The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has published the latest round of complaints submitted by parents and carers to the body, and its decisions about those complaints. They touch on children’s social care, local authority handling of child protection cases and the provision of education and educational support.
Children and Education
Please note: decisions are published six weeks after they are issued to councils, care providers and the person who has made the complaint. The cases below reflect the caselaw and guidance available.
Hampshire County Council (21 004 383)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to arrange suitable school transport for his son, Z.
Kent County Council (21 004 350)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to secure a school place for her son, Child Y, as required by his Education, Health and Care Plan. She also complained the Council failed to provide suitable education for him when he was not attending school for over a year. This meant Child Y missed out on educational provision and support as required by his Plan. We found the Council to be at fault. To remedy the personal injustice to Miss X and Child Y, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to them. It has also agreed to make improvements to its service.
Hampshire County Council (21 009 171)
Summary: Ms X complained about the Council not following relevant law and guidance when is assessed her daughter for an Education, Health and Care plan. She also said it did not follow the annual review procedure and failed to secure the provision named in the plan as well as alternative educational provision. There was fault with how the Council produced S’s Education Health and Care plan, and how it arranged the support she needed. The Council agreed to pay a financial remedy to Ms X and reviews its procedures.
Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (21 013 145)
Summary: Ms B complained there was delay by the Council in issuing an Education, Health and Care plan (EHC plan) for her daughter, X. She also complained that the provision named in the plan was not suitable and the Council failed to make alternative educational provision for X while she was unable to attend school. She said that as a result X missed education and it caused stress to the whole family. There was fault by the Council which it will remedy by making a payment to Ms B and taking the action set out at the end of this statement.
Oxfordshire County Council (21 013 539)
Summary: There was fault by the Council as it did not organise alternative education when D was medically unable to attend school. D had an Education, Health and Care plan and did not receive the provisions in it for three months. The Council has apologised and should make a payment towards D’s lost education.
Swindon Borough Council (21 017 660)
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to transport his son to college for eleven days as outlined in his son’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. Mr X says he needed to transport his son to college during this time but the Council only paid £0.30 per mile and not £0.55 per mile. The Ombudsman found fault with the Council. The Council agreed to the Ombudsman’s recommendation to pay Mr X’s travel expenses at £0.55 per mile.
London Borough of Bromley (21 006 702)
Summary: Mr and Mrs Y complain about the Council’s involvement in their concerns about a school. We find the Council did not manage Mr and Mrs Y’s expectations, failed to keep records of its decisions, and sometimes delayed in corresponding with Mr and Mrs Y. The apology and service improvements already undertaken by the Council are appropriate remedies and we do not recommend anything further.
Norfolk County Council (21 007 700)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed giving her access to her care files. She also complained the Council did not follow correct safeguarding processes and delayed removing her from her family’s care when she was experiencing abuse. She complained this matter caused her significant emotional harm and distress. There was fault when the Council significantly delayed providing Miss X with her care files. The Council has agreed to provide Miss X with an apology and £150 in recognition of the time and trouble she was put to by its actions. The Council should also remind its staff of the importance of responding to subject access requests within the required timescales. I have not investigated Miss X’s complaint point regarding the Council’s safeguarding procedures as I do not consider it likely I can provide a worthwhile outcome for Miss X.
Bristol City Council (21 014 511)
Summary: there is no fault by the Council in relation to this complaint about actions taken by social workers during and following an assessment to consider a request for a bath in the family home.
North Northamptonshire Council (22 003 156)
Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about a report that was considered in court. This is because the main issue Ms X raises is not separable from the matters already considered before the family court.
Middlesbrough Borough Council (22 003 665)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions. The matters complained of are not separable from matters concerning the residence of and contact with Mr X’s child. This has been subject to court proceedings and Mr X also has a right to return to court it would be reasonable to use.
Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (22 003 781)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decisions regarding the fitness of Mr X’s former partner to care for their children. The matters complained of are not separable from those that have been or could be raised during court proceedings concerning the care of the children.
Southampton City Council (22 003 985)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to place her children in to care and related matters. This is because the issues Mrs X raises are not separable from the matters decided in the family court.
Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (21 012 194)
Summary: Mrs K complains the Council failed to provide her daughter (Child A), who has special educational needs, a suitable full-time education when she was out of school. We found evidence that supports that Child A was unable to attend school due to her complex needs, and the Council failed to exercise its legal duty to provide alternative education provision. This caused harm to Child A’s educational development and wellbeing and serious distress and uncertainty to Mrs K. Both Child A and Mrs K have suffered an injustice because of the fault identified and the Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy this.
Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (21 012 506)
Summary: There was delay by the Council in the way it reviewed an Education, Health and Care plan and a failure to provide alternative education when Y’s college placement failed. This caused loss of education, inconvenience, and distress. The Council will apologise, pay a financial remedy, and carry out service improvements to prevent a recurrence of the fault.
