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. Kent County Council (24 014 617) Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's delay in updating his Son's Education, Health and Care Plan following his annual review. We find the Council at fault for delay, lack of communication and loss of specialist provison. We have agreed financial remedies for the distress and frustration caused. Blackpool Borough Council (24 017 666) Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to deliver education to her son while he could not attend school. We have found that the Council was not at fault for its offer of education. It considered its duties and made a decision which was not unreasonable. It was, however, at fault for providing Mrs X with some incorrect information. This did not cause Mrs X a significant injustice, and therefore we have recommended no further action. Derbyshire County Council (24 018 690) Summary: We have upheld Mrs X's complaint because the Council delayed finalising her son's Education Health and Care plan. The Council apologised and offered a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to both Mrs X and her son. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (24 020 012) Summary: Miss X complains the Council did not deal properly with her son's special educational needs causing delay and avoidable distress. The Council is at fault because it did not properly complete an Education Health and Care Plan annual review properly, did not complete an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment properly and did not manage documents properly. Miss X suffered delay to receiving her son's final EHCP and avoidable distress. The Council should apologise and pay Miss X £750. London Borough of Waltham Forest (24 021 867) Summary: Ms X complained that the Independent Admission Appeals Panel failed to properly consider her appeal for a school place for her child. There was fault in the way the Panel considered Ms X's appeal and reached its decision. The Council will apologise to Ms X for the avoidable frustration and uncertainty caused by the fault, hold a new appeal hearing with new panel members and clerk and provide training or guidance on the statutory guidance for clerks and panel members. Nottinghamshire County Council (25 002 746) Summary: We will not investigate Ms M's complaint about her son's education because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. We could not add to the Council's response, and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Worcestershire County Council (25 002 841) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint about whether her child's Education Health and Care Plan meets their needs. We cannot investigate matters which are subject to, or not separable from, a Tribunal appeal. North Yorkshire Council (25 003 079) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the review of an Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because the accepted fault did not cause significant injustice. In addition, an investigation is unlikely to achieve any worthwhile outcome. Lancashire County Council (25 003 442) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to complete an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment. Our intervention would not lead to a different outcome and is not therefore warranted. Derbyshire County Council (25 005 518) Summary: Mrs X complained her child missed Year 6 of education with only limited part-time Alternative Provision of education at the end of the year. We found fault with the Council failing to suitably consider its Section 19 duty for 8 weeks in the academic year 2023/2024. We also found fault with the Council failing to meet its complaint timescales. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X for any avoidable frustrations its fault caused and pay Mrs X £600 in recognition of her child's missed educational provision caused by its fault. London Borough of Redbridge (25 007 542) 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. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (24 021 309) Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's children's social care service. We have discontinued our investigation, because the Council has not yet provided Mr X with its final complaint response. Coventry City Council (25 002 472) Summary: We cannot investigate Ms M and Mr F's complaint about the Council's involvement in arrangements for B to live with them in 2018 because it is too late. We will not investigate their complaint about the financial support they receive from the Council to care for B because there is not sufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating. London Borough of Camden (25 003 214) Summary: Ms B complained that the Council had delayed excessively in completing the investigation of her complaint at stage two of the statutory children's complaints procedure. This has caused her frustration and distress. We found the Council had delayed well outside the statutory time limits. The Council has agreed to complete the stage two investigation, apologise to Ms B and pay her £350. It has already taken action to speed up the process. Nottinghamshire County Council (25 006 214) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint who says his neighbour is a risk to his and the neighbour's children and that the Council has failed to safeguard them. Mr X's complaint is made late and there is no good reason to consider it now. Mr X is also an unsuitable representative for his neighbour's children. Kent County Council (25 006 807) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint about the content of a social worker's report and information shared with a court. This is because the law says the Ombudsman cannot investigate matters which have been or are being considered by a court. Brighton & Hove City Council (25 007 864) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about information included in a report that the Council provided during court proceedings. