These are the latest domestic abuse developments that should be right on your radar:

• UN expert on domestic violence and parental alienation (PA) tells UK courts and others to move away from PA in cases (Report)
• Chief social worker leaves Twitter following weeks of abusive messages
• Police recruits with links to domestic abuse and sex offenders ‘still being appointed’
• Stalkers and domestic abusers to be targeted as millions invested in new intervention projects

Welcome to another week.

The government has launched a consultation asking the public what they think of the state of transparency inside our legal system, and what it can do to make the system more open.

The consultation’s introduction says, “Open justice is a fundamental principle at the very heart of our justice system and vital to the rule of law – justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. Its history and importance in law can be traced back to before the Magna Carta. It is a principle which allows the public to scrutinise and understand the workings of the law, building trust and confidence in our justice system.”

The blurb on the GOV.UK website is far too long, but essentially, there are 65 questions spanning 10 areas: Open justice, court and tribunal listings, accessing courts and tribunals, remote observation and livestreaming, broadcasting, single justice procedure, publication of judgments & sentencing remarks, access to court documents and information, data access and reuse, and public legal education.

As Researching Reform focuses on the family court system and its considerable flaws, we are not interested in the parts of the consultation that seek to feed information to the public with a view to “building trust and confidence in our justice system” as we believe trust should be earned, and are far more concerned with transparency as a means to improve the Family Court and hold it to account.

RR’s initial thoughts include:

• The removal of a presumption in family court hearings that natural parents and children cannot discuss their cases with third parties. The data (judgments, transcripts etc) from the proceedings belongs to the families and there is a strong human rights argument against denying families the ability to discuss their cases with whoever they want, which may also be in violation of existing legislation.
• Powers to report should be taken out of the legal system’s hands and placed in the hands of parties to the case and journalists, in line with open justice principles. Allowing the system to decide access to its own processes does not make access impartial or fair.
• The development and application of a robust test for family law cases whenever a natural parent, child, carer, professional connected to the case, or journalist believes the case should be reported in the news, and makes an application for coverage.
  • The test would place children’s rights at the heart of its framework, to be weighed up against human rights and public interest arguments.
  • Where a natural parent or child whom the case is about does not wish for the proceedings to be published, that request should be put through the above child rights-focused test.
• Family court listings should be placed on a dedicated and easily accessible website, and uploaded in good time ahead of the hearing, with details about the judge sitting that day, the court room number and the time of the hearing. These details should be kept up to date until the hearing starts.
• Transcripts for every family law hearing which is reported on should be placed on a public website, along with the judgment.
• Where permission to report is granted, journalists should be able to have access to every document and piece of evidence in the case.

Responses to the consultation’s questions should be sent to openjusticepolicy@justice.gov.uk, and the consultation itself closes on 7 September, 2023.

You can access the consultation here.

We mentioned previously that recent decisions by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) showed a startling spike in the number of complaints about child protection processes, and this week’s batch is just as surprising.

The complaints include allegations of breaches of the human right to family life, ill-treatment by social workers during child welfare assessments, councils acknowledging fault but failing to offer the required redress, non-recent complaints about a child’s foster carer and complaints about children’s services, to name just a few.

What is particularly interesting about this round of complaints is that they appear to show a growing awareness among natural parents about their rights, and, equally crucially, how assessments and child protection processes are supposed to run.

Potential evidence of this, is in the growing number of submissions by parents that complaints procedures were not properly followed by councils, and that failures to provide information about the threshold for a child in need assessment, as well as lack of clarity in decision making processes, were all breaches of policy and law.

On another note, we have asked the LGSCO team if they might consider grouping their decisions by category (upheld, child protection assessments, carer abuse, family court, SEND, and others) to make them easier to digest, so we will let you know if we get any joy with that request.

On to the decisions:

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.

Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (22 009 666)

Statement Upheld Disabled children 28-Mar-2023

Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to provide information about the threshold for a child in need assessment and has not been clear in its decision making about support for her child. Ms X also complains the Council failed to consider her complaint under stage two. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for failing to carry out its duty under the statutory complaints process. The Council has agreed to commission a stage two investigation and pay Ms X a financial remedy in recognition of the distress caused.

Reading Borough Council (22 002 970)

Statement Upheld Other 28-Mar-2023

Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council considered her complaints about child protection matters through the children’s statutory complaint procedure. Ms X said the process was not conducted properly or impartially and did not include evidence she provided. Ms X further complained the Council did not consistently make reasonable adjustments for her disabilities and refused to consider her complaints about the matters. The Council delayed in completing the statutory complaint procedure. It has already taken action to remedy the injustice this caused. There was no fault in the other matters Ms X complained about.