Holy Cross & All Saints RC Primary School (22 002 818)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault and so we cannot question the merits of the panel’s decision.
Kent County Council (22 003 017)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the setting named in an Education Health and Care Plan as a Tribunal decided this.
Liverpool City Council (22 003 378)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s administration of its school admission procedure. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.
Staffordshire County Council (21 006 478)
Summary: Ms B says the Council’s criteria for deciding children’s disabled facilities grants is discriminatory and has delayed her access to the process. The Council has recognised its policy could be misleading and needs reviewing. We do not know whether this means it would have dealt with Ms B’s application any differently. When dealing with Ms B’s complaint the Council did not allow sufficient time for Ms B to respond and clarify the complaint summary, but this was resolved at the next stage of the complaint process. To put things right the Council will apologise to Ms B, review its policy and processes, and progress her application without delay.
London Borough of Croydon (21 012 828)
Summary: Mrs X and her husband complained the Council did not properly pay them for missed respite service when they looked after a child as foster carers. The Council was at fault as it failed to provide a respite service to Mrs X and her husband whilst they cared for the child. However, the Council offered to pay Mrs X and her husband £25,200 for the lack of respite service. It also offered to pay them £500 for the time and trouble they went through to complain to the Council. I consider this is an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the fault.
Buckinghamshire Council (21 005 546)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not arrange alternative provision for her son when she removed him from school. There is no fault with how the Council handled Mrs X’s son’s case. We have completed our investigation.
City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (21 008 347)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed in re-assessing her son, Y’s, special educational needs following an annual review of his Education Health and Care plan in June 2021. There were delays in deciding to re-assess, in arranging alternative provision whilst Y was out of school, and in consulting with alternative schools. The Council will apologise, make changes to its processes, and make a payment to remedy the impact of the additional time Y was without education due to the delays.
Central Bedfordshire Council (21 010 722)
Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to provide her son’s special educational provision in line with his Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. She also complained that the Council delayed issuing a final EHC plan after a review. Mrs X said this impacted her son and the wider family and caused her stress. We find the Council at fault for delay issuing the amended EHC plan. This caused injustice. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs X to reflect the injustice caused. We do not find the Council at fault regarding special educational provision.
London Borough of Islington (22 001 481)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions when Mr X fled domestic abuse from his ex-partner in 2016. This is because the events complained of happened too long ago for us to be able to carry out a fair investigation.
Gloucestershire County Council (22 003 202)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about child protection action by the Council. There is not enough evidence of injustice caused by fault to warrant investigation.
Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (22 003 319)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to safeguard the complainant’s son. The complaint is late and there are no grounds to consider it now.
Dorset Council (21 015 318)
Summary: The Council was at fault for delaying both the production of a child’s education, health and care plan, and also the arrangement of alternative provision while she could not attend school. Although the Council has already recognised both points of fault, it should now offer a financial remedy for the injustice this created.
West Berkshire Council (22 002 747)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the schools the Council has considered as possible placements for Ms X’s child and what it has told her about this. The matters complained of are not separable from those which carry a right of appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. It would be reasonable for Ms X to use this right if she is dissatisfied with any school placement named by the Council.
Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (22 003 524)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the school named in an Education Health and Care Plan. This is because the complainant has appealed to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. The complaint is therefore outside our jurisdiction
Essex County Council (22 003 646)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault and so we cannot question the merits of the panel’s decision.
Essex County Council (21 000 724)
Summary: Mr G complains the Council has failed to provide his daughter (Child X) with physiotherapy provision, as required by her Education and Health Care Plan. At this stage, we found the Council has fallen significantly short of providing the provision Child X is entitled to receive by law. Further, the evidence shows a fundamental lack of management and oversight by the Council in relation to securing Child X’s provision. We consider the failings identified have caused both Child X and Mr G a serious injustice. We have therefore made a number of recommendations for the Council to remedy this.
Kent County Council (21 009 688)
Summary: The Council was at fault for the delay in finding Mrs X’s son a suitable school placement and provide him with the provision as outlined in his Education, Health and Care Plan. To remedy the injustice caused by the fault, the Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs X and her son. The Council has also agreed to make a service improvement.
Wakefield City Council (21 011 730)
Summary: There was fault with how the Council reached its decision to refuse Miss X’s request for school transport assistance. This caused Miss X a financial and medical injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy Miss X’s injustice.
Suffolk County Council (21 012 754)
Summary: Mrs F complained the Council delayed finalising her son’s Education, Health and Care plan and delayed providing him with education and specialist provision. We find the Council was at fault for the delay in providing Mrs F’s son with education and specialist provision. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.
Wiltshire Council (21 013 747)
Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of Miss Y, her child, about the way the Council has dealt with her Education, Health and Care plan and educational provision since November 2020. The Council was at fault for the delay in issuing Miss Y’s amended Education, Health and Care plan after the annual review in November 2020. This has caused Ms X distress, uncertainty and put her to avoidable time and trouble. The Council has agreed to the recommendations set out in this decision to remedy the injustice its actions caused to Ms X and Miss Y.
