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. Derbyshire County Council (24 004 015) Summary: We found fault on Mrs Y's complaint about the Council failing to ensure her son Z received the provision set out in his Education, Health and Care plan. It failed to show it considered whether alternative provision was needed and whether provision under his plan was being provided when circumstances changed. It also delayed holding an annual review of his plan. The Council agreed to send her an apology, £3,600 for lost educational provision, £200 for the delay, and review its procedures to ensure the failures found cannot be repeated on future cases. London Borough of Hounslow (24 022 774) Summary: The Council was at fault. It did not secure Ms X's child, Y's, speech and language therapy (SALT) or occupational therapy (OT), had poor record keeping practices and communicated poorly with Ms X. This caused Ms X frustration and meant Y missed provision to which they were entitled. The Council will apologise to Y, make a symbolic payment to Ms X, review the impact of Y's lost SALT and OT, consider how it can communicate with Ms X in the future and put in place service improvements. Central Bedfordshire Council (25 004 933) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council failed to provide suitable education provision for his daughter or the special educational provision detailed in her Education Health and Care Plan. This is because these matters overlap with a tribunal appeal. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 005 432) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council taking Mrs X's child off the school roll, then failing to provide alternative provision. This is because some of the complaint is late without good reason, and Mrs X used her right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal for the other parts. Milton Keynes Council (24 020 117) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint about the contact she has with her family because the Court is considering this. The Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to consider inaccurate documents complaints. And Mrs X is not the best person to complain about children services' actions as she does not have parental responsibility. South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 022 121) Summary: Ms X complained about the Council's actions in relation to her child, Z. We found fault because the Council failed to consider her complaint under the children's statutory complaints procedure. This caused Ms X avoidable distress and frustration. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council will now consider Ms X's concerns through the statutory procedure and apologise for failing to do this originally. It will make a payment to her and issue guidance to staff. Dorset Council (25 000 994) Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his complaints about his care under the children's statutory complaints procedure. We have found fault by the Council, causing injustice, in failing to: properly consider all of Mr X's concerns and time limits for accepting them; and convene a panel review. To remedy the injustice the Council has agreed to: apologise; make a payment to reflect the upset and uncertainty caused; properly consider the concerns not yet investigated, decide whether these should now be investigated under the statutory procedure and if so, a way forward; and if not, convene a panel review now for the current stage two investigation. Dorset Council (25 005 142) Summary: We cannot investigate some of Ms X's complaint about the Council's actions regarding her children who are in foster care because the matters relate to decisions made by a court. We will not investigate the remainder because there is insufficient evidence of fault, and we cannot achieve the outcome Ms X wants. Torbay Council (25 006 112) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint the Council fraudulently put her signature into a child protection document. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Wiltshire Council (25 006 366) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about his contact arrangements with his children. There is no evidence of fault to justify our involvement because the Council has not previously been involved in the arrangements for Mr X's children. It would be reasonable for Mr X to ask the court to decide on and formalise his contact arrangements as neither we nor the Council have the power to do so. Staffordshire County Council (25 006 371) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement with care arrangements of a child. This is because these matters have been, or could reasonably be, mentioned in court proceedings. Wakefield City Council (25 007 148) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the actions of the Council's children's services. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council's decision not to consider his complaint until after court proceedings have concluded. Staffordshire County Council (25 007 167) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the child protection conference chair on her child's case. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council's decision not to investigate her complaint whilst the case is subject to ongoing court proceedings. Coventry City Council (25 007 650) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the contents of a court report or the outcome of the related court proceedings. The law does not allow us to investigate matters which have been subject to court proceedings. Slough Borough Council (24 009 992) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her son with a full-time education and the provision in his Education, Health and Care Plan. She also says the Council's communication about Education, Otherwise Than At School provision for her son was poor. We find the Council was at fault for how it handled Mrs X's son's education and its failure to provide him with the provision in his Education, Health and Care Plan. It was also at fault for its communication with Mrs X. These faults caused distress and upset. Mrs X's son missed education and provision. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X, make financial payments and provide training to its staff. Birmingham City Council (24 017 769) Summary: There was fault and delay by the Council in implementing a Tribunal decision and securing provision in an Education, Health and Care Plan. As a result, a child missed out on provision for many months. The Council has agreed to apologise, make symbolic payments and carry out service improvements. Hampshire County Council (24 021 445) Summary: Miss X complained that since 2021, the Council has not provided her child with a suitable education. We find the Council at fault for failing to secure the special educational provision in her child's Education, Health and Care Plan and for failing to consider whether it had a duty to arrange alternative provision while her child was not attending school. This caused a loss of specialist support and avoidable uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Miss X. Leicester City Council (25 005 396) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council officer declining to allow Mrs X's husband to accompany her into an interview. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation. We would also be unlikely to recommend more than the Council has already offered by refunding an application fee and offering to re-run the process with Mrs X's husband present at the interview. London Borough of Ealing (25 005 952) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council failing to provide B with an education as the Tribunal is deciding what that education should be. The Council's delay in issuing a decision notice following an Education Health and Care Plan review is not significant enough to justify an investigation. Wiltshire Council (25 006 282) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's investigation of a nursery fee policy. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation. London Borough of Harrow (25 006 847) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about school admissions. This is because we have no power to investigate complaints about admission to free schools or academy schools. North Yorkshire Council (25 007 055) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's failure to secure the content of her child's Education, Health and Care Plan or its decision not to provide alternative provision. This is because she appealed to the SEND Tribunal, and the law says we cannot investigate. Westmorland and Furness Council (24 021 622) Summary: We have found that both councils – Westmorland & Furness and Cumberland – caused delays in their handling of Mr X's linked complaints about children's social care. Both will now apologise to Mr X and will take action to improve their respective services. Cumberland will also make a symbolic payment which recognises Mr X's likely distress. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (25 004 460) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's decision to refuse her child's application for a blue badge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (25 004 726) Summary: We will not investigate X's complaint about children service's handling of an allegation against a foster carer. There are other bodies better placed to consider a social worker's professionalism, data protection issues and X's deregistration. We are unlikely to find fault in a complaint handling issue and the questions posed to them. Warwickshire County Council (25 005 491) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council completed an adoption assessment. We could not add to the Council's previous investigation. Cumberland Council (25 006 091) Summary: We have found that both councils – Westmorland & Furness and Cumberland – caused delays in their handling of Mr X's linked complaints about children's social care. Both will now apologise to Mr X and will take action to improve their respective services. Cumberland will also make a symbolic payment which recognises Mr X's likely distress. Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (25 001 746) Summary: The Council failed to provide the occupational therapy and speech and language therapy set out in Y's Education, Health and Care Plan for eight months. This caused Ms X and Y distress and uncertainty and meant Y did not have the required support for two terms. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Ms X and create an action plan to ensure it can secure speech and language therapy and occupational therapy provision for future Education, Health and Care Plans and address the shortage of therapists. Lancashire County Council (25 004 121) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's handling of her request it assess her child for an Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council has apologised and offered a payment for the injustice caused by the delay. There is nothing more we could achieve by investigating further. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (25 005 023) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about how the Council secured provision for her child. The Council upheld Ms X's main complaint and took steps to remedy her injustice. There are no wider public interest remaining that would justify an investigation. Lancashire County Council (25 006 182) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's handling of his request it assess his child for an Education, Health and Care Plan. Mr X's appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) places part of the complaint outside our jurisdiction. The Council has apologised and offered a payment for the injustice caused by the ongoing delay. There is nothing more we could achieve by investigating further. Hertfordshire County Council (25 006 421) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint about incidents which occurred at her child's school. This is because what happens in school is outside our jurisdiction. Nor will we investigate how the Council responded to Miss X's concerns. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault and we are not able to achieve what Miss X is looking for. Lancashire County Council (25 007 710) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's handling of her request it assess her child for an Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council has apologised and offered a payment for the injustice caused by the delay. There is nothing more we could achieve by investigating further. Lancashire County Council (25 008 400) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education, Health and Care Plan process and the education provided to Mrs X's son. This is because Mrs X appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). This places the matter outside our jurisdiction. Norfolk County Council (25 009 710) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the contents of her child's Education, Health and Care Plan. This is would have been reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to the tribunal. Brighton & Hove City Council (24 013 238) Summary: Dr Y complained about the Council's handling of S's Education, Health and Care needs assessment between January 2023 and October 2023. The Council is at fault for delays in adequately assessing its section 19 duties and failing to ensure S received all the provision set out in his plan from October 2023. This caused Dr Y avoidable uncertainty and frustration as well as loss of provision for S. The Council has agreed to apologise to Dr Y, make a payment to recognise the injustice and act to prevent recurrence. Herefordshire Council (24 019 044) Summary: The outcome of an independent stage two complaint investigation did not provide a suitable remedy when A missed education. The Council failed to secure special educational provision and failed to provide alternative education. The Council has agreed to make additional symbolic payments and service improvements. Herefordshire Council (24 019 533) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to complete an annual review of her child's Education, Health and Care Plan. We found a sixteen-month delay by the Council in updating the Plan. This caused unnecessary time, trouble, inconvenience and distress. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment and service improvements. Essex County Council (24 020 580) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's failure to deliver therapies included in her daughter's (Y) Education Health and Care Plan, to agree a Personal budget for Y and to review Y's plan. Mrs X also complained about the way the Council carried out Y's Education Health and Care needs assessment. We found fault with the Council. This fault caused injustice to Y and Mrs X. The Council has offered a suitable financial remedy. The Council has also agreed to ensure Y receives therapies in the new school year and improve its Personal budget process. Birmingham City Council (24 014 635) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of the statutory complaint procedure concerning the safeguarding of Mr X's child. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 000 785) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about whether the Council provided enough support to a school student. This is because the complaint is late. Cheshire East Council (25 005 074) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint the Council did not consider her wishes when care planning for her children. The Council has agreed to consider the complaint through the statutory complaint's procedure. Therefore it is not proportionate for us to investigate. Derby City Council (25 005 439) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about how the Council dealt with a safeguarding concern raised about him. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing Mr X a significant injustice. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 005 452) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about children's services. We have upheld the complaint as the Council agreed to consider Ms X's complaint through the statutory complaints procedure. Hampshire County Council (25 005 966) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about a children services family assessment. We are unlikely to achieve more than the Council's offer to place her comments as an annex. We are unlikely to find significant fault in the Council's decision to suspend a complaint investigation during Court proceedings. The Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to consider any factual errors in the assessment. We are unlikely to find significant fault or injustice in not telling her when it shared the assessment with a third party. West Sussex County Council (25 006 129) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision not to amend an Education Health and Care plan following Annual Review. This is because the complainant has used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and matters relating to the content of the Education Health and Care plan cannot therefore be investigated. Suffolk County Council (25 005 784) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's response to the complainant's requests for contact with a Looked After Child. This is because it would be reasonable for the complainant to take the matter to court. Lancashire County Council (24 021 272) Summary: The Council delayed issuing Mrs X's child, Y's, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. It also failed to consider suitable alternative education and how to secure the provision in Y's EHC Plan when Y stopped attending school. This resulted in Y missing one term of education and caused Mrs X uncertainty over what provision Y would be entitled to in their amended EHC Plan. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X. Essex County Council (25 005 571) Summary: We have upheld this complaint about the Council's failure to complete an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment 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. Wiltshire Council (25 012 133) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the handling of her application for a school sixth-form place. This is because the school involved is no longer within our jurisdiction so an investigation could not achieve a worthwhile outcome. Halton Borough Council (25 001 724) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the actions of the Council's children's services. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault with its decision not to investigate his complaint at this time. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (25 002 600) Summary: We have upheld Mr X's complaint because the Council delayed considering his complaint at stage two of the children's statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X. London Borough of Hounslow (25 004 334) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's failure to keep him informed of matters involving his children. Our involvement could not add to the response and apology the Council has already provided. Another body is better placed to consider Mr X's concerns about the way the Council processed his request for personal data. Liverpool City Council (25 006 595) Summary: We will not investigate Mr Y's complaint about the Council's response to his safeguarding referral. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation. Surrey County Council (25 007 010) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint the Council provided misleading and biased reports to the court in relation to his child. An absolute and permanent bar prevents us from considering anything the Council has produced for the court. It would be reasonable for Mr X to report any current safeguarding concerns to the council where his child now lives or to return to court if he wants to challenge the existing care arrangements. Cheshire East Council (25 007 557) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker and the Council's refusal to change the social worker. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council's actions to warrant our further involvement. London Borough of Redbridge (25 013 378) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council's handling of Mrs X's request for increased respite care and its complaint handling. This is because the Council has not yet completed all three stages of the statutory children's complaint procedure, and it would be reasonable to allow it to do so. In addition, the Council has already accepted and remedied the delays identified at earlier stages, so further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Hertfordshire County Council (24 015 361) Summary: Ms X complained the Council caused delays in the Education Health and Care Needs assessment and planning for her child, C. This has caused C to miss education and distress to C and the whole family. The Council is at fault and has agreed to a package of remedies. Suffolk County Council (24 015 439) Summary: Miss X complained that the Council refused to provide a passenger assistant trained to administer emergency medication for her son Y who has special educational needs. She said this prevented Y from receiving the suitable home to school transport he was entitled to, it had a significant negative impact on Y's development, and caused financial and emotional impact on the family. We find the Council at fault for the way it made its decision which caused distress. The Council agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and amend its policy. Leicester City Council (24 021 368) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide the provision set out in her son's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. We