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about what happened in court. Gloucestershire County Council (25 007 969) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint that the Council provided inaccurate information during court proceedings. The law prevents us from investigating what happened in court. Essex County Council (24 017 543) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to complete her child Y's Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment within statutory timeframes. The Council was at fault. It delayed issuing a final Education, Health and Care Plan by 52 weeks, caused by a delay in obtaining Educational Psychology (EP) advice. It also failed to keep oversight of Y's part time alternative provision arrangements. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and make a payment to acknowledge the impact on Y's education and the distress and uncertainty to Ms X. London Borough of Sutton (25 003 191) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council's failure to properly address the complainant's child's special educational needs denied her access to educational and special educational provision. Miss X used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and this means the law prevents the Ombudsman from considering the key matters. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (25 006 691) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's decision to name a school Mrs X does not consider can meet her child's needs in their Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. This is because she has used her right of appeal to the tribunal. Durham County Council (24 023 317) Summary: Miss X complained that the Council's Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) failed to follow correct procedures in relation to a referral by her employer. There is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way the LADO handled the referral or its oversight of the following investigation. London Borough of Southwark (25 006 291) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's children's services involvement with her when she was a child and as a care leaver between 1999 and 2013. This is because the complaint is late. Surrey County Council (25 006 736) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the actions of the Council in relation to his child being removed from his care by the child's mother in 2020. This is because the complaint is late. Cambridgeshire County Council (24 018 245) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide alternative education for her son, Y. We found fault by the Council as it did not properly check what provision was in place for Y even though it was aware of his situation. As a result, Y missed out on education and his welfare suffered. Ms X also experienced stress and financial loss. The Council has agreed to a financial remedy in recognition of the injustice caused to Ms X and Y. Buckinghamshire Council (24 022 749) Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X complaint about whether education provision is suitable for her child as she has appealed to the Tribunal. Milton Keynes Council (25 002 788) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint that the Council failed to secure the content of her child, Y's, Education, Health and Care Plan and failed to organise alternative education for Y between September 2023 and January 2025. This is because Mrs X appealed to the SEND Tribunal, and the law says we cannot investigate. Suffolk County Council (25 002 883) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment carried out by the Council. The complainant has used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability), and this places the matter outside our jurisdiction. Essex County Council (25 002 968) 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. Birmingham City Council (25 003 068) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charges for post-16 school transport. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Cambridgeshire County Council (25 003 109) Summary: We have upheld Mr X's complaint because the Council failed to seek his views on his daughter's original Education Health and Care Plan. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X. We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the contents of the current plan because the case has been appealed to a tribunal. Essex County Council (25 003 115) 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 (25 008 387) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's school's admissions appeal panel refusing her appeal. It is unlikely we would find fault which caused Mrs X to lose out on a school place. St Mary's RC Primary School, Horwich (25 008 479) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the arrangements for Mrs X's child to start school. This is because the law prevents us from looking at complaints about the internal management of schools. Southend-on-Sea City Council (24 019 184) Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not pay him the correct amount for caring for a child in his care and did not consult him before presenting a support plan to the Court. I have ended the investigation. This is because Mr X is satisfied with the outcome of the first part of his complaint. The second part of his complaint is outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction because we cannot investigate complaints about what happened in court. London Borough of Camden (25 004 816) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X's personal data. This is because the Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to investigate this complaint. Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (25 007 687) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Ms X's contact with Children Services. This is because we cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. West Northamptonshire Council (25 002 388) Summary: We have upheld this complaint about the Council's failure to issue an Education Health and Care plan for the complainant's child within the statutory timescale. The Council has agreed to provide a proportionate remedy and this removes the need for us to investigate. Leeds City Council (25 002 975) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the decision to refuse the complainant's appeal against the type of home to school transport awarded for her son. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council's part to warrant investigation. Essex County Council (25 003 440) Summary: We have upheld this complaint about the Council's failure to issue an Education Health and Care plan for the complainant's son within the statutory timescale. The Council has agreed to provide a proportionate remedy and this removes the need for us to investigate. Kent County Council (24 010 458) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed completing her child's annual review and failed to provide the Occupational Therapy provision set out in their Education, Health and Care Plan since 2022. We find the Council at fault. This caused uncertainty and a loss of special educational provision. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mrs X, and take steps to improve its services. London Borough of Lewisham (24 011 647) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to deliver education to her child Z when he was out of school. Ms X also complained about how the Council handled Z's Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council was at fault. The Council delayed reviewing the Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council did not respond to Ms X's communication properly. The Council failed to make sure Z received suitable education. The Council should apologise to Ms X and make a symbolic payment to her to remedy the injustice caused. North Yorkshire Council (24 012 204) Summary: The Council failed to arrange key special educational needs provision for Ms X's relative, Ms G for more than two terms. This included language tuition and speech and language therapy. The Council also failed to communicate with Ms X properly, failed to review Ms G's EHC Plan and significantly delayed responding to Ms X's complaint. In recognition of the missed provision, frustration and uncertainty caused by these faults, the Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X and Ms G £1,450 and carry out service improvements. West Sussex County Council (24 013 239) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide the provisions in section F of her child's Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council is at fault for failing to monitor the provision was in place. This lack of support has caused Ms X and her child distress. The Councils complaint response was poor, causing Ms X additional distress. This is their injustice. The Council agreed a package of remedies. Bracknell Forest Council (24 013 572) Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not properly handle her son Y's Education Health and Care Plan. She said the Council failed to provide a Personal Budget when it issued the plan, did not secure educational provision for Y, and had poor communication and complaint handling. We find the Council at fault in these areas which caused distress and missed educational provision. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment. Suffolk County Council (24 015 762) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide her daughter with suitable education and support, failed to keep her updated and has not been transparent. It has also delayed dealing with her complaint. Ms X says this has caused stress to the whole family. The Council has upheld Ms X's complaint, apologised and offered a remedy. I consider this is a satisfactory response and is line with the Ombudsman's guidance on remedies. London Borough of Hounslow (24 016 835) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to secure a school placement for her son. She adds it failed to provide her son with an education and the specialist provision in his Education, Health and Care Plan since they moved to the area in December 2023. We find the Council at fault for how it handled Mrs X's son's education and specialist provision when they moved to the area. This caused Mrs X upset and frustration, and her son lost out on an education and specialist provision. In response to our enquiries, the Council proposed apologising to Mrs X. It also proposed making payments to Mrs X for her son's missed education and provision and the upset and frustration caused. We consider the Council's proposals to be suitable recommendations to reflect Mrs X's and her son's injustice. Hertfordshire County Council (24 020 208) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council has failed to adhere to the statutory guidance when providing home to school transport for her son. She says her son's journey time to and from school regularly exceeds 75 minutes. We do not find fault with the Council's decision making. Derbyshire County Council (25 001 914) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about delays following an Education Health and Care Plan annual review. We have upheld Mr X's complaint as the Council has now agreed a proportionate way to resolve the complaint. North Somerset Council (25 003 286) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the process of assessing the complainant's daughter's education, health and care needs. This is because the complainant had the right to appeal about the outcome to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and it would have been reasonable for her to do so. Peterborough City Council (25 003 403) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to properly assess Mrs X's application to renew her child's blue badge. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (25 008 370) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's school's admissions appeal panel refusing his appeal. It is unlikely we would find fault which caused Mr X to lose out on a school place. Surrey County Council (24 019 438) Summary: Mrs C complained the Council failed to offer an appropriate financial remedy after it upheld her complaint about the lack of support provided to her son, who I will refer to as D, for roughly three years. The Council was at fault. The financial remedy offered by the Council does not reflect the level of injustice caused to Mrs C and D. Because of the fault, Mrs C and D suffered distress and frustration. The Council has agreed to make symbolic payments and issue a staff briefing. Cheshire West & Chester Council (25 002 271) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a support worker. This is mainly because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Southend-on-Sea City Council (24 008 360) Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to provide her daughter (Y) with suitable education when she could not attend her school and delayed Y's Education Health and Care needs assessment. Mrs X also complained about the Council's school attendance process. We found fault with the Council's failure to comply with the statutory timescales for Education Health and Care needs assessments and with its complaint handling. The Council's fault caused injustice to Y and Mrs X. The Council has agreed to apologise and make symbolic payments. Buckinghamshire Council (24 012 980) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide education in line with the EOTAS package since July 2023. The evidence shows that the Council failed to provide all the provision in Section F of the Education, Health and Care Plan for less than one term following a tribunal decision in January 2024. The Council has agreed to make a payment to recognise the loss of provision as well as the distress caused. Hampshire County Council (24 014 105) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to implement provision outlined in her child, Y's, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. We found the Council was at fault for failing to deliver provision to Y. This failure may have had an impact on Y's learning and development. It caused significant distress and worry to Mrs X. The Council was also at fault for failing to respond properly to Mrs X, through its complaint's procedure. Undue time and trouble were suffered by Mrs X as a result. The Council should apologise to Mrs X and make a symbolic payment to her. Hertfordshire County Council (24 018 595) Summary: Mrs C complains the Council failed to complete her daughter Miss Y's annual review and issue her Education, Health and Care Plan within statutory timescales. We find fault with the Council for delay and poor communication. We have agreed a symbolic payment for the frustration and distress caused. Derbyshire County Council (24 018 834) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide suitable education for her child since May 2022. Mrs X also complained the Council delayed production of her child's Education, Health and Care Plan and handled her communication poorly. We found fault with the Council delaying for 13 months in production of the Education, Health and Care Plan and for complaint handling delays. We did not find fault with the Council failing to provide suitable education for Mrs X's child. The Council has offered £1,000 for the distress, time and trouble its delays have caused and offered £8,658 for Mrs X's child's lost education. I am satisfied this is a suitable offer to reflect the injustice caused. Milton Keynes Council (24 020 402) Summary: Miss X complained that the Council caused a delay in deciding her daughter's special educational needs support. We have found that the Council was at fault. It caused a delay of nearly six months. This likely meant Miss X's daughter missed out on some of the support she needed. Miss X herself also likely experienced inconvenience and distress. The Council has agreed take action to address their injustice. Leicestershire County Council (24 022 572) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about educational provision for a child. Some of the complaint is late, Miss X had an appeals right and it was reasonable to expect her to use them. Additionally, we could not add to the investigation the Council has already carried out, because it upheld her complaint and has provided a suitable remedy for her injustice. Kent County Council (25 003 217) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that fault on the Council's part denied the complainant's son access to educational and special educational provision. Part of her complaint is late, and her appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) places the remaining part outside our jurisdiction. Hertfordshire County Council (24 017 085) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's investigation under the statutory children's complaints procedure into her concerns about the Council failing to adequately assess and provide support for her disabled child. The Council investigated the complaint and carried out the recommended actions without fault. However it delayed completing the stage two investigation which was fault. The Council has agreed to pay the £450 offered to Mrs X in its stage two response to acknowledge the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by the delays and upheld complaints. Kent County Council (25 001 760) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint that the Council failed to provide care services for her and her child. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council's actions. Cheshire East Council (25 002 457) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint the Council failed to consider his complaint under the statutory children's complaints procedure. This is because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Lancashire County Council (25 002 851) Summary: We will not investigate Mr F's complaint about contact with his children because there is no evidence of fault by the Council. Contact is a private matter between Mr F and his wife. London Borough of Bromley (25 002 159) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Education, Health and Care Plan process for her child. Mrs X has not been caused an injustice significant enough to warrant the Ombudsman investigating. It is reasonable for Mrs X to use her right of appeal if she wants to challenge the content of her child's Education, Health and Care Plan. 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