New children and education complaint decisions

A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions


Summary: The Council wrongly presented the school admissions appeal for Child C as an infant class size case, despite C meeting the criteria to be an exception from this rule. The Council will offer a fresh appeal for C. There is no evidence of fault in the appeals heard for Mrs B’s other two children, D and E.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not further investigate the complaint. This is because the Council has already taken action which suitably remedies the complaint.

Summary: Ms C complains the Council failed to check on the changes she made to her home following the removal of her children in 2013 and failed to involve her when the children’s father was charged with assaults on them. The investigation has been discontinued because the complaint is out of time and the Ombudsman cannot achieve the outcome that Ms C wants.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr D’s complaint the Council failed to establish his identity when considering social work intervention for his daughter. The complaint is about matters the Ombudsman considered and decided in Mr D’s previous complaint to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman cannot consider these matters again.

Summary: The Council’s consideration of a complaint under the statutory complaints procedure took considerably longer than the timescale set out in the relevant guidance. In addition the apology provided to remedy the complaint failed to fully acknowledge the Council’s failings and their impact.

Summary: The Council failed to carry out an annual review of Child Y’s statement of special educational needs. This fault caused injustice to Child Y and their parent. The Council has agreed to the Ombudsman’s recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: There were several faults by the Council in the way it dealt with a child with Special Educational Needs who was permanently excluded from school. The Council failed to provide him with education while he was out of school; failed to ensure an annual review of the child’s Statement of Special Educational Needs was completed; and provided potentially misleading information about the child’s needs to a school. In addition the Council’s complaint handling was poor.

Summary: There was fault in the way the admission Appeal Panel considered Mr X’s appeal for a place for his son. The School has agreed to arrange a fresh appeal hearing. This is a suitable remedy.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs M’s complaint that the Council’s Schools Admissions Appeal Panel failed to provide her child with a place. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused her to lose out on a school place.

Summary: The Ombudsmen found no fault in relation to the support a Community Trust and Foundation Trust provided to a child. Professionals had concerns about the child’s welfare and appropriately raised them with the Council. There was no fault in the way the Council investigated these concerns, which ultimately found the child was not at risk of harm.

Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council failed to protect her grandchildren from abuse. She is also unhappy about the Council’s refusal to investigate her complaint about this. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the Council’s decision not to investigate Mrs X’s complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr F’s complaint, as it is unlikely we would find any fault in the Council’s children services team’s usage of a disputed statement causing Mr F an injustice.

Summary: Miss C complained the appeal panel failed to hear her appeal properly. There was no evidence of fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint about Mr K’s son’s EHC plan, because the tribunal is better placed to consider it.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council delayed in implementing a tribunal ruling on his daughter’s special educational needs provision. This is because the Council has now put appropriate provision in place. The Ombudsman could not achieve any more than this if he investigated.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr F’s complaint that the Council’s School Admissions Appeal Panel failed to provide his child with a place at his preferred school. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused him to lose out on a school place.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs M’s complaint that the Council’s Schools Admissions Appeal Panel failed to provide her child with a place. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused her to lose out on a school place.

Summary: The Ombudsman has decided not to investigate a complaint about a school admissions appeal. This is because the Council’s actions have not caused the complainant a significant injustice.

Summary: The Council acted with fault when managing the end of a fostering placement leading to avoidable distress and inconvenience.

Summary: A Council Social Worker did not behave in a threatening and biased way towards Mr X during proceedings involving his daughter, who was the subject of a Child Protection Plan.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigation this complaint because it is about decisions made in court.

Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the content of a report prepared by the Council as part of a child protection case. This is because the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints about evidence submitted in court, and it is reasonable to expect Mr B to pursue his own court action if he believes the report is libellous or defamatory. As the substantive issue is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, we would not normally investigate associated concerns about the complaints process in isolation.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about alleged errors in a report by Social Services. This is because the Ombudsman is not allowed to consider matters relating to court proceedings.

Summary: The Council’s failure to issue Y’s amended EHC Plan within the statutory timeframe or to arrange for an ABA tutor to assist Y from the date the EHC Plan was issued amounts to fault causing an injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the quality of music tuition provided by the Council’s Music Service. This is because the Ombudsman is not able to consider complaints about education provision so it is out of his jurisdiction.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in producing an education and health care plan for her son. The Council has taken appropriate action by apologising to Ms X, considering what went wrong, and it has produced a plan for her son. There is insufficient injustice to investigate.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the refusal of admission for the complainant’s daughter to her preferred school for her. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way the independent appeal panel (IAP) hearing the appeal made its decision.

Summary: The Ombudsman has no reason to investigate this complaint from a parent about a school admission appeal. This is because the School in question has now offered a place, and we could not achieve a better outcome than this for the complainant.

Summary: An independent children’s social care complaints investigation found fault in the way the Council dealt with Mr X in relation to a Child in Need assessment. The Ombudsman has not found further fault as there is not enough evidence that the Council was responsible for Mr X’s son receiving false information about him and it dealt with his complaint properly.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council has dealt with an assessment and support plan for his disabled child and his needs as a parent carer. The Council was not at fault in the way it assessed his child’s needs and decided the budget. There are some areas where the Council should be clearer about how the budget can be used. There was no fault causing injustice in the way the Council assessed the parent carer needs because Mr X has not taken up the Council’s offer of a further assessment.

Summary: The Council failed to respond properly to the recommendations of a children’s social care complaint about Mrs X’s daughter. It has now provided a copy of the report as recommended, apologised to Mrs X, and offered her and her daughter a payment. This is a satisfactory remedy.

Summary: There is no evidence that the Council was at fault or failed to follow the guidance when it contacted Mrs X’s clients. The complaint is not upheld.

Summary: Mr and Mr B could have complained in 2012 and 2014 about the Council’s actions in respect of their grandson in September 2012. They did not do so and the events are too old to consider now.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr F’s complaint about how the Council treated him following an allegation by a foster child. Most of the issues central to his complaint have been considered by a court. They are therefore out of jurisdiction. His complaints about the conduct of a social worker would be better referred to the Health and Care Professions Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about assessments done by the Council for court. The law prevents him from investigating anything which relates directly to a court case.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot and should not investigate Mr J and Ms K’s complaint about children’s services’ involvement with their family, because the issues are tied up with the court’s decisions about their child’s welfare.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council’s children’s services department. This is because the actions were in preparation for, and during, court proceedings and are therefore out of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr and Mrs M’s complaint about contact with their grandchild. This is because a Court has considered the contact arrangements.