New children and education complaint decisions

A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions


Summary: Mrs M complains about the way a school managed her child’s condition. We cannot investigate this, nor the Council’s response. It is reasonable to expect Mrs M to request a special educational needs assessment.

Summary: There was no fault in the way an independent admission appeal panel considered an appeal against the refusal of a place at a secondary school.

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

Summary: The Council’s foster carer’s handbook did not state that holiday claims would be paid once each financial year rather than each calendar year. But this did not cause injustice to Mr X’s family.

Summary: There is no evidence that the Council has properly addressed the complaint under the relevant complaints procedure. The Ombudsman recommended and the Council agreed to investigate the complaint under the child social care complaints procedure.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs M’s complaint about children services actions in 2014 as there are no sufficient reasons to justify investigating these old events.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the involvement of the Council’s social services with the complainant’s family. This is because she has no consent to share data about one of her sons, and we cannot achieve the outcomes that she wants.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about information the Council presented to the SEND Tribunal. This is because the Ombudsman cannot investigate matters considered by the Tribunal. Information that has not impacted on the Tribunal’s decision has not caused Ms X a significant enough injustice to warrant investigation by the Ombudsman.

Summary: Miss V complains her grandchild was placed on a child protection plan because of a flawed report produced by the Council. She says there was insufficient help and support made available to her daughter. There is evidence of Council fault leading to injustice.

Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s actions to safeguard child B or its attempts to locate his father, Mr X after starting Child Protection proceedings. There was no fault in the Council’s decision to treat Mr X’s complaint as a corporate complaint. There was fault by the Council in not contacting Mr X once it knew his last address from Council B. An apology is appropriate to remedy injustice caused to Mr B.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to cover the cost of the complainant’s unpaid leave when he escorted his niece to Nigeria to her adoptive mother. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a housing assessment interview. This is because the complainant does not have consent from the person affected to make a complaint on her behalf.

Summary: Ms X complains that the Independent Appeal Panel did not properly consider her appeal for her son, Y, to attend Year 2 in School A. The Ombudsman finds no evidence of fault in how the Independent Appeal Panel considered Ms X’s appeal.

Summary: There is fault in the way the independent school admission appeal panel considered Ms X’s appeal against the refusal to offer her daughter a place at Q School. The Council will arrange a fresh appeal hearing with a different panel to remedy the injustice this fault caused.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to grant free school transport for her daughter. We have not seen any evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to escalate his complaint to stage two of the statutory complaints procedures. This is because his complaint is about the Council’s failure to comply with court instructions and these are not matters the Ombudsman can investigate.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Miss D’s complaint because it relates to what happened in a school.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the refusal of free school transport for the complainant's child. It is unlikely an investigation would find fault in the way the panel made its decision.

Summary: There was fault in the Council’s actions. It included unnecessary information in an assessment of child C’s needs and failed to give one of the assessments to Ms B. The Ombudsman has suggested a remedy.

Summary: The Council’s failure to provide or record the advice given to Ms X about financial support available when she became sole carer for her grandsons amounts to fault. The failure to recognise Ms X’s youngest grandson as a looked after child and to offer financial assistance also amounts to fault.

Summary: There is now agreement between the Council and the complainants about their financial contribution for the care of their child. The Ombudsman is satisfied that this resolves the complainants’ earlier concerns about the Council’s failure to properly inform them about these charges. The Ombudsman has therefore completed his investigation and is closing the complaint.

Summary: There was fault in the way the admission Appeal Panel decided Ms X’s appeal for a place for her daughter at the School. The School has agreed to arrange a fresh appeal. This is a satisfactory remedy. The School has reviewed the published admission policy concerning categories relating to attendance at Mass. There are still contradictions in the information provided. The Ombudsman cannot take this matter further as the School is now an Academy. It will be for the new Appeal Panel to decide whether the School applied the admission arrangements properly in this case.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council proposed and then gave planning permission for the expansion of a school. I have seen no significant flaws in the way the decision was made and the Ombudsman may not, therefore, question its merits.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to grant free school transport for his daughter because it is unlikely he would find fault on the Council’s part.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms J’s complaint because the issues are inextricably linked to her appeal to tribunal about her son’s SEN statement.

Summary: The Council failed to deal properly with a safeguarding allegation about the complainants from a health professional. This led to the Council considering the case as a child protection matter without first having made adequate enquiries. The Council has agreed the Ombudsman’s recommendations to remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified. The Ombudsman has therefore completed his investigation and is closing the complaint.

Summary: The Council was not at fault in its finding that an allegation of historic abuse against Mr X was ‘unsubstantiated’ rather than ‘unfounded’. It has fully explained the decision, which was made in line with its safeguarding procedures. Although Mr X is unhappy with some of the language used by professionals in strategy meetings, I do not consider this to have caused him an injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate Mr J’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with his family, because the issues could reasonably have been raised within a court of law.