Trafford Council (21 011 600)

Statement Upheld Other 28-Mar-2023

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of their complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. They said the Council upheld the majority of their complaints at stage two but had not offered a suitable remedy. The Council was at fault. The remedy the Council offered for the upheld parts of the complaint was insufficient. During our investigation, it revised its position and has now offered Mr and Mrs X £2500 as a remedy for the injustice caused. This is an appropriate offer and in line with our guidance on remedies. It will now make this offer to Mr and Mrs X.

Sunderland City Council (22 016 923)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 28-Mar-2023

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to a Subject Access Request. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed than the Ombudsman to consider the matter.

Manchester City Council (22 016 145)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 28-Mar-2023

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council safeguarded his child, Y. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify investigating, nor could we achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Hampshire County Council (22 016 274)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 28-Mar-2023

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s investigation of Mr X complaints. This is because we will not investigate the substantive matters complained of to the Council. These substantive matters are ones where we could not achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking, or Mr X has a right to go to court it would be reasonable to use, or where another body is better placed than us to consider them.

Bracknell Forest Council (21 018 098)

Statement Not upheld Child protection 27-Mar-2023

Summary: Mrs B complains about how the Council dealt with safeguarding issues of members of her family. There was no fault by the Council.

Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (22 012 830)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 27-Mar-2023

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the content of the Council’s files relating to the complainant’s family. This is because we would achieve nothing significant by doing so.

Hertfordshire County Council (22 016 486)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 27-Mar-2023

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about children services’ actions. There are no good reasons the late complaint rule should not apply.

London Borough of Islington (22 017 319)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 27-Mar-2023

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a complaint about the care and contact arrangements of the complainants children. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in how it dealt with the complaint and the matter is subject to court proceedings.

Bracknell Forest Council (22 016 167)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Adoption 27-Mar-2023

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to properly investigate Mrs X’s complaint about her adoptive children’s former foster carers. This is because we would be unlikely to provide a different outcome for Mrs X.

St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (22 016 365)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 27-Mar-2023

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to provide the complainant with appropriate help. This is because investigation would not achieve anything significant.

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (22 015 684)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 26-Mar-2023

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s child protection involvement with her family in the late 1980’s. This is because there is no realistic prospect of us being able to carry out an effective investigation now, 35 years on from the matters complained about.

Norfolk County Council (22 009 655)

Statement Not upheld Disabled children 26-Mar-2023

Summary: Ms X complained the Council reduced a package of care which is in place to support her to look after her children, causing her distress. There was no fault by the Council.

Norfolk County Council (22 006 369)

Statement Not upheld Disabled children 26-Mar-2023

Summary: Ms X complained the Council reduced a package of care which is in place to support her to look after her children, causing her distress. There was no fault by the Council.

Surrey County Council (22 008 651)

Statement Upheld Child protection 26-Mar-2023

Summary: Mr X complained about the actions of the Council during a child protection investigation and assessment. Part of his complaint was upheld during the Council’s statutory complaints procedure. We have not found fault with how the Council considered his complaint. We found no further fault in its handling of the child protection investigation and are satisfied the Council’s remedy was proportionate and in line with our Remedies Guidance.

Reading Borough Council (21 015 447)

Statement Upheld Other 26-Mar-2023

Summary: Mr D complains about a Council led child protection assessment concerning his daughter (Child X). He says the assessment report was biased towards him which flawed the process and the Council’s findings. In addition, Mr D says the Council failed to consider concerns he had about Child X’s welfare. We found fault by the Council due to the way it categorised Mr D without evidence and verifying information using available sources. We do not consider this affected the child protection outcome, but the way the assessment was carried out meant Mr D was treated unfavourably. This caused him serious distress and upset. We made recommendations for the Council to remedy the injustice and the Council has agreed to these.

Trafford Council (22 016 561)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 26-Mar-2023

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the content of an assessment and a court report written by the Council. The matters complained of are not separable from the conduct of court proceedings.

Cheshire West & Chester Council (22 016 807)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 26-Mar-2023

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council’s actions have denied the complainant and his children their right to family life. This is because the key decisions were made in court and do not fall to the Ombudsman to consider.

Norfolk County Council (22 016 316)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Fostering 26-Mar-2023

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a future reduction in fostering payments to Mrs X. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

Bristol City Council (22 016 564)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 24-Mar-2023

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in the statutory procedure for complaints about children’s services. This is because investigation could not ascertain the extent of any fault on the Council’s part.

North East Lincolnshire Council (22 015 986)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Fostering 23-Mar-2023

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the accuracy of Council reports. We could not achieve a significantly different outcome than has already been offered.

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (22 015 232)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 23-Mar-2023

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council’s children’s services after a foster placement was ended and a safeguarding referral was received about the complainant. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, other bodies are better placed to deal with the complaint and the complainant does not have consent to complain on behalf of the children about any injustice they have suffered.

