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. Bath and North East Somerset Council (25 010 461) Summary: The Council did not notify Mrs Y of its decision following D's annual review in October 2024 and did not issue an amended EHC Plan until almost one year later. There is no evidence to show the Council considered or recorded whether it owed D a duty under Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 when it became aware they were not attending school. This fault frustrated Mrs Y’s right of appeal and caused uncertainty about whether D should have received additional support sooner. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment and complete some improvements to its service. Warwickshire County Council (25 015 472) Summary: Miss X complains the Council did not deal with her son Y’s education properly, resulting in loss of educational provision. The Council is at fault because it delayed issuing Y’s Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan and did not consider whether it had a duty to provide s19 alternative education until after Y’s EHC plan had been finalised. Miss X suffered delayed appeal rights and Y suffered missed educational provision. The Council has already remedied the delay to Y’s EHC Plan. The Council should apologise to Miss X and make a symbolic payment to her. Essex County Council (25 016 267) Summary: Miss X complained about transport arrangements made for her son (Y) by the Council. We found fault with the Council for its failure to carry out a risk assessment, make suitable transport arrangements and communicate with Miss X effectively. The Council’s fault caused injustice to Miss X as she had to take Y to school for six weeks after his exclusion from transport arranged by the Council. The Council has already offered reimbursement of Miss X’s travel expenses. The Council has also agreed to apologise and make a symbolic distress payment. North Northamptonshire Council (25 017 296) Summary: There was fault by the Council. It did not send a final Education, Health and Care Plan in time for a parent to appeal to the SEND tribunal. When the Council became aware that a child was not attending the setting named in the Plan, no action was taken to ensure the provision in the Plan was delivered as the Council promised in its official complaint response. An apology, payment and review of procedures remedies the injustice from the loss of education to the child and distress to the parent. Liverpool City Council (25 019 014) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not secure appropriate provision for her son in line with his Education, Health and Care Plan when he stopped attending school. The Council offered a remedy as it accepted fault with not complying with its legal duties and poor communication. This caused significant distress and frustration for the family, and her son missed out on provision he was entitled to. The Council agreed to pay an increased symbolic payment to reflect the injustice caused. Telford & Wrekin Council (25 020 702) Summary: We find the Council was at fault for failing to ensure that Mrs X’s child received the Speech and Language Therapy in their Education, Health and Care Plan. To remedy the injustice, the Council has agreed to produce an action plan to explain how it intends to deliver the missed therapy provision, review its commissioning arrangements to ensure continuity of provision in the event of similar circumstances, and make a symbolic payment to Mrs X for the distress caused. Buckinghamshire Council (25 025 266) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of post-16 transport. This is because an investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome. Data protection issues are best dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office. Lancashire County Council (25 027 098) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Miss X’s application for an Education, Health and Care Plan for her daughter and its refusal to provide alternative educational provision while she was unable to attend school. This is because Miss X has used her right of appeal and issued proceedings against the Council at court. Medway Council (25 027 926) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint about the Council’s failure to arrange alternative provision and carry out an early review of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because these matters overlap with a SEND Tribunal appeal about her child’s Plan. And, we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs Y wants. Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (25 030 112) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint because the law prevents us from investigating complaints about what happens in schools and the actions of councils dealing with complaints about these matters. St. Michaels Church Of England Primary School (26 009 486) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the outcome of a school admission appeal panel. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Surrey County Council (26 013 850) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide transport to school for Ms X’s child. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (26 014 125) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation. Hertfordshire County Council (25 023 542) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X and Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision not to respond to their concerns to justify an investigation. London Borough of Harrow (25 024 367) Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about children services matters which are not separable from court proceedings. The Information Commission and Social Work England are better placed to consider other aspects of her complaint. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s decisions to hold child protection plans. Bath and North East Somerset Council (25 026 046) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement in Mr X’s case when he was a child in the 1980s and 1990s. We could not carry out a fair investigation due to the passage of time. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision in 2024 not to investigate Mr X’s complaint. Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (25 026 162) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council engaged with Ms X during the child in need process. This is because the Council’s actions are sufficient to remedy any injustice and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Cornwall Council (25 028 393) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care of a looked after child because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Devon County Council (25 026 190) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to Mrs X’s requests for different special education needs provision for her child. The matters complained of relate to decisions about the child’s needs that have been subject to appeals to a Tribunal, and we cannot consider them. Birmingham City Council (25 027 514) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her child’s school transport assistance application. This is because it was reasonable for her to ask the Council for an appeal by an independent panel. Essex County Council (25 027 521) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the support provided to Mrs X’s child who has an Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because it was reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). Hertfordshire County Council (25 028 403) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the disruption to her grandson’s education because there is nothing we could add to the Council’s response. St Paul's School for Girls, Edgbaston (26 007 432) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is nothing more we could achieve. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (26 011 229) 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. London Borough of Newham (26 011 825) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a home to school transport application. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation. Surrey County Council (26 014 636) Summary: We cannot investigate X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to carry out an Education Health and Care needs assessment, or the conduct of the Council during a tribunal appeal. The law prevents us from investigating complaints when someone has used their right of appeal to a tribunal. West Northamptonshire Council (25 013 584) Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to deliver the special educational provision included in her child’s Education Health and Care Plan. Mrs X also said the Council had failed to provide alternative education for her child when they were out of school. She also complained the Council did not provide free transport for some provision sessions and communicated with her poorly. We have decided not to investigate this complaint 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. Matters before her appeal right arose happened too long ago for us to consider. Oxfordshire County Council (25 015 836) Summary: The Council was not at fault for the way it dealt with Miss X’s child’s educational provision when they could not attend school. We also find the Council replied to Miss X’s complaint. Essex County Council (25 024 479) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council did not respond appropriately to a complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to consider complaints about complaint procedures, and we will not do so here. Kent County Council (25 020 924) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in the Council’s handling of a complaint about child protection. The Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment to Mr X and complete the complaint process without further delay. We consider this to be a suitable resolution. Liverpool City Council (26 013 918) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement with X’s family. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome that X is seeking. Medway Council (26 014 395) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about the start of court action or what happened in court. Essex County Council (25 025 175) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council failed to make alternative educational provision for the complainant’s child while he could not attend school. This is because the complainant has used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability), and the courts have established the this prevents the Ombudsman from investigating what happened while the appeal was pending. London Borough of Lewisham (25 025 861) Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to arrange suitable education and placement for her child. This is because the issues are too closely linked to the content of the EHC plan, which Mrs X has used her right of appeal to challenge at the Tribunal. City of Wolverhampton Council (26 000 859) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions relating to the care of the complainant’s children. This is because the actions were in the course of, or related to, public law proceedings. London Borough of Islington (25 002 424) Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not issue her child’s Education Health and Care Plan within statutory timescales and did not provide the provision set out in the Plan. Mrs X says this impacted her child’s education and emotional wellbeing. We find fault with the Council which caused injustice. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs X and take service improvement action. Lancashire County Council (25 017 702) Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s actions linked to her son’s education. We found fault because the Council failed to provide adequate education to Y after he had been excluded from school. This caused Miss X avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty and meant Y did not access the education he should have. The Council suggested a remedy for this injustice. The Council will now apologise to Miss X and complete its suggested remedy. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (26 014 124) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation. Kingston Upon Hull City Council (25 030 943) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of a referral for support services and Mr X's involvement in services provided to his child. This is because the Council has already investigated and remedied the fault it identified, and there is not enough evidence of fault to justify further investigation. Lancashire County Council (25 010 500) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment. This is because investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. Somerset Council (25 013 354) Summary: We found fault with the Council limiting provision of transport to post-16 children based on whether a pre-existing route exists and has capacity, rather than considering the needs of the applicant. We also found fault with the Council not considering affordability when considering Personal Travel Payments. The Council agreed to update its policy, review its