New children and education complaint decisions

A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions


Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about their dealings with the Council over child protection proceedings involving their children. There was fault by the Council because of late cancellations of two intended child protection conference meetings. The Council agreed to remedy the injustice to Mr and Mrs X through a payment for their distress and time and trouble.

Summary: the Council acknowledged that it confused Mrs M’s husband with another man with the same name who was also involved in child protection proceedings. The Council has apologised and offered £1,000 for the distress caused. I consider this a suitable remedy. The Council is not responsible for Mrs M’s deregistration as a childminder or the collapse of her childminding business. The Council responded appropriately to the allegations against her son.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the accuracy of the Council’s records about her daughter. The Information Commissioner is better placed to deal with the matter. Or she may go to court to get the records amended.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint about the conduct of social workers because an investigation would not achieve the outcome Mrs A wants.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to ensure that her daughter, who is unable to attend school for medical reasons, received education after she moved into the area. The Ombudsman finds that despite any failings there may have been by the school, which we cannot investigate, the Council failed in its duty to ensure that the child received any education. The Council has agreed a suitable remedy including a payment to recognise the loss of education and a review of procedures.

Summary: Mrs X complains of failings in the way the Council’s SEN department has dealt with her and her husband that have impacted on their family life. There was only minor fault that has caused insufficient injustice to warrant further remedy beyond the apologies already given by the Council.

Summary: Mr B complained that the Council has not dealt with his education travel appeal properly. The Ombudsman found that the Council did not follow its policy and did not give a detailed written explanation of the considerations made by the appeals panel. This left Mr B with uncertainty that his appeal was properly considered. The Council has agreed to reconsider the stage 2 appeal, provide a detailed written explanation and review its school transport policy.

Summary: Mr X complains of failings in social care affecting his grandchild and daughter. The Council will consider those matters that have not been before a court via the statutory children’s complaints procedure.

Summary: The Council was not at fault when it did not ensure C’s school was delivering his SEN provision. There is no evidence that Miss B made the Council aware of this. The Council was also not at fault in the education it offered C after his permanent exclusion. It made education available to C, but Miss B refused the offer. This was her choice, and did not amount to maladministration by the Council.

Summary: The complainants say that the Council delayed in completing their daughter’s Education, Health and Care Plan which meant that she did not receive sufficient support at her Nursery. The Council accepted it had delayed and it suggested a financial remedy to make up for the loss of earlier educational support. The Ombudsman is satisfied that this is an appropriate way to resolve the complaint.

Summary: The complainant says that the Council delayed in completing his daughter’s Education Health and Care Plan and this has meant that she did not receive the targeted provision which she required. The Ombudsman finds fault in the Council’s actions which have caused a significant injustice to the complainant’s daughter and family. He has now made recommendations to remedy the complaint.

Summary: Mrs V says a school admission appeals panel acted with fault in failing to give her child a place at the school. There is no evidence of fault.

Summary: The complainant is concerned about the actions of social work staff towards his family and about their assessments of him. He says that this has prejudiced his applications in court concerning his children. The Ombudsman has looked at the information from the Council and complainant. But most of the complaint is tied up with the legal proceedings and therefore the Ombudsman cannot consider matters further.

Summary: The Ombudsman has not investigated Ms Y’s complaint about the termination of contact with her son, X, who is currently looked after under a full care order. The decision to end contact was made by the Council in 2016, and is now too old for the Ombudsman to consider. In addition, Ms Y also tells the Ombudsman she has started legal proceedings against the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr A’s complaint about a social worker who produced a report for the court. The law prevents the Ombudsman from investigating complaints about the production or content of court reports.

Summary: The Council is at fault as it delayed in implementing the provision set out in Y’s Education Health and Care Plan. This fault caused injustice to Miss X and Y as it caused distress and anxiety to Miss X and put Y in a worse position that he should have been in for a term. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice to Miss X and Y by apologising and making payments of £300 each to them. The Council will also review its procedures.

Summary: Mrs X has complained about how the Council has dealt with her son’s Education, Health and Care needs assessment. There is evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mrs A complains the Council did not fulfil its legal obligations and provide a full-time education to her daughter, B until November 2017. She also complains it failed to adhere to the statutory timeframes when dealing with her request for an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Ombudsman has found the Council was at fault for failing to ensure B received a suitable education after it was notified she was being educated on a part-time basis in February 2017. It was also at fault for delaying unnecessarily during the EHC needs assessment process. The Council has agreed to make a payment to B to acknowledge the loss of provision and injustice she was caused, and a payment to Mrs A to recognise her time and trouble in making this complaint.

