A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions

Summary: There was fault the Council delayed issuing an Education, Health, and Care plan for Mrs X’s son. Those delays caused an injustice to Mrs X because she now has uncertainty about the possibility of her son having missed out on the school experience and education they might have had, if but for delays. The Council have already apologised and during our enquiries, it made a suitable offer of a symbolic payment that will remedy Mrs X’s injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms 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.

Summary: The Council failed to ensure that Ms X’s daughter received the educational provision set out in her Education Health and Care Plan, or consider whether it had a duty to make alternative provision when she was unable to attend school. It has not issued a new Plan following an emergency review, did not properly consider her request for a personal budget, and did not communicate with Ms X properly. The Council’s shortcomings caused Ms X and her daughter distress, frustration, and uncertainty. It has caused Ms X’s daughter to miss out on educational provision.

Summary: Mrs Y complains the Council shared her identity when acting upon concerns she raised about the safety of her grandchildren. We find the Council did not follow its procedures when dealing with the concerns. It should have discussed the concerns with Mrs Y and clarified the extent to which her anonymity could be protected. This caused significant distress which the Council has agreed to provide a remedy for.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s decision not to investigate her complaint until she shortened the summary of complaint to two pages. We have decided to discontinue our investigation. The Council has agreed to consider Miss X’s complaint and this was her desired outcome for our investigation.

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, about assessments made by the Council in response to child protection referrals it received. This is because the complaint is late, there are other agencies better placed to deal with much of its substance, and we cannot achieve most of the outcomes the complainant is seeking.

Summary: Miss F complained that the Council failed to provide her family with children’s social care support and had refused to accept her complaint about this. We found fault in the Council’s decision not to investigate and respond to the complaint under the statutory children’s complaints process. The Council has now agreed to do so.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council had not secured all the special educational or social care provision in her child, B’s, Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council was at fault, which meant B missed out on provision they were entitled to. This caused Miss X distress, frustration and uncertainty. To remedy their injustice, the Council will apologise and pay Miss X a total of £5000. To prevent similar fault in future, the Council will issue a staff reminder and identify if flaws in its practice led to some of the fault. The Council will also apologise to the people who have been waiting too long for their complaint responses.

Summary: Miss B says the Council delayed completing her daughter’s annual review for her education, health and care plan, failed to ensure the alternative provider put in place provision and failed to respond to her communications. The Council delayed completing the annual review, failed to put in place alternative provision following the annual review and failed to respond to some of Miss B’s communications. An apology, payment to Miss B and introduction of a process to manage annual reviews is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to comply with statutory timescales during the EHCP process for his son, Y. Mr X also complains about the failure to deliver provision as set out in Y’s EHCP. We have concluded our investigation having made a finding of fault. The Council failed to issue Y’s EHCP within statutory timescales, and failed to deliver all SALT sessions that Y should have received, if not for delay. The Ombudsman is aware of a national shortage of Educational Psychologists that have impacted upon events described in this complaint, and our recommendations have been agreed in line with our standardised approach.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of her request for an Education, Health and Care Plan for her son, and about its handling of her subsequent complaint. Mrs X says the Council’s actions caused avoidable stress to her and her son. We found fault by the Council and the Council has agreed to provide Mrs X with an apology and a financial remedy.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide alternative educational provision for her child when they were unable to attend school. She complained the Council delayed its decision not to do an education, health and care needs assessment, and complained about delays handling her complaint. Mrs X said there was a huge impact on her child of the missed education, and said it caused unnecessary and avoidable distress and frustration. We find the Council at fault, and this caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to arrange the speech and language therapy set out in her child, Z’s, Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council was at fault. This caused Miss X avoidable frustration and meant Z missed out on provision they needed. To remedy Miss X and Z’s injustice, the Council should apologise and pay Miss X a total of £1650. The Council should also remind its complaints staff that they should consider whether to offer a complainant a remedy when they uphold their complaint.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to make alternative education provision for her son while he was unable to attend school. She says the Council’s actions caused avoidable stress and meant her son missed out on his education. We found fault by the Council and the Council has agreed to provide an apology and a financial remedy to Mrs X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged fault in the content of a draft policy document. This is because the Council has made a reasonable response to the matter our intervention would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about inaccurate information being included in Section D of his child’s Education, Health, and Care (EHC) plan. This is because an investigation would not lead to any further findings or outcomes as the Council has appropriately remedied the injustice caused by the fault accepted.

Summary: We upheld Miss X’s complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care process regarding her child, Y. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not involving Mr B in the process for his child’s Education Health and Care Plan. This is because an Ombudsman investigation would not lead to a different outcome and there is not enough evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education Health and Care Plan process. The complainant has appealed to a tribunal and so the content of the plan is not something we can consider. Any injustice caused by delay in issuing the plan cannot be quantified until the outcome of the appeal is known.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the council dealt with child protection proceedings. We find the Council at fault for failing to provide copies of plans, failing to follow its policy around identification and not advising Mr X of how long he would need to leave the family home. However, we are satisfied with the action the Council has taken to remedy this.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B and Mr C’s complaint about the Council allegedly not taking the appropriate action when Mr C’s son sustained two injuries while in the care of his mother and her partner. This is because we could not add anything significant to the investigation the Council has carried out.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s section 7 report for court. The law prevents us from investigating what happened in court, which includes the content of the Council’s report.

