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. Leeds City Council (24 010 011) Summary: Education – Special educational needs (SEN) assessments and reviews The Council took more than 72 weeks to issue an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for Mr X's child, Y. It should have completed this in 20 weeks. As a result, Mr X was caused uncertainty about whether Y could have started at their preferred school a year sooner if not for the fault. The family have also been caused a prolonged period of frustration. The Council's lack of educational psychologists has already significantly delayed many families in obtaining EHC Plans. However, once the Council receives the educational psychology advice it needs, it is still routinely taking more than 7 months to finalise EHC Plans. This is significant drift and delay by this Council affecting hundreds of its children and young people with special educational needs. Dorset Council (24 017 195) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's handling of her son, Y's, educational placement and the specialist provision outlined in his Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan after he stopped attending school. The Council was at fault as it failed to review Y's EHC Plan within statutory timescales. It also failed to ensure Y received the specialist provision in the Plan after deciding the school named in the Plan could not meet his needs. It also failed to provide Y with suitable alternative educational provision. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X to recognise Y's missed education as well as the distress frustration and uncertainty caused. It has also agreed to issue Y's final amended EHC Plan without further delay. Essex County Council (24 018 461) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to complete an Education, Health and Care needs assessment for her child, Y, within the statutory time limits. She said this caused Y to miss out on a suitable education. We found the Council at fault for not completing the assessment within the statutory timescales and for not providing a suitable education for Y. This fault caused injustice to Mrs X and Y. The Council has agreed to make a payment to recognise Y's loss of education and the distress to them and Mrs X. The Council has also agreed to make changes to improve its service. Westminster City Council (25 001 419) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint the Council failed to provide the reimbursement of special educational needs expenses incurred despite agreeing to do so and failure to provide a personal budget. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, further investigation would not lead to any worthwhile outcomes. Surrey County Council (25 002 182) Summary: We cannot investigate Ms M's complaint about her son B's education because she appealed to the SEND Tribunal and we cannot investigate a complaint when someone has appealed to the Tribunal about the same matter. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (25 002 827) Summary: the Council has offered an appropriate remedy for the delay issuing an education, health and care (EHC) plan for Ms M's son, and the distress it caused. We are satisfied with the Council's offer and will not, therefore, investigate Ms M's complaint. Central Bedfordshire Council (25 008 190) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's school admissions appeal panel refusing her appeal. It is unlikely we would find fault which caused Ms X to lose out on a school place. Cornwall Council (25 002 762) Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council did not meet statutory timescales or keep her updated when handling her complaint about its children's social care services. We find the Council at fault for delays and not providing adequate updates which caused distress uncertainty and frustration. The Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice. Milton Keynes Council (25 004 870) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's handling of contact between her, her family and her grandchild. The law prevents us from investigating anything that is or has been the subject of court proceedings. Norfolk County Council (24 010 971) Summary: Ms X and Mr D complained about the Council's failure to provide their son, who has special educational needs, with school transport from both his parents' separate addresses. We did not find the Council to be at fault because it applied its policy when it used its discretion not have to provide transport from Mr D's address because it was in another council's area. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (24 016 243) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council refused to provide her child with school transport. She said the Council did not consider her child's special educational needs and behavioural issues which mean it is dangerous and impossible for them to walk to school, even when accompanied. Mrs X said this caused unnecessary and avoidable distress, worry and frustration. We find the Council at fault and this caused injustice. The Council has agreed to make a fresh decision. Gloucestershire County Council (24 016 739) Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not provide his daughter with sufficient alternative provision while she was unable to attend school. The Council is at fault for failing to arrange a suitable full-time education from October 2023 to July 2024. The Council has also failed to record its decision making. This fault meant Mr X's daughter received limited education between October 2023 and July 2024. This caused Mr X and his daughter significant distress, frustration and has negatively impacted her educational development. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr X and his daughter, and make a service improvement. Essex County Council (24 018 126) Summary: Ms X complained about delays in the Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment process for her child, Y. Ms X also complained the Council failed to provide Y with a suitable education when they were unable to attend school. We found delays in the EHC needs assessment process, this is fault. As was the failure to provide suitable alternative educational provision. These faults have caused Ms X frustration, distress and uncertainty and have meant that Y has missed out on educational provision. The Council agreed to apologise and make symbolic payment to remedy the injustice. Birmingham City Council (25 002 458) Summary: We will not investigate Ms M's complaint about the Council's decision to refuse her request for a personal budget because there is no evidence of fault in the Council's decision. Shropshire Council (25 002 754) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's Education, Health and Care assessment of her child, Y, in 2022 because it is late. We