procedures and provide training to staff. The Council also agreed to apologise to Mrs X, provide a symbolic financial payment for the injustice its fault caused and reconsiders its travel assistance decision for Mrs X’s child. Somerset Council (25 013 539) Summary: We found fault with the Council limiting provision of transport to post-16 children based on whether a pre-existing route exists and has capacity, rather than considering the needs of the applicant. We also found fault with the Council not considering affordability when awarding Personal Travel Payments. The Council agreed to update its policy, review its procedures and provide training to staff. The Council also agreed to apologise to Mrs X, provide a symbolic financial payment for the injustice its fault caused and reconsider its travel assistance decision for Mrs X’s child. Somerset Council (25 013 937) Summary: We found fault with the Council for restricting access of post-19 learners to travel assistance to their first course of study. We also found fault with the Council failing to consider whether travel assistance was necessary for Mr Y. The Council agreed to update its policy, review its procedures and provide training to staff. The Council also agreed to apologise to Ms X and Mr Y and provide a symbolic financial payment for the injustice its fault caused. Oxfordshire County Council (25 017 825) Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s failure to provide alternative education for her daughter when she was out of school. We will not investigate this complaint as the matters complained about are too closely linked to the appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Tribunal. Kent County Council (25 018 123) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of an application for an Education, Health and Care Plan for Miss X’s child. This is because Miss X has used her right of appeal to challenge the Council’s decisions. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (25 018 395) Summary: We have ended this investigation. Ms X should have complained to us sooner and we cannot investigate Ms X’s concerns about her child, Y’s, educational placement or lost education because she had already used her right of appeal to the special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) Tribunal. This is because the Ombudsman cannot investigate matters which have been appealed to a Tribunal, or which are linked to an appeal. Leeds City Council (25 027 659) 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. Lincolnshire County Council (26 003 100) Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council failed to secure appropriate education provision for his child who has an Education, Health and Care plan. This is because Mr X has used his right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and these matters are too closely related. Thurrock Council (26 009 681) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of an application for home-to-school transport assistance. This is because there is not enough evidence the Council is at fault to warrant an investigation. Gloucestershire County Council (26 012 032) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation. Surrey County Council (26 014 191) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a home to school transport application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation. Warwickshire County Council (25 008 767) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s contact with Miss X’s family. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Somerset Council (25 024 065) Summary: We have upheld Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his case during the children’s statutory complaints process. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by apologising and paying Mr X a symbolic remedy to recognise his injustice. London Borough of Lewisham (25 024 724) Summary: We have upheld Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to consider her concerns about its failure to protect her from harm when she was a child. The Council has now agreed to consider whether it should investigate Mrs X’s complaint under the statutory complaint procedure. This provides a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Suffolk County Council (25 025 197) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of a safeguarding referral. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council's safeguarding decision-making. The Council has already acknowledged and apologised for the faults it identified. The Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to consider the remaining data protection concerns. Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (25 025 933) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's involvement with his family following safeguarding concerns in 2024. The complaint is late and there is no good reason for us to consider it now. Shropshire Council (26 007 351) Summary: The Council has failed to complete the stage two investigation into Mr X’s complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure within statutory timescales. The Council will make a payment to Mr X to acknowledge the injustice caused by the delay. It will also continue making a monthly payment until the stage two investigation is concluded. London Borough of Waltham Forest (26 009 833) Summary: We have upheld Mr Y’s complaint about the Council’s delay in considering his complaints under the statutory procedure for children’s social care. The Council has now agreed to progress the complaint under the statutory procedure promptly and consider an appropriate remedy for the delay. This provides a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. Slough Borough Council (26 011 925) Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to consider Mrs X’s complaint through the children’s statutory complaints procedure. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment and use the children’s statutory complaints procedure to provide a stage one response to Mrs X’s complaint. Nottinghamshire County Council (26 014 224) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to investigate Mr X’s complaint about historical social work involvement with his child. The complaint relates to events which occurred over 12 months ago, and it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council’s decision not to investigate it. 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 Granicus Communications Cloud on behalf of: The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman ·5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT