New children and education complaint decisions

A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions


Summary: there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council conducted a child protection case conference in February 2019 or the actions it took regarding a possible “transfer of risk” given its duties in relation to working with other agencies to safeguard children.

Summary: the Council accepts its communication with Mr P, a prisoner, about his son, B, a looked after child, has not been good and has apologised. This is a suitable remedy.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr F’s complaint about the way the Council has responded to concerns about his daughter’s welfare. Most of the issues he raises have already been considered by a court and are therefore outside our jurisdiction. It is unlikely we would find fault with the Council’s handling of later events.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to ensure her child, F, received the provision set out in their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. Mrs X said F’s school employed a tutor who was not suitably qualified or experienced to support F’s needs. The Council was not at fault. The Council met its duty to ensure the school delivered the provision outlined in F’s EHC Plan. It appropriately supported Mrs X and the school following her complaint.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about checks the Council made to make sure the complainants’ daughter is receiving a suitable education. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council responded to her allegations a school had harmed her child. It is unlikely our investigation could significantly add to the Council and other agencies’ responses.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s conduct during a Tribunal appeal process and its action which Mr X says caused him to appeal. We cannot investigate as Mr X has used his appeal right.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about an Educational Psychologist’s report. It was used in a Tribunal and it is reasonable to expect Mrs X to complain to the Health and Care Professions Council.

Summary: Mrs D complains about the way the Council dealt with her adult son’s Education, Health and Care plan and his care and support needs. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to apologise and make payments to Mrs D and her son. It will assess his care and support needs without delay.

Summary: Miss B complains the Council has not properly provided education for her son, A and has failed to ensure his Special Education Needs (SEN) were met. The Council was at fault because it did not make provision for A before he attended school X, did not provide a professional report, did not provide all support in A’s EHCP, took too long to review A’s EHCP and took too long to respond to Miss B’s complaint. A’s attendance at school X and also his appeal to a tribunal about his EHCP was delayed. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss B, make arrangements to provide agreed 1:1 tuition, appoint an independent person with a budget of £650 for the support A lost and pay Miss B £150 for the time and trouble in making her complaint.

Summary: fault by the Council meant B did not receive education for six weeks following his permanent exclusion from school.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint that the Council has refused to amend its files to remove false information it holds about him. This is because he can bring his concerns to the attention of the Information Commissioner, who is better placed than the Ombudsman to consider them.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss A’s allegation that the Council produced flawed assessments during its involvement with her family. This is because it concerns matters which have been, or could have been, considered in court.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint that the Council has refused to issue a discount travel card to his granddaughter. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault on the Council’s part.

Summary: following my enquiries, the Council decided to make a referral to the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). The DBS will consider Mrs M’s allegations against her son’s carer. I have ended my investigation because there is nothing more I can achieve.

Summary: Mrs F complains the Council has removed social care support for her son. The Council has failed to investigate Mrs F’s complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to investigate the complaint under stage 2 of the statutory procedure without delay.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about data protection issues. It is reasonable to expect Ms X to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office which is better placed to consider her complaint.

Summary: Mrs X complained her son’s placement does not meet his needs, and the Council has not kept her informed. We cannot investigate this complaint. Mrs X’s son did not consent to the Council sharing information with his mother. Therefore we, like the Council, cannot consider a complaint from Mrs X on her son’s behalf. We should not consider Mrs X’s complaint about the Council not involving her, as it is unlikely we would find fault in its actions.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to his Subject Access Request. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is the appropriate body to consider his concerns.

Summary: The Council failed to ensure Ms X’s grandson received the Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) support required under his Education Health and Care Plan. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the child’s loss of opportunity to have access to the SALT support.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed in finalising her daughter, D’s, Education Health and Care plan, and failed to ensure the provision in it was delivered. The Council was at fault for not issuing the final EHC plan within the statutory timescales and should apologise. The Council has carried out an annual review to check the provision in the plan was delivered.

Summary: Mrs C complains about the Council refusal to rescind a warning it recorded about her son’s behaviour on a school bus. However, there is no evidence of fault with how the Council dealt with this matter.

Summary: Mr and Mrs B complain that the Council failed to ensure it met their son, C’s, Special Education Needs (SEN). The Council was at fault because C missed provision specified in his EHCP and a review of C’s EHCP was delayed. C missed out on SEN support that should have been provided and there has been uncertainty about future provision. The Council should apologise to Mr and Mrs B and C, pay Mr and Mrs B £500 for the time and trouble and distress caused in making their complaint and £1200 for the support C missed, attempt to resolve the matter with the school one final time and if this is unsuccessful it should make a referral to the Education and Skills Funding Agency (EFSA).

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to provide home to school transport for her child. She has appealed this decision to a Tribunal. And we cannot investigate issues a Tribunal is deciding.