Summary: The complainant (Mr X) said the Council had delayed issuing an Education Health and Care Plan for his son (Y) following his Annual Reviews. We found fault in the Council’s actions following the Annual Reviews of Y’s Education Health and Care Plan in 2022 and 2023. We also found fault in the Council’s failure to apply the principles of good administrative practice when carrying out its duties for children with the Education Health and Care Plans. The Council’s fault caused injustice to Mr X. The Council agreed apologise to Mr X and make a payment to recognise his distress and uncertainty.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse Miss X’s application for free school transport for her daughter. We have seen no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about the lack of support they experienced from the Council as registered foster carers since 2017. They said it caused them avoidable distress. We found the Council was not at fault in how it supported Mr and Mrs X. However, the Council was at fault for the frequent social worker changes, and it agreed to apologise for the frustration and confusion this caused to Mr and Mrs X.

Summary: Mr B complained about the conduct of the Council during an initial child protection investigation and conference. He also complained the Council allowed a vulnerable person to live at his property for three months. There is no evidence the Council acted with fault which caused Mr B injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council used inaccurate records at court. This is because we cannot investigate what happened in court.

Summary: Ms C complained about the Council’s failure to refund deductions of child benefit from her special guardian’s allowance back to May 2019, following the publication of our public interest report on a similar complaint. We consider the Council should deal with the complaint first through the statutory complaints procedure.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s child protection actions concerning Mr X’s family. This would be unlikely to lead to a different or worthwhile outcome from that already achieved as the result of the Council’s investigation. We would be unlikely to establish the claimed injustice was the sole result of failings by the Council. The Council has also agreed to correct any factual inaccuracies in its records and to refer Mr X to the Information Commissioner’s Office if he remains dissatisfied when it has done that.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement with the complainant family. This is because the complaint concerns the commencement of court proceedings or matters that have been raised, or could reasonably have been raised, in court.

Summary: The Council was at fault for a delay in deciding what support Mrs X’s daughter should receive for her special educational needs. It should have done this by October 2022, but did not do it until July 2023. This means there was a corresponding delay to some of the support Mrs X’s daughter needed. The Council will offer symbolic payments to Mrs X and her daughter to recognise their injustice.

Summary: Mrs F complained the Council had failed to provide education and special educational needs support to her son and about delay in the process of updating his Education, Health and Care plan. We have ended our investigation to allow the statutory children’s complaint procedure to be completed.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council naming a mainstream school for her daughter, Y’s. It is appropriate for Miss X to appeal to the Tribunal about that. The Council offered to pay her £400 to recognise its delay in finalising Y’s annual review and its poor communication, which is appropriate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to award Miss X’s child Y home to school transport. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the process of an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment, and about the Council’s response to the subsequent complaint. This is because the subject of the complaint is not separable from matters which were, or could have been, subject to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability).

Summary: We upheld this complaint, and the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by taking the complaint through the children’s statutory complaints procedure and by apologising to Mr X. We did not investigate Mr X’s substantive complaints about support he received as a looked after child or as a care leaver because the Council agreed to progress the complaint through the statutory children’s complaints procedure.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint about the contents of a court report and a social worker failing to attend a court hearing without notice. This is because the complaint concerns matters which have been considered in court or are closely related to those matters.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint from Ms X about a child protection investigation. There is not a good reason for the delay in bringing the matter to the Ombudsman.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to consider all her evidence when she applied for a blue badge for her son. We do not find fault with the Council, so we cannot therefore criticise the merits of its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement with the complainant family. This is because the complaint concerns matters that either were or could reasonably be raised in court.

Summary: Miss Y complains she was not able to progress through the Council’s fostering payment scheme due to Council fault. After considering the available evidence, we agree with the findings made during the statutory complaints investigation. We do not find further fault and so, in our view, the remedy already provided is proportionate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in respect of the complainant’s son. This is because the complaint is late and there are no grounds to consider it now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about child protection and safeguarding procedures. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council considered the complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Trust has already taken action to remedy the complaint about its actions and investigation by us is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response time in dealing with Mr X’s correspondence about compensation. The substantive matter relates to alleged illegal detention in a secure children’s home. We decided in case 22 016 477 Mr X had a right to go to court it would be reasonable to use to seek a finding that he had been illegally detained. It follows that Mr X’s subsequent correspondence with the Council about compensation for the alleged illegal detention is also a matter closely linked to the alleged illegal detention. Mr X has a right to go to court about this matter it would be reasonable to use.

Summary: Ms Y complained about the way the Council dealt with her child, Z’s Education Health and Care plan, special educational needs provision, social care assessments and social care provision. We have found the following faults by the Council: failure to respond to Ms Y’s concerns about section A of Z’s Education Health and Care plan; failure to put Z’s social care support in place; and a failure to deliver all Z’s special educational needs provision in the year 2020/2021. We have also found these faults caused Ms Y and Z injustice. We have not found fault on the other parts of Ms Y’s complaint. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused by apologising to Ms Y and Z, making payments to reflect Ms Y’s distress, and the impact on Z of the missed provision. It has also agreed to contact Ms Y about changes to section A and putting social care support in place and make service improvements.