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. Dorset Council (24 023 080) Summary: The Council was at fault in the way it handled the transfer and review of Y's EHCP, the provision of SEN support, education while out of school, and aspects of communication. These faults caused injustice to Y and Mr X. However, the Council has already provided a suitable remedy in line with Ombudsman guidance, and so I do not recommend any further action. Staffordshire County Council (25 008 964) Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed carrying out an Education Health and Care needs assessment for a child. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by providing a suitable remedy. Leicestershire County Council (25 010 114) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the school named in an Education Health and Care Plan, or a failure to provide education. Mr X has appealed to the SEND Tribunal about the matter and therefore the law says we cannot investigate. Nor will we investigate Mr X's further complaint about delays in the annual review process. When considering this complaint, the Council agreed to provide a suitable remedy for Mr X's injustice and there are no wider public interest issues to justify investigating this complaint. Staffordshire County Council (25 012 539) Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed carrying out an Education Health and Care needs assessment for a child. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by providing a suitable remedy. Westminster City Council (25 020 246) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's communication about elective home education. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating. For the remainder, the law prevents us from investigating complaints about what happens in schools and the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider the part of the complaint about data protection. Devon County Council (25 003 549) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a social worker and the adequacy of the resulting complaints process. Social Work England is better placed to consider social worker professional standards matters, and we could not add to the Council's previous findings on the substantive issues. Leicester City Council (25 010 310) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about a carer's assessment and the support provided by the Council because we could not add to the previous independent investigation, and we could not achieve the outcome Mrs X wants. South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (25 011 333) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about how the Council handled his safeguarding concerns about his children. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault. Halton Borough Council (25 018 536) Summary: We have upheld Miss X's complaint because the Council delayed considering her 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 Miss X. Staffordshire County Council (24 016 139) Summary: Miss X complained the Council poorly managed the process for issuing her child's Education, Health and Care Plan. We find the Council at fault for a delay in issuing the final Education, Health and Care Plan, poor communication and a delay in issuing responses to Miss X's complaints. The delays in issuing the final Education, Health and Care Plan impacted B's access to education during a key transition year. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused. Slough Borough Council (24 017 168) Summary: We have found the Council at fault for its delay in issuing Y's final amended Education, Health and Care Plan following an annual review. This delayed Miss X's appeal rights, causing her avoidable distress. We have also found fault with the Council for its delay in securing alternative provision when Y stopped attending school. This caused Y to miss 2.5 terms of education. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 021 377) Summary: Miss B complained the Council delayed issuing her son's education, health and care plan. We found fault which caused distress, uncertainty and delay to appeal rights. The Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment to Miss B to remedy this. London Borough of Newham (24 022 392) Summary: The Council delayed issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan for Mr X's child, Z, and failed to properly handle his complaints. This was fault and caused Mr X frustration and delayed his right of appeal to a tribunal. The Council also failed to ensure Z received all their speech and language sessions. However the Council's faults did not lead to the injustice claimed, as these sessions were missed in part because Mr X refused the speech and language provision when this was offered. Cambridgeshire County Council (24 023 329) Summary: The Council was at fault for significant delay in assessing Miss X's child's Education, Health and Care Plan. The delay caused Miss X frustration and uncertainty and meant her child missed out on the special education provision. The Council also failed to properly consider if Miss X's child needed free school transport. To remedy their injustice, the Council will apologise to Miss X, make symbolic payments and reimburse her fuel costs. It will also issue a staff reminder on free school transport. Brighton & Hove City Council (25 005 079) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X complaint about an Education Health and Care Plan transfer. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating. Mr X has also not suffered significant injustice because of the Council's actions. Westminster City Council (25 010 952) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about delay in reviewing her child's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council have offered a suitable remedy, and it would be reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to the tribunal about the contents of the plan. Parts of Mrs X's complaint are also late. Norfolk County Council (25 001 573) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about a lack of support from the Council's children's services. It is reasonable for her to request a stage three review under the statutory children's complaints procedure. Hampshire County Council (25 006 535) Summary: Miss X complained that the Council refused to provide her with free school meals despite being financially eligible. We have discontinued our investigation because this is a late complaint and there is no good reason to use discretion to investigate. East Sussex County Council (25 010 493) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to make alternative educational provision for the complainant's son. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council's part to warrant our intervention. Sunderland City Council (25 010 680) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council's refusal to carry out an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment for the complainant's son, and its response to her subsequent complaint. This is because the complainant has used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). West Sussex County Council (24 010 702) Summary: Ms Y complains that failures by the Council caused her child, D, to miss important provision and limited their chances of passing exams. Ms Y says the failures meant she had to deliver provision at home, causing further distress. When she raised concerns, the Council limited Ms Y's contact because it said she was unreasonably persistent. We find fault in some parts of the complaint which the Council has agreed to remedy with a symbolic payment of £500 and the implementation of some service improvements. Surrey County Council (25 010 855) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to secure the provision outlined in an Education, Health and Care Plan because the matter overlaps with a SEND Tribunal Appeal. Brighton & Hove City Council (23 020 868) Summary: Mrs X complains about the care and support provided to her daughter after her autism diagnosis. Based on current evidence I have found fault by the Trust and the Council. However, they have accepted this and provided a suitable remedy for most of the complaint. We have recommended the Trust apologises for distress caused by fault relating to a delayed referral for therapy. We have also recommended the Trust acts to ensure safeguards are in place to prevent similar fault in future. Bracknell Forest Council (24 021 624) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's handling of her request for a parent carers assessment, the children's statutory complaints process, and how it communicated with her. Overall, we agreed with the Council's stage two findings. However, the remedy proposed was not adequate to acknowledge the impact its delays had on her, and it did not consider the significantly delayed complaints handling. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment, and carry out service improvements recommendations. Portsmouth City Council (25 005 325) Summary: The Council failed to properly consider whether to take Mrs X's late complaint through the children's statutory complaints procedure in line with the relevant law and guidance. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X, pay them a symbolic amount to recognise the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused and carry out a review of its decision. Redcar & Cleveland Council (25 006 670) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council preventing contact with his son. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Westminster City Council (25 014 920) Summary: We will not investigate Miss Y's complaint about the actions of the Council's children's and housing services. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about the start of court action or what happened in court, and the earlier matters relate too closely to the court proceedings. Worcestershire County Council (24 015 809) Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to adhere to the statutory timescales in reviewing Mr X's child's Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council was also at fault for failing to ensure delivery of Mr X's child's Education, Health and Care Plan provision. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and his child and provide a symbolic payment for the avoidable frustration and distress caused and the missed Education, Health and Care Plan provision. Dorset Council (24 019 528) Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into how the Council remedied the impact of Ms X's child missing education. This is because we cannot achieve anything further. Kent County Council (25 001 695) Summary: The Council failed to ensure it consulted Z's preferred college placement to see if they could attend. It then delayed issuing Z's Education, Health and Care Plan following an annual review and failed to ensure Z had suitable education in place for one year. The Council's faults led to avoidable missed provision for Z and distress and frustration for Z and their parent, Ms X. To recognise the injustice caused by the faults in this case, the Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X £3,200 and take action to improve its services. West Sussex County Council (25 001 966) Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to finalise her daughter, Y's, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan within legal timescales and did not communicate properly with her. Ms X says this impacted her financially and distressed her and Y. The Council was at fault for failing to issue an EHC Plan for Y within legal timescales and for poor communication with Ms X. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a financial payment. Gloucestershire County Council (25 002 794) Summary: Mr B complained that the Council had delayed in completing an Education, Health and Care needs assessment in respect of his son C. He also complained that the Council had failed to provide suitable and accessible full-time education for C. We found there was delay in completing the assessment process due to a delay in receiving the Educational Psychology advice. We did not find fault with its actions in respect of alternative provision. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B and C and make a symbolic payment of £450. Lancashire County Council (25 009 158) Summary: We cannot investigate a complaint about the school named in an Education Health and Care Plan. Miss X has appealed to the SEND Tribunal about this and therefore the law says we cannot investigate. Additionally, we will not investigate Miss X's complaint about delays in the annual review of the Education Health and Care Plan. The Council upheld the complaint, apologised and there are no wider public interest issues to justify our investigation. Hertfordshire County Council (25 010 853) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the college named in the Education, Health and Care Plan and the loss of educational provision because it was reasonable for the complainant to have used her right of appeal to a Tribunal. Derbyshire County Council (25 010 862) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to remove the complainant's son's entitlement to school transport. Our intervention would not lead to a different outcome and is not therefore warranted. West Sussex County Council (25 011 593) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the content of an Education Health and Care Plan. This is because Mr X has used his right of appeal. We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about delay in issuing the Education Health and Care needs assessment as any injustice this caused is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Leicestershire County Council (25 009 052) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the conduct of the Council's social workers and information they provided in court. The law prevents us from investigating matters that have been subject to court proceedings. Luton Borough Council (25 009 514) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's handling of matters involving his child. We have already considered some of the concerns Mr X has raised. The remaining issues could reasonably be mentioned as part of ongoing legal proceedings on a closely related matter. Cornwall Council (24 012 295) Summary: The Council investigated Mrs X's complaint about its decision to not provide an assistance dog for her child Y under the statutory children's complaints procedure without fault. The Council has already apologised and offered an appropriate symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused by the faults it found. However, it failed to respond to a new complaint Mrs X raised during the statutory procedure which caused her distress. It agreed to make an additional payment to Mrs X and respond to the complaint without further delay. West Sussex County Council (24 019 429) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to deliver extra tuition to her child, B. The Council was at fault. It failed to organise provision for B in a timely manner. The Council apologised to Mrs X and made service improvements. It has now agreed to make a symbolic payment to Mrs X, to recognise the distress caused. North Yorkshire Council (24 021 863) Summary: We uphold a complaint the Council was at fault for not ensuring Ms G's daughter had greater access to education, between April and October 2024. This resulted in a loss of provision. It also failed to answer Ms G's first complaint about this matter putting her to unnecessary time and trouble. The Council accepted these findings and at the end of this statement, we set out actions it agreed to take to remedy this injustice. Staffordshire County Council (25 000 254) Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to ensure two annual reviews of Y's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan were carried out within statutory timescales. The Council was also at fault for failing to provide Y with a suitable education when they stopped attending school due to illness. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused. Surrey County Council (25 003 188) Summary: Miss X complained about the way the Council dealt with her son, Y's education. The Council was at fault for delaying in issuing Y's education, health and care plan, failing to provide provision from the education, health and care plan, delaying in considering and implementing a personal budget and poorly responding to her complaint. This caused Miss X and Y distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise, make payments, provide a timeframe for implementing provision and consider provision catch-up sessions for Y. Essex County Council (25 004 608) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's failure to provide her child with a school placement and its failure to put in place special educational provision for her child. We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaints as the matters complained about were either part of Mrs X's appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Tribunal or are too closely linked to the appeal. Derbyshire County Council (25 006 222) Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X's complaint about the content of her daughter's Education Health and Care Plan. Ms X has appealed to the SEND Tribunal about the matter and therefore the law says we cannot investigate. London Borough of Enfield (25 008 541) Summary: The Ombudsman completed an investigation into the Council handling of education transport. We asked the Council questions about the widespread impact of its policy. The Council was at fault. Its policy does not detail a parent must agree to a personal transport budget. The Council agreed to amend its policy and factsheet to confirm a parent must agree to any alternative arrangements for education transport. Staffordshire County Council (25 008 633) 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. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (25 010 041) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's conduct of a safeguarding investigation and the Council's complaint handling. Doing so would not be likely to lead to any worthwhile outcome. West Sussex County Council (25 010 209) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about further delays in the statutory children's complaints process because we are satisfied with the actions the Council proposed. Kent County Council (25 013 411) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to assess the complainant's children's needs and refusal to accept his subsequent complaint. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council's part to warrant investigation. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (25 020 122) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about inaccurate information in a child and family assessment and the Council's handling of her complaint about the matter. The Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to consider the substantive matter and it is not a good use of our resources to investigate complaints handling on its own. City of Wolverhampton Council (25 003 695) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to safeguard her child, Y, from risks of exploitation. The Council was at fault for failing to consider Mrs X's complaint through the children's statutory complaint procedure. The Council has agreed to consider Mrs X's complaint through the correct procedure, apologise and pay Mrs X a symbolic amount to recognise the frustration caused to her. 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