Summary: A parent complained about the school admission appeal panel’s decision to turn down appeal for a place for her son at her preferred primary school. But the Ombudsman does not have grounds to investigate the complaint because there is no sign of fault by the panel.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to properly advise or support her in the administration of direct payments for the care of her children. There was fault in the Council’s administration and monitoring of Mrs X’s direct payment arrangements. This fault has caused Mrs X an injustice.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council delayed dealing with her complaints about support for her and her daughter. Ms X also complains the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments for her mental health issues. There were delays by the Council in dealing with Ms X’s complaints and it failed to properly respond to her requests for reasonable adjustments. The Council should apologise to Ms X and provide her with support. The Council should also take action to improve its services.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about her social workers and matters relating to her child. It lies outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction because it is made in relation to matters that have been considered in court proceedings.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about the complainant’s children because the matters have been considered in court.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about why a child was not placed with him with a view to adoption between December 2018 and July 2019. The Court approved the decisions on the child’s care, and we cannot investigate Court proceedings.

Summary: Mrs X complained about delay in assessing her son’s special educational needs and putting the provision in his Education Health and Care Plan in place. She says he missed out on support as a result. There was no, or no significant, delay in the assessment. The Ombudsman can only consider part of the alleged delay because of limits on our jurisdiction. The Council accepts there was delay in arranging some of the provision. It has agreed a suitable remedy.

Summary: The Council was at fault in failing to accurately reflect the decision to remove children’s social care provision from Mr W’s son’s Education, Health and Social Care Plan. This caused Mr F injustice in the form of avoidable frustration and time and trouble as he had to complain to this office in order to resolve the matter. The Council will apologise and make a payment of £200 to recognise this.

Summary: Mrs B complains the Council has not arranged for her son, C, to attend a specialist provision in line with his Education, Health and Care Plan. Mrs B says consequently, C does not want to attend school and she has to take him home at lunchtimes. The Ombudsman has found fault with the Council for a delay in issuing C with an Education, Health and Care Plan and not making purposeful efforts to identify specialist provision. The actions of the Council have caused Mrs B and C injustice and the Ombudsman has recommended actions the Council should take to remedy this injustice.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to provide suitable education to her son Y following his exclusion. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault and recommends it provides an apology and makes a payment for loss of education.

Summary: the Council has not properly considered Mr G’s request for financial support to care for his grandchildren, and the reason it gave for not paying Special Guardianship Order Allowance is invalid. The Council has agreed to consider his request again.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s assessment and report for court regarding their grandchild and its complaint handling. The Council’s assessment is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction being part of court proceedings. The Council has apologised for the fault in the complaint handling.

Summary: there is no fault by the Council in relation to the action it took to provide Y with education between May 2017 and January 2019. The Ombudsman cannot look at education provision from January 2019 because Ms G exercised her right to appeal to the SEN Tribunal at that time.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the way the Council dealt with an allegation against Mrs X as a foster carer. The Council was at fault in the way it investigated the allegation and dealt with their complaint. The Council failed to resolve a conflict of view within the Council about whether an allegation of emotional abuse should be upheld. It has now reviewed the evidence and changed the outcome to unsubstantiated. The Council will amend its records, apologise to Mr and Mrs X and make a payment. It will issue guidance to officers about the proper handling of allegations. This is a suitable remedy.

Summary: Ms J complains the Council failed to tell her an assessment it planned to carry out was not mandatory. There is evidence of fault in the way the Council carried out the assessment and how it investigated Ms J’s complaints following this. The Council is asked to re-offer a payment to Ms J to acknowledge the time, trouble and distress it caused her. It is also asked to make procedural changes.

Summary: The Council was not at fault for reducing Ms B’s special guardianship allowance, because its decision was in line with the Special Guardianship Regulations. However, it failed to properly consider the use of its discretionary powers. It has agreed to assess Ms B’s finances and decide whether her circumstances justify discretionary payments on top of her allowance.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s children services team’s actions 15 years ago. There are no compelling reasons not to apply the late complaint rule.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about information the Council’s children services team gave a Court. We cannot investigate court proceedings.

Summary: Mr Y complained the Council failed to properly ensure his child X’s special educational provision under Section F of the Education Health and Care plan was provided, including that school staff were correctly trained. He also complained it failed to complete the annual review of the plan within the statutory timeframes. The Council’s fault meant the review of the plan was not completed until four months later than it should have been. This caused injustice to X because it delayed triggering appeal rights to the Tribunal. As the Tribunal required additional provision to be put in place X therefore probably missed out on appropriate special educational provision for four months. The Council has agreed to recognise the impact and injustice caused by making a payment of £2,100 to X and her family.

Summary: Mr B complained that the independent appeal panel failed to properly consider his appeal against the refusal of a place for his son at his preferred school. The Ombudsman finds there was fault in the way the appeal panel considered Mr B’s appeal. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to offer Mr B a new appeal.

Summary: Miss F complained the admission appeals panel failed to properly consider her appeal for her son, G. There is evidence of fault and the school has agreed to arrange a fresh appeal.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide her son with free transport to school. This is because the Council has now agreed to her request. An investigation by the Ombudsman could not achieve anything more for Mrs X.

Summary: The Ombudsman does not have reason to investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to allow a parent a second school admission appeal. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council regarding this matter.