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. East Sussex County Council (24 007 784) Summary: The Council failed to secure a special school place as set out in a pupil's child's Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council also failed to secure education and special educational provision between March and October 2024. The uncertainty whether these failures contributed to the pupil's disengagement from education and inability to sit GCSE's is an injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and make service improvements. North Lincolnshire Council (24 018 153) Summary: The Council was at fault for its poor communications. But it was not at fault for how it handled Ms X's child's education. We are satisfied the Council has apologised for the injustice caused. Brighton & Hove City Council (24 022 378) Summary: We find service failure for some delays implementing some of Ms X's child's special educational provision. This caused Ms X injustice. We are satisfied the Council has apologised. We do not agree with Ms X that the Council should reimburse her. Derbyshire County Council (25 001 691) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her son Y's school with enough funding to secure the special educational provision in his Education Health and Care Plan, did not meet the statutory timescales when it reviewed the plan, and had poor communication when she raised concerns. She said this meant Y missed a lot of education and caused significant stress and anxiety. We find the Council failed to secure Y's special educational provision, missed a statutory deadline in the review process and had a poor standard of communication. This caused injustice in the form of missed educational provision, distress and uncertainty. The Council agreed to make a symbolic payment and apologise to remedy the injustice. London Borough of Havering (25 002 039) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's refusal to issue her child an Education Health and Care Plan. This is because Mrs X has used her right of appeal against the Council's decision. Worcestershire County Council (25 002 513) Summary: The Council is at fault for failing to provide alternative provision for Ms X's child, Y. The Council also failed to produce a final Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan within the statutory timescales. The Council has already provided an appropriate remedy for the failure to provide alternative provision but it should apologise to Ms X and make a payment to recognise the uncertainty and frustration caused by the EHC Plan delays. Surrey County Council (25 003 944) Summary: The Council was at fault for the delay in providing the occupational therapy provision outlined in Mrs X's child Y's Education, Health and Care Plan. It was also at fault for failing to properly consider its alternative provision duty when Y's placement at their school broke down. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mrs X to acknowledge the avoidable impact of its faults. North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (25 004 782) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council named an unsuitable school in his child, Y's, Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This is because Mr X could have appealed the content of Y's EHC Plan to the First-tier Tribunal. We will also not investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council failed to provide suitable alternative education to Y, because further investigation would not lead to a different or worthwhile outcome. Essex County Council (25 010 576) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to deliver physiotherapy provision. This is because the Council apologised and offered a suitable remedy and it is unlikely further investigation would achieve anything more for Mrs X. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (25 010 586) Summary: We will not investigate part of Mrs X's complaint about the Council's failure to provide education for her child between 2022 and 2025. This is because part of it is late and there are no good reasons why Mrs X could not have complained sooner. We cannot look at another part because Mrs X appealed to a Tribunal, and the law does not allow us to investigate. For the remainder, the Council upheld the complaint and provided a satisfactory remedy, and an investigation would not achieve anything further. Coventry City Council (25 010 860) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to refuse Mrs X's application for free home-to-school transport for her child. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Surrey County Council (25 011 022) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's consultation into changes to its post-16 transport policy. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. West Sussex County Council (25 011 158) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the school named in an Education Health and Care Plan. It would be reasonable for Miss X to appeal to the tribunal about the contents of the plan. Suffolk County Council (24 016 124) Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with the care of his daughter, Ms Y. The Council was at fault for completing a flawed stage two investigation, delaying in completing the complaint procedure, poor communication and failing to explain its reasons for rejecting the panel's findings. This caused Mr X distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr X and fully explain its decisions. Lancashire County Council (25 001 482) Summary: The Council was not at fault for the way it responded to Miss X's concerns about her children's foster carer's actions. It investigated the concerns and took appropriate action based on the information available at the time. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (25 010 350) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about children services actions. We will not reinvestigate her complaint which the Council considered in its Children Act statutory complaints procedure. And we cannot achieve the outcome she wants. North Northamptonshire Council (25 010 352) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the action of the Council's children's services regarding his child before summer 2024 because the complaints are late. We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about a safeguarding referral the Council received in summer 2024 because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (25 010 468) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint about the content and preparation of documents used in court proceedings. The Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to consider a data protection act allegation. We will not investigate an allegation of lack of safeguarding support during court proceedings. Devon County Council (25 010 595) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an assessment by Children's Social Care because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation, we could not achieve the outcome the complainant wants, and there is, therefore, no worthwhile outcome achievable. Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (25 011 026) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Authority's investigation into the actions of the local police because the issues complained about relate to the investigation of a reported crime, and the law says we cannot investigate. Norfolk County Council (25 013 323) Summary: We will not investigate part of Mr X's complaint about the removal of his child in early 2023 because the claimed injustice is not significant enough. We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the conduct of a social worker because the matter would be better considered by Social Work England. West Sussex County Council (25 019 597) 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. Wokingham Borough Council (25 002 007) Summary: Miss Y complains the Council delayed in reviewing and amending C's Education Health and Care Plan which meant that C did not receive the education they needed after they stopped attending school. The Council has accepted that it delayed reviewing the plan and has refunded some of the tuition costs which Miss Y incurred during the period of delay. Following our recommendations, the Council has now agreed to make a further payment to fully remedy the injustice caused to C. Surrey County Council (25 002 580) Summary: There was fault by the Council. There were delays organising annual reviews and delay sending the final Education, Health and Care plan after the 2025 annual review. There was delay paying the personal budget but the Council remedied this when considering the complaint during it's complaints procedure, along with making a payment to remedy its failure to provide the Occupational Therapy in the Education, Health and Care Plan. An additional payment for further failure to provide therapy in the Education, Health and Care plan, along with an apology and a review of procedures remedies the injustice of loss of educational provision and uncertainty to Mrs X and Mr Y. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (25 005 388) Summary: Ms X complained how the independent appeal panel dealt with her appeal for a place for her daughter at her preferred secondary school. We find some fault in how the panel handled Ms X's appeal. This means she cannot be satisfied the process was carried out fairly. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and carry out a new appeal. London Borough of Haringey (25 006 925) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council has not provided suitable education for her son, Mr Y. Mrs X said this caused the family distress and impacted Mr Y's mental and physical health. There was fault, arising from service failure, in the way the Council did not ensure Mr Y received the provision in his Education, Health and Care Plan and complaint handling was poor. This frustrated Mrs X and Mr Y missed plan provision for one and a half academic terms. The Council should apologise and make a financial payment. Cornwall Council (25 008 295) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's refusal to deal with his late appeal against its decision to reject school travel assistance for his child. This is because the Council has agreed to consider Mr X's appeal and amend its policy so it can consider late appeals in certain circumstances. Therefore, an investigation by us would not be proportionate. Westminster City Council (25 009 639) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about a personal budget form she was asked to sign. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing Miss X an injustice. Northumberland County Council (25 009 944) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint about the placement named in her daughter's Education, Health and Care Plan and about her daughter being without education. This is because she appealed to the SEND Tribunal about the content of the plan, so it is outside our jurisdiction. The lack of education was a direct consequence of the Council's decision to name the placement so we cannot investigate this either. We have not investigated issues relating to administration before the plan was finalised, because this part of the complaint is late and there is no good reason why Miss X could not have complained to us sooner. Worcestershire County Council (25 011 425) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about delays in the Council arranging alternative educational provision for her son after his school permanently excluded him. The Council has upheld the complaint and provided a suitable remedy for Miss X's injustice. There are no wider public interest issues to justify our investigation. Essex County Council (25 013 700) 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. Lancashire County Council (24 019 163) Summary: The complainant's father (Mr X) said the Council failed to deliver all special educational provision included in his daughter's (Y) Education Health and Care Plan and to comply with the Annual review statutory timescales. Mr X also complained about the Council's Personal budget process and its inadequate communication. We found fault with the Council's failure to deliver the full Education Otherwise than at School package included in Section F of Y's plan and to include details of Y's Personal budget in her plan. We also found fault in the delays to review Y's Education Health and Care Plan in 2024. The Council's fault caused injustice to Y and Mr X. The Council has agreed to apologise and make symbolic payments for the loss of education and distress. The Council has also agreed to arrange Multi-Disciplinary team meetings in accordance with Y's plan. Buckinghamshire Council (24 021 695) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not provide her child, Y, with alternative provision when she stopped attending school and it failed to provide her with the provision in her Education, Health and Care Plan. Mrs X also complained the Council failed to provide Y with a personal budget to secure the provisions in her Plan and about its delays with the annual review process of her Plan. There were faults by the Council which caused injustice to Y and Mrs X. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused. North Northamptonshire Council (24 022 819) Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to adhere to statutory timeframes for issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan for her child, X. We find the Council at fault for delays in completing the annual review and failing to consider its duty to provide the special educational provision set out in the Plan. These faults have caused distress, frustration and uncertainty for the family and impacted X's access to education. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and complete service improvements to remedy the injustice caused. London Borough of Sutton (24 023 012) Summary: We ended the investigation into Ms X's complaints about her child Y's educational and social care provision and about child safeguarding processes. This was because Ms X issued a civil legal claim for the same issues. Luton Borough Council (25 001 736) Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council has failed to amend their son, Y's, Education, Health and Care Plan within the statutory timescales. Mr and Mrs X say the Council failed to deliver the provision set out in section F of Y's Education, Health and Care Plan. Mr and Mrs X also complain the Council failed to communicate with them effectively. Mr and Mrs X say this has caused them and their family distress and for Y to miss out on provision. We have found fault in the actions of the Council for delay in completing the annual review process and failing to provide the provision set out in section F. The Council has agreed to write to Mr and Mrs X to apologise and pay them a symbolic payment. North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 018 512) Summary: Mr X complained the Council produced a care plan for his child, Y which does not align with a care order. He also complained about poor communication from its legal department. The Council started investigating the complaint through the statutory procedure but failed to consider it at stage three. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X, pay a symbolic payment to recognise the frustration and arrange a stage three panel to consider Mr X's complaint without further delay. Worcestershire County Council (25 006 373) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not fully address all parts of her complaint or provide sufficient remedy when it considered her complaint through the children's statutory complaints procedure. The Council did properly follow the procedure and considered her complaints, but its remedy did not fully reflect the distress and frustration caused to her. There was also delay in the Council's complaint handling. The Council has agreed to pay Mrs X a symbolic financial remedy. London Borough of Croydon (25 009 339) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about children services' actions. We have upheld Miss X's complaint as the Council has now agreed to follow the Children Act statutory complaints' procedure which is a proportionate way to resolve the complaint. Birmingham City Council (25 010 207) Summary: We will not investigate Mr F's complaint about the care provided for his son because there is nothing we could add to the independent investigation that has already been carried out, and our involvement would not lead to a different outcome. Lancashire County Council (25 013 536) Summary: The Council was not at fault. It considered Miss X's safeguarding concerns and her request for the Council to provide accommodation for her child. The Council investigated and acted appropriately. Hertfordshire County Council (25 011 013) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to take appropriate action to address the complainant's son's needs and to make appropriate educational provision for him son. This is because the complainant has used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability), and the law prevents us from intervening. London Borough of Bexley (25 010 972) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's response to a safeguarding referral concerning the complainant's family, and the content of a child and family assessment report. Our intervention would not lead to a different outcome and is not therefore warranted. London Borough of Waltham Forest (24 011 106) Summary: We upheld a complaint made by Ms J, about the education provision made for her son, Mr K, who had an Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council failed to respond to her concerns over several months including after she complained. We found this caused injustice to both Ms J and Mr K as distress. We also found Mr K lost some education provision. The Council accepted our findings. At the end of this statement, we set out what action it agreed to take to remedy Mr K's and Ms J's injustice and improve its service to prevent a repeat of the fault. Bedford Borough Council (25 002 931) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint. Ms X has used a right of appeal, so this is not an issue the Ombudsman can deal with. City of Wolverhampton Council (25 003 181) Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council considered a school admissions appeal for Y. We find no fault with the process the Council followed to consider Miss X's appeal. Manchester City Council (25 006 137) Summary: There was fault in the way the Council considered Mr X's application for post-16 transport assistance. The Council confused the law and policy for pre and post 16 pupils and this casts doubt on the accuracy of the decision made. The Council has agreed to review the decision, apologise, make a symbolic payment to acknowledge the faults in the appeal process, and make service improvements. Essex County Council (25 011 251) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the advice the Council considered during the Education, Health and Care Plan process. This is because it was reasonable for Miss X to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). London Borough of Havering (25 020 443) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Council's response to a statutory complaint. The Council has upheld the complaint and agreed to remedy Ms X's injustice by making a recognition payment. Further investigation by us would therefore not be proportionate. Central Bedfordshire Council (25 010 187) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not making all the provision specified in Mrs X's child's Education Health and Care Plan when they were not attending the educational setting named in the Plan. Investigation by us would be unlikely to add to the findings of the Council's own investigation or an increased remedy. Central Bedfordshire Council (25 010 194) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alternative educational provision for Mrs X's child. There is not enough evidence of fault causing injustice in the Council's actions to warrant our further involvement. 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