found the Council's failure to ensure Y received the speech and language therapy (SALT) set out in his EHC Plan is fault. This fault has caused an injustice. Mrs X has incurred costs in employing a private therapist to try and mitigate the impact of the missed SALT provision on her son. The Council will apologise, make payments and take action to remedy the injustice. Norfolk County Council (24 023 290) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to maintain her child's Education, Health and Care plan after she moved into the Council's area. She says the Council reduced the provision, refused to provide agreed budget payments and did not meet its own deadlines for response times to her complaint. We found the Council at fault, which caused Mrs X injustice. The Council should make payment and apologise to Mrs X. Bath and North East Somerset Council (24 023 439) Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide suitable, full-time education for his son. We have discontinued our investigation as Mr X has submitted an application to seek a judicial review. Cornwall Council (25 001 202) Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to complete her child's Education, Health and Care needs assessment within the statutory timescales. We find the Council at fault for delay causing uncertainty and distress for the family. We recommend the Council apologises and makes a payment to Mrs X. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (25 004 455) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to consider an appeal against its decision to refuse to provide school transport for Mrs X's child. There is insufficient evidence of fault. Lincolnshire County Council (25 004 962) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council failing to provide Alternative Provision. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. Sunderland City Council (25 005 590) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education, Health and Care Plan process and the support provided to Miss X's son. The complaint is late and is also outside our jurisdiction as it relates to matters which were or could have been appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). Worcestershire County Council (25 005 691) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint about a lack of education during a Tribunal appeal period. We will not investigate the lack of education before then as we cannot investigate education provided by a school and the time period of missing education is not significant enough to justify an investigation. Essex County Council (25 005 755) 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. London Borough of Bromley (25 007 785) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to send personal travel budget documents to Miss X. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council's actions. Nottinghamshire County Council (25 009 868) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to act when Mr Z's independent school did not safeguard him or provide a suitable education, including the provision in his Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons for us to exercise discretion. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (24 015 252) Summary: Mr X complained the Council has not met its legal duties to support his Special Guardianship Order. He says this has impacted the emotional wellbeing of his family. We find the Council at fault which caused injustice. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Mr X. The Council will also make a fresh decision. Kent County Council (24 021 571) Summary: Ms X complained that the Council failed to consider a safeguarding complaint she made. The Council is not at fault for how it made its decision on Ms X's safeguarding complaint. It followed its Local Authority Designated Officer policy and statutory guidance. However, there is fault in the way it communicated its decision to Ms X. This caused Ms X confusion and distress. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and write to her to explain the reasons for its decision. London Borough of Ealing (24 021 647) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide her with the correct support when she left care. She said there were delays by the Council in investigating her complaint and its offer of a symbolic financial payment was not enough to remedy the injustice caused to her. We found the Council at fault for failing to provide an appropriate remedy to Ms X. This fault caused injustice to Ms X. The Council will make a higher payment to recognise Ms X's distress. Surrey County Council (25 002 161) Summary: We will not investigate Mr Z's complaint about how the Council dealt with matters concerning his time in care. This is because it is made late and I see no good reason why it could not have been made sooner. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (25 004 207) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss X's contact with the Council. This is because the Council has already investigated, upheld most of the complaint and taken action to remedy fault. Therefore, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Sheffield City Council (25 004 534) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged bias and unprofessionalism of the Council in its dealings with Dr Z. The opinions formed by the allocated Social Worker have already been subject to scrutiny by a court. An absolute and permanent legal bar prevents us from considering the view expressed and the way in which they were formed. London Borough of Havering (25 005 150) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's communications with Ms X during its child protection enquiries. The Council has already taken suitable steps after the stage two complaint investigation upheld the complaint. We could not achieve anything more meaningful by investigating the matter. Parts of the complaint are best considered by the Information Commissioner. Devon County Council (25 005 225) Summary: We have upheld Miss X's complaint because the Council did not consider her complaint under the statutory children's complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (25 011 421) Summary: We have upheld this complaint about delay in 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. Nottinghamshire County Council (25 012 294) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's conduct during court proceedings because the law says we cannot investigate what happened in court. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (24 017 448) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's handling of her son, Y's, annual review. Mrs X also complained the Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan did not focus on preparation for adulthood. Mrs X said this impacted school consultations, transition, Y's mental health, and her mental and physical health. There was fault in the way the Council did not include provision to assist preparing for adulthood, delayed issuing the EHC Plan and complaint handling was poor. This distressed Mrs X and frustrated her appeal right to the Tribunal. The Council agreed to apologise, make a financial payment and issue guidance to its staff. 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