Summary: the Council has properly considered Ms M’s concerns for her children’s welfare. The Council is satisfied the children are safe with their father. There is no fault in the Council’s decision. The Ombudsman cannot question Council decisions taken without fault.

Summary: Mr A complains the Council was grossly negligent in its duty of care to him when he was a child by failing to prevent the severe physical, emotional and mental abuse he was subjected to by his adoptive parents between 1978 and 1989. The Ombudsman is discontinuing the investigation into this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would reach a sound, fair, and meaningful decision, or achieve the outcomes desired by Mr A if we were to continue investigating.

Summary: The Council accepts that it failed to put in place SALT provision detailed in an Education, Health and Social Care Plan between February 2017 and May 2018. This amounts to fault that has caused injustice and the Council will make a payment to recognise the injustice this caused. There were also faults in the Council’s handling of Ms X’s complaints about this which the Council has agreed to take action to put right.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed finalising C’s Education and Health Care plan and delayed allocating a secondary school place for him. She has also complained about poor communication and poor complaints handling. The Council is at fault. It should pay Mrs X £1,500 for the injustice caused.

Summary: The Council did not offer transport to school to Mr S’s child because the child was not attending the closest available school to his home address. There is no evidence of Council fault.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council placed her son, Y, in school year 5 and not in the year below as she requested. The Council is at fault because it failed to decide which year group Y should go into. This fault caused avoidable distress. The Council should make a payment to reflect this and review its processes.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council did not provide occupational therapy sessions for her son as required by his Education, Health and Care plan. The Ombudsman finds there was significant disruption to the delivery of sessions in the 2017/18 academic year and Mrs X’s son did not receive his full entitlement. The Council was unaware of the problem until Mrs X complained and was then slow to resolve it. This caused an injustice to Mrs X and her son. The Ombudsman has recommended the Council apologise to Mrs X, ensure the missing sessions are now carried out and review how a similar situation can be avoided in future.

Summary: Miss B complains the Council rejected her appeal requesting free home-to-school transport for her youngest daughter. The Ombudsman has found the Council was not at fault as it followed the statutory guidance and its own Policy before deciding Miss B’s daughter was not eligible for free home-to-school transport.

Summary: The Council was not at fault for its decision to refuse school transport for Mrs F’s daughter. It applied statutory guidance correctly, properly considered Mrs F’s grounds of appeal and fully explained its reasons for refusal, so I cannot question its decision.

Summary: there was no fault in the way the Independent Appeal Panel made its decision not to admit Mrs B’s daughter to Powell’s Church of England Primary School. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions made without fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint about the decision to refuse her appeal for a school place for her daughter. It is unlikely we would find fault on the Council’s part.

Summary: Mrs C complained that the Council failed to carry out a specialist assessment for her son, D, as a deafblind child, or provide appropriate services for him over a four year period. This failure had a devastating impact on the whole family and led to Mrs C asking for her son to be taken into care. The Council has agreed to pay Mrs C and her family a total of £12,750 and review its procedures in respect of other deafblind children in its area.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms J’s complaint about the Council’s actions in respect of her daughter before 2017. The complaint is late and there are insufficient grounds to investigate the matter now. Ms A’s daughter’s care has been considered in court. The law says the Ombudsman cannot investigate what happens in court.

Summary: there was no fault in the way the Independent Appeal Panel made its decision not to admit Ms M’s daughter to Emmaus C of E & RC Primary School. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions made without fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the contact she has with her child as a Court decided this.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker and the Council’s responses to a Subject Access Request and a data breach complaint. This is because they are being considered by other agencies which are more appropriate. He will not investigate the complaint about the Council restricting the complainant’s contact with it as there is no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: Mr P complains about the support he has received from Council social services. We do not uphold the complaint as we cannot find fault in how the Council has supported Mr P. We find no reason to question its record keeping which suggests Mr P has sometimes been aggressive to its staff.

Summary: Mrs X, who is foster carer for child Z, complained the Council failed to consult her or Z about which secondary school Z should go to. The Council avoidably delayed preparation for Z’s school transition and did not ask Z’s views before accepting the school offered. It has agreed to apologise and pay Mrs X £100 and Z £150 for uncertainty and distress caused them by this fault. It has also agreed to review its delegated authority scheme to ensure clarity for Z and other looked after children in future decisions.