cannot investigate some of Mrs X's complaints about support provided to Y in school because the law says we cannot. We will not investigate Mrs X's complaints about the most recent Education, Health and Care process in 2024 because there is insufficient evidence of fault. London Borough of Hounslow (25 007 018) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's 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. Leeds City Council (25 007 475) Summary: We will not investigate Miss 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. Gloucestershire County Council (24 002 936) Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council supported her son while he was in local authority care. Based on current evidence, we have found that the Council was not at fault. It respected her wishes and made decisions about Y's care which do not appear unreasonable. The Council was, however, at fault for keeping incomplete safeguarding records. It was also at fault for how it considered Mrs X's complaint. Neither of these things caused her an injustice, but the Council should nonetheless take steps to improve its complaint handling in future. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (24 014 331) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's handling of matters involving his children. The law prevents us from investigating anything that is or has been the subject of court proceedings. For any matters not addressed by the Court, it is unlikely investigation by us would lead to a different outcome. Lancashire County Council (24 017 954) Summary: Mr X complained the Council has failed to make correct direct payments for his child, C and failed to explain what he can use these for. The Council is at fault which has caused Mr X uncertainty and distress. The Council has agreed to a package or remedies which includes recalculating the direct payments and make any outstanding payments. It should also confirm in writing how it has calculated the amount and what Mr X can use the money for. Devon County Council (25 003 294) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's child protection action. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council's actions. In addition, we cannot achieve the outcome Miss X wants. Warwickshire County Council (24 000 396) Summary: We found fault by the Council on Mr Y's complaint about it failing to follow statutory timescales for issuing his son's final Education, Health and Care plan. It missed the timescale by 13 weeks. There were communication failures with Mr Y and a failure to properly deal with his complaint according to its complaints procedure. This caused avoidable distress as his son missed provision, and Mr Y suffered frustration, uncertainty, and lost opportunity. The Council agreed to send him a written apology for the failings, pay £700 for lost provision, £500 for avoidable distress, and act to ensure the failings cannot be repeated on future cases. West Sussex County Council (24 011 785) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed arranging alternative educational provision for her child, Y when he was unable to attend school. She also complained the Council failed to provide the specialist provision outlined in Y's Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council decided without fault that the school named in the Plan could meet Y's needs. The specialist provision was available to Y at the named school. However, the Council was at fault for a three month delay in arranging alternative education provision and failing to review Y's EHC Plan within statutory timescales. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment for Y's missed provision and to recognise the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused. Surrey County Council (24 016 594) Summary: We found the Council at fault for significant delays during the annual review process of Mrs X's son's Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused Mrs X and her son avoidable distress and caused Y to miss out on provision. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a financial payment to remedy the injustice. Cornwall Council (24 016 644) Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to arrange alternative provision for her son (Y) when he could not attend his school and failed to complete an Annual Review of his Education Health and Care Plan. We found fault with the Council. This fault caused injustice to Y and Mrs X. The Council has agreed to apologise and make symbolic payments. The Council has also agreed to carry out some service improvements of its Annual Review process. London Borough of Bromley (24 019 831) Summary: Ms X complained that the Council delayed updating her daughter's special educational needs support. We have found that the Council was at fault. It took more than two years longer than it should have done to update the support. It has agreed to apologise to Ms X and make symbolic payments to recognise the injustice to her and her daughter. Essex County Council (24 022 730) Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not follow the correct timescales in the Education, Health and Care process. Due to the delays she reported, the Council told her that she could commission her own Educational Psychologists report. After she did this, Miss X said the Council told her that it would not use the report as it was commissioning its own. We find the Council at fault, which caused Miss X injustice. The Council agreed to make payments and apologise to Miss X. London Borough of Wandsworth (25 002 146) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of Mr X's application for a school place. This is because it is unlikely we could add anything to the Council's response and an investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome. Essex County Council (25 002 533) 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 (25 003 007) 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 (25 003 114) 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 (25 003 124) Summary: We upheld Mr X's complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care needs assessment process for his child. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Birmingham City Council (25 006 448) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's decision not to change the Special Educational Needs and Disability tribunal lead for her case. This is because the issue concerns the Council's handling of Mrs X's appeal and if she has concerns about any information provided by the council officer it would be reasonable to expect her to raise her concerns with the Tribunal Dover Grammar School for Boys (25 006 879) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault. Lancashire County Council (25 007 016) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's 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. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (24 003 768) Summary: Mr X complained the Council's investigation of a complaint he made through the statutory children's complaint process, was flawed at both stage two and stage three. The Council was at fault as the statutory complaint procedure was flawed. The Council will apologise to Mr X for the avoidable frustration and uncertainty he was caused and conduct a new investigation of his complaint. Milton Keynes Council (24 015 821) Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council delayed arranging education for her son after his school placement ended, and wrongly took recovery action against her when some of the money for her son's care went missing. We cannot comment on Mrs X's liability for the missing money, as this may well be dealt with in court. But we have found that the Council was otherwise at fault. It delayed arranging education for Mrs X's son and caused delays in its recovery of the missing money. It has now agreed to take action to remedy the injustice caused to Mrs X and her son. Worcestershire County Council (24 017 518) Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not properly complete a needs assessment and refused to provide respite for her children, F and G. Miss X also complained the Council delayed and failed to complete all the recommendations made at stage 2 and stage 3 of the statutory complaints procedure. There was fault by the Council for its delays in completing the recommendations made at stage 2 and stage 3 of the statutory complaints procedure. This caused injustice to Miss X and the Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused. Cheshire East Council (25 001 745) Summary: We will not investigate Mr F's complaint about the Council's involvement with his children because there is not enough evidence of fault and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Hampshire County Council (25 001 749) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about how the Council responded to an assault allegation. The Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to consider data protection complaints. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (25 002 335) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's rejection of Mrs X's blue badge application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council's decision making to justify an Ombudsman investigation. Coventry City Council (25 004 504) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about how the Council calculate her special guardianship allowance. This is because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council. Hertfordshire County Council (25 002 944) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to make appropriate educational and special educational provision for the complainant's son. Investigation is unlikely to add anything significant to the outcome which has already been achieved, or lead to a different outcome, and is not therefore warranted. Oxfordshire County Council (25 002 920) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to ensure appropriate educational provision for the complainant's daughter while she has been unable to attend school. Our intervention is unlikely to add anything significant to the investigation the Council has already carried out, or lead to a different outcome, and is not therefore warranted. London Borough of Haringey (25 001 422) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of the Chairperson of an Initial Child Protection Conference. Our intervention is unlikely to add anything significant to the investigation the Council has carried out, or lead to a different outcome, and is not therefore warranted. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (24 014 709) Summary: Mr F complained the Council refused to provide home to school transport for his son (J) who has special educational needs. As a result, he has had to transport J causing a strain on his finances. Mr F also complained the Council failed to follow its appeals process and properly consider his evidence which caused him frustration. We found fault which caused uncertainty. The Council has agreed to hold a new appeal panel. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (24 015 284) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide her child with education after a mental health crisis. I find no fault. While Ms X's child has not been able to access much in the way of education, this is not because of fault by the Council. The Council has offered a full range of educational provision in and out of school, but Ms X's child has not been able to benefit from it. Bracknell Forest Council (24 016 166) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to follow government guidance when deciding the route Y's school transport should take. We find the Council at fault for failing to evidence its decision-making process and for providing incorrect information, creating uncertainty for Mr X. The Council should apologise, make a symbolic payment to recognise the injustice, and act to prevent recurrence. Cheshire West & Chester Council (24 018 730) Summary: The Council delayed completing Mrs X's child, Y's, Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused Y to miss two and a half terms of Special Educational provision and caused Mrs X frustration, distress and uncertainty. The Council should apologise, make a payment to Mrs X and develop an action plan to address the delays. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (24 019 017) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's handling of her child Y's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan since 2023 including annual review delays and a failure to pay the personal budget. The Council was at fault. It failed to carry out annual reviews between August 2023 and July 2024 and then delayed issuing an amended Plan prior to Y's transition to post-16 education. It also failed to review and pay Y's personal budget which meant Mrs X was unable to arrange therapy provision between September 2023 and July 2024. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and Y and make payments to acknowledge the distress caused the impact on Y's education and development. Hertfordshire County Council (25 002 371) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to advise the complainant of proposed changes to her child's school transport arrangements. We consider further investigation will not lead to a worthwhile outcome and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking. Kent County Council (24 004 665) Summary: Mrs P complained about the alleged lack of support by the Council to provide her young son, who has special educational needs, with a suitable education. We found the Council failed to identify and secure a suitable school placement for Mrs P's son within a reasonable time. We also found the Council failed to provide alternative education provision for the period Mrs P's son was not receiving full-time education. The Council's fault caused a loss of education, as well as uncertainty and avoidable distress, time and trouble. The Council had agreed to our recommendations to put right the injustice caused. Leicestershire County Council (24 006 172) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to make alternative provision when the complainant's daughter stopped attending school. This is because the complainant has used their right of appeal to the Tribunal, and this places the matter outside of our jurisdiction. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (24 006 385) Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to provide educational provision to her child, as outlined in his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council is at fault for failing to arrange a suitable education when the school said it was unable to meet the child's needs and the Council has failed to follow statutory timeframes when finalising the child's EHC Plan following a reassessment of needs. The Council has also failed to provide Ms X a backdated personal budget. The Council has agreed to provide a suitable remedy for the injustice caused. Birmingham City Council (24 013 274) Summary: Ms X complained, on behalf of Mr Y, that the Council delayed completing the annual review of Mr Y's Education, Health and Care Plan and delayed providing the provision in his post Tribunal Education, Health and Care Plan. This meant Mr Y missed out on getting provision he should have received. Ms X also complained about the Council's complaint handling. We found the Council at fault for the time it took to issue a final Education, Health and Care Plan for Mr Y after the Tribunal and for its complaint handling. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise, make a payment to Ms X and Mr Y and carry out a service improvement. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (24 015 280) Summary: Mrs Y complained the Council failed to provide her child, Z, with a suitable full-time education and about its communication failures. We have found fault, causing injustice, by the Council in: failing to properly consider its duty to, and provide Z with a suitable full-time education, and its delay making alternative provision in the period from November 2023 to May 2024; and its communication failures. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by: apologising, making payments to reflect the upset caused and the impact of the missed provision. East Sussex County Council (24 016 011) Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to secure the emotional support set out in her daughter Y's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. We have concluded our investigation with a finding of fault. The Council has accepted that emotional support provision specified in the EHC Plan was not delivered for a prolonged period. This caused avoidable distress to Y and placed additional burden on Mrs X. The Council has agreed to our recommendations. Lancashire County Council (24 016 947) Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council's delay in carrying out an annual review of her child's Education Health and Care Plan causing distress and uncertainty. We found service failure by the Council due to the delay in carrying out the annual review. We have recommended a suitable remedy in this case and have completed our investigation. West Sussex County Council (24 020 226) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide her son with alternative provision while he was out of school following a school placement breakdown. We find the Council at fault for failing to arrange a suitable full-time education or any alternative provision from January to July 2024. The Council has also failed to meet its statutory duty to ensure the provision set out in Ms X's son's Education, Health and Care Plan was delivered. This fault meant he received very limited education between January and July 2024. This caused Ms X and her son significant distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Ms X and her son, and make service improvements. West Northamptonshire Council (25 001 106) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to backdate the complainant's child's special educational needs provision. This is because the complainant used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and this places the matter outside our jurisdiction. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 007 878) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's school's admissions appeal panel refusing her appeal. It is unlikely we would find fault which caused Miss X to lose out on a school place. Liverpool City Council (25 006 330) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about a Council moving his child. This is because the law does not allow us to investigate matters that were subject to court proceedings. London Borough of Enfield (25 007 709) Summary: We have upheld Miss X's complaint because the Council delayed progressing a complaint through stage two of the children's statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint by completing its stage two investigation without further delay, apologising to Miss X and making a payment to her to remedy the time and trouble she has been to. Cumberland Council (24 013 405) Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed to provide alternative education to his daughter when she was unable to attend school, and the Council delayed in issuing a final Education, Health and Care plan. We find fault causing a loss of education for Mr X's daughter, and avoidable distress and frustration for the parents. The Council has agreed symbolic payments for the loss of education and avoidable distress, and it will review its alternative education policy and practice and ensure Education, Health and Care plans are issued on time. Therefore, we are closing the complaint. Isle of Wight Council (24 008 487) Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council handled his son, A's, Education and Health Care needs assessment following an Order the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Tribunal made in May 2024. We found the Council was at fault for the delay in finalising A's needs assessment. The Council agreed to pay Mr X £300 to recognise the uncertainty the delay caused him. London Borough of Merton (25 001 866) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint the Council allocated a school placement to a third party who she says fraudulently used her address when applying. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion. 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 ·5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT