London Borough of Lewisham (24 005 116) Summary: We have completed our investigation. The Council were at fault for failing to complete the statutory children's complaints procedure. Mrs B experienced unnecessary delay and frustration because of this fault. The Council have agreed to re-start the statutory children's complaints procedure at stage two without delay. The Council will also make a symbolic payment to Mrs B and apologise to her. Staffordshire County Council (23 020 424) Summary: We have completed our investigation. The Council was at fault. It did not provide Miss X's child, B, with education, while out of school. It did not properly assess B's welfare during this time and failed to review B's Education, Health, and Care (EHC) Plan in a timely manner. It should apologise to Miss X, award a symbolic payment to her, and carry out a review of internal policy. 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