Oxfordshire County Council (21 010 344)
Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the actions of the Council in relation to their role as foster parents. The Council was at fault when it delayed in sourcing new therapeutic support after stopping the existing support. It was also at fault when it failed to clearly explain to Mr and Mrs X the methods they could use to address the children’s behaviour. It has agreed to apologise to Mr and Mrs X, make a symbolic payment of £300 each to acknowledge the distress this caused them and make service improvements.
Torbay Council (21 011 451)
Summary: Mr X complained about the support provided by the Council to his family. The Council has already investigated Mr X’s complaints through the statutory children’s complaints procedure and found there was fault in some of the ways it interacted with the family causing them injustice. There was no fault in the way the Council investigated Mr X’s complaints, or in the recommendations it made as a result to prevent a reoccurrence of those faults or the way these recommendations were actioned to remedy injustice.
London Borough of Bromley (21 013 206)
Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it dealt with Ms B’s concerns about her grandson’s welfare. It considered what she said and took the action it considered necessary to establish whether there was a risk to him.
Cumbria County Council (21 016 960)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed investigating her complaints at stage 2 of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has delayed by eight months in going to stage 2. It should apologise, pay Mrs X £240 and move without further delay to stage 2.
Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (22 003 072)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the reduction in a special guardianship allowance paid to him as there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant this.
Leeds City Council (22 003 141)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s care of the complainant’s children. This is because the complaint relates to matters that have been, or can be, raised in court.
Hampshire County Council (22 003 267)
Summary: The Council was at fault in delaying the consideration of Mr B’s complaint at Stage 2 of the statutory procedure for children’s services complaints. It has agreed to begin Stage 2 and to offer to make a payment to Mr B.
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (22 003 490)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a failure by the Council to take action to assist Ms X’s family when a child was being exploited. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to consider it now.
Hampshire County Council (22 003 590)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to a complaint about the use of false information. This is because any injustice caused to the complainant by the Council’s actions is insufficient to warrant investigation.
London Borough of Lambeth (22 003 666)
Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council is placing her children for adoption. We cannot lawfully investigate court decisions. A court has considered the case and the Council’s plan for the children.
Surrey County Council (21 006 108)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council made false statements about her and behaved unprofessionally during a multi-disciplinary meeting regarding her son Y’s educational needs, failed to provide a suitable alternative education for Y between June 2020 and February 2021 and did not provide social support Y was entitled to during summer holidays. She said the Council’s actions have resulted in financial loss and mental stress for her and her family. There was fault when the Council delayed arranging social care support for Y but this did not cause him a significant injustice.
Plymouth City Council (21 017 441)
Summary: The complainant (Ms X) said the Council failed to provide suitable education for her daughter (B) following her permanent exclusion from the school. She said the lack of full-time education for 18 months affected B’s academic and personal development and had detrimental impact on the whole family. We found fault with the Council’s school consultations, the lack of full-time education for B and with the Council’s Annual Review processes. The Council accepted our recommendations.
Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (22 003 660)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s Schools Admissions Appeal Panel’s failure to provide his child with a place at School Q. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused him to lose out on a school place.
Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (22 003 679)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s Schools Admissions Appeal Panel’s failure to provide his child with a place at School Y. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused him to lose out on a school place.
Suffolk County Council (20 010 859)
Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s actions and final response to a Review Panel’s recommendation following investigation via the statutory complaint procedure. Mr X also complains about a Council staff member he says wrongly gave the police information about his work history and recorded false allegations about him in the family’s social care notes. He complains about the Council’s delay and refusal to deal with his complaint. The Council was at fault for its failure to adhere to the Review Panel’s recommendations and carry out the agreed actions. The Council was also at fault for its delays in handling Mr X’s second complaint. This has caused Mr X distress, frustration and time and trouble chasing the Council for updates. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused to Mr X.
Warrington Council (21 008 433)
Summary: Mr X and Ms Y complained about poor service from the Council’s children’s social care services. The Council upheld their complaints and offered a financial remedy, but Mr X and Ms Y said this was insufficient for the distress caused, the impact on their health and disruption to family life. The Council was at fault. The financial offer made after the stage two investigation was insufficient to remedy the injustice caused. However, it has since increased its financial offer and offered to arrange private therapeutic work for the family. These are appropriate actions. The Council will now offer these directly to Mr X and Ms Y.
Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (22 003 203)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about financial arrangements for children looked after by the Council. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.
Manchester City Council (22 003 544)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council’s children and family assessment, based on a late 2019 interview, contains false information and is unfair to him. There is insufficient injustice, the views in the assessment have been nullified by the outcome of a court case, and Mr X may take his concerns to other bodies.
East Riding of Yorkshire Council (22 003 964)
Summary: We will not investigate how a complaint about a report used in court has been investigated. This is because we have no remit to investigate anything in connection to matters decided in court.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Researching Reform 