Summary: The Ombudsmen’s investigation has been restricted in its scope for jurisdictional reasons. The Ombudsmen do not find fault in the Council’s actions beyond a failure to provide suitable education to a child with Autism for four weeks, but this caused limited injustice. The Ombudsmen do not find fault in the actions of both the Trusts involved in this case.

Summary: The Ombudsmen’s investigation has been restricted in its scope for jurisdictional reasons. The Ombudsmen do not find fault in the Council’s actions beyond a failure to provide suitable education to a child with Autism for four weeks, but this caused limited injustice. The Ombudsmen do not find fault in the actions of both the Trusts involved in this case.

Summary: The Ombudsmen’s investigation has been restricted in its scope for jurisdictional reasons. The Ombudsmen do not find fault in the Council’s actions beyond a failure to provide suitable education to a child with Autism for four weeks, but this caused limited injustice. The Ombudsmen do not find fault in the actions of both the Trusts involved in this case.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr J’s complaint for a community group about the Council’s consultation about education in the borough. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or of its actions leading to personal injustice to the complainants, so an investigation is not warranted.

Summary: Mr B complained about the way in which the Council accepted a referral for legal action form his daughter’s school in respect of her poor attendance. I can find no fault with its actions.

Summary: Mrs B alleged fault in the way a school admission appeal was managed and run. She says it did not take account of her disabilities when deciding whether to give her child a place. There is no evidence of fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about a Council report produced by it for a Court, as the law prevents us doing so. There are other bodies better placed to consider the other aspects of her complaint.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms J’s complaint that the Council failed to protect her son from harm because we do not have her son’s consent to investigate. The part of her complaint which relates to matters she brought to the Council’s attention in 2016 are late and there are insufficient grounds for us to consider it now.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions concerning Mr Y’s child or Mrs X’s complaint that it is treating her as a drug user. A court is considering the welfare of the child.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s documents submitted to the courts regarding a child’s care placement. This is because the matter has already been decided in court.

Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council dealt with her son who has Special Educational Needs and who was permanently excluded from school. The Ombudsman found the Council to be at fault because it failed to provide him with suitable education while he was out of school. It also failed to agree with Ms X how a financial payment awarded by the Ombudsman as part of a previous complaint would be spent. The Council agreed to the Ombudsman’s recommendations to remedy the injustice caused to Ms X and her son.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate X’s complaint about a Council inadequate educational needs assessment. X appealed to a Tribunal and the law prevents us from investigating matters connected to a Tribunal appeal.

Summary: Mr C complains that an admissions appeal panel unfairly refused his appeal against a school’s refusal to grant his son a place. The panel decided the appeal fairly.

Summary: There was fault in how the Council considered an application for a primary school place, and in how the subsequent appeal was considered by the independent panel. The Council has reconsidered its decision at the Ombudsman’s recommendation, and has now offered the complainant’s daughter a place at the school.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council has incorrectly taken the statutory walking distance and failed to consider her son’s (Y) individual needs when it refused school transport for him. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because we have not seen any evidence of fault in the process the Council followed before making its decision.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse home to school transport. It is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s decision.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to engage with him and his wife, ignored their wishes and failed to take actions it agreed when their adopted son wished to visit his birth family. I did not find there was fault by the Council.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council has failed to provide her and her son with enough support. I have decided to discontinue my investigation. The Council is now investigating Miss X’s concerns as part of the statutory complaints process for children. If Miss X remains unhappy following the conclusion of the process she can return to the Ombudsman.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Ms J’s complaint about her children being taken into care, because it is about what happened in court.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr J’s complaint about the Council not ensuring a care provider and a school provided him with information about his son, and about it failing to address his complaint. This is because the ICO is better placed to consider complaints about failing to provide information, and the Ombudsman will not consider the way a council handles a complaint if not investigating the underlying matter. The Ombudsman cannot in any event investigate what happens in a school, and Mr J can seek discovery of documents relevant to legal action through the courts if necessary.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Miss A’s complaint about the decisions on her son’s care because those decisions were made by the court.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to properly consider his son’s application for school transport. The Council’s decision not to provide school transport is in the content of Child S’s Education Health Care Plan (EHC Plan). Mr X has a right of appeal about the content of his son’s EHC Plan to the First Tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). It is reasonable for him to use that right and therefore I am discontinuing my investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s special educational needs decisions. The law prevents us from investigating issues which have been appealed to a Tribunal.