London Borough of Hounslow (22 013 750)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 23-Mar-2023

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement with Miss X’s children. The law prevents us from investigating matters that have been before the courts, and we could not achieve the outcome Miss X seeks.

Northumberland County Council (22 015 846)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 22-Mar-2023

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council’s children’s services. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to suspend its complaint investigation until proceedings have concluded.

Shropshire Council (22 014 871)

Statement Upheld Other 22-Mar-2023

Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council was at fault in delaying its response under the statutory process for complaints about children’s services. The Council has agreed to resolve the matter by providing a suitable remedy for the injustice the complainant has been caused.

Kingston Upon Hull City Council (22 016 963)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 22-Mar-2023

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Coucnil’s involvement with Mr X’s children. The law prevents us considering matters that have been before the courts.

Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (22 016 317)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Fostering 22-Mar-2023

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about support in fostering and fostering payments before 2020. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise the discretion available to investigate these matters now.

Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (22 007 792)

Statement Upheld Special educational needs 28-Mar-2023

Summary: Miss C complained that after 2020 the Council failed to update her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan following annual reviews. We find the Council at fault for this failure and for a delay in answering her complaint. We consider these faults caused Miss C distress and caused her unnecessary time and trouble. The Council accepts these findings. At the end of this statement, we set out the action it has agreed to take to remedy that injustice and improve its services.

Sunderland City Council (22 012 549)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Special educational needs 28-Mar-2023

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that special educational needs provision for the complainants’ children is not being met. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (22 016 918)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Special educational needs 28-Mar-2023

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to explain its decision to name a mainstream school in the complainant’s son’s Education Health and Care Plan. This is because she has used her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and this places the matter outside our jurisdiction.

Hertfordshire County Council (22 016 294)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Special educational needs 28-Mar-2023

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council carried out an assessment of a child’s special educational needs. This is because the outcome of the assessment can be appealed to a tribunal, and it is not possible to assess any injustice caused by delay in completing the assessment until the outcome of any appeal is known.

Staffordshire County Council (22 011 070)

Statement Upheld School transport 27-Mar-2023

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s refusal to backdate an increase to her personal travel budget (“PTB”), used to take her child to school. Miss X said she struggled financially and suffered distress. We found fault in the Council’s decision making. We recommended the Council provides Miss X with an apology, pays £100 for time and trouble, pays £100 for distress, backdates the increase in her PTB to 12 July 2022 and acts to improve its services.

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (22 003 031)

Statement Upheld Special educational needs 27-Mar-2023

Summary: Miss X complained about a lack of support for her son, Mr Y’s, special educational needs. There was fault in how the Council reviewed Mr Y’s Education Health and Care plan and failed to arrange suitable alternative education after he was permanently excluded from school. The Council agreed to pay an improved financial remedy, review its practices and share learning from this complaint.

Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (22 006 728)

Statement Not upheld Special educational needs 27-Mar-2023

Summary: Mrs Y complained about the Council’s delay in issuing her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan. We have discontinued our investigation into the complaint. This is because the substantive issues in this complaint have already been investigated, considered and decided by us in a previous complaint.

Leicestershire County Council (21 017 031)

Statement Upheld Special educational needs 27-Mar-2023

Summary: We upheld some of Mr and Mrs X’s complaints. There was a failure to ensure Mr Y had suitable alternative education when he was too unwell to attend school, a delay in issuing his Education, Health and Care plan following an appeal and a resulting loss of education provision. The Council will apologise, make payments described in this statement and arrange catch-up provision.

Thurrock Council (22 009 007)

Statement Upheld Special educational needs 27-Mar-2023

Summary: Mrs B says the Council unreasonably refused to pay her son’s personal budget specified in his education, health and care plan despite the fact she provided all the information the Council asked for. The Council did not provide Mrs B with clear information about the evidence required to support any payments and delayed making payments. An apology, payment to Mrs B, drawing up a personal budget agreement and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

Leicester City Council (22 016 434)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Special educational needs 27-Mar-2023

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan for her child. She says because of this decision, her child missed out on a year of support. This is because it is out of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as Miss X appealed to the SEND Tribunal and the claimed injustice flows from the substantive matter considered by the Tribunal.

Hertfordshire County Council (22 016 891)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Special educational needs 27-Mar-2023

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about fault in the process of an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment. This is because the complainant has the right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) against the outcome of the Assessment and it would be reasonable for her to do so.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (22 016 306)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 27-Mar-2023

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council’s Children’s Social Care assessment was flawed as it failed to properly consider parental alienation. The assessment was considered as part of court proceedings therefore we have no jurisdiction to investigate.

St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (22 015 947)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Alternative provision 26-Mar-2023

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the special educational needs provision for the complainant’s daughter. This is because the complainant has used her right of appeal to a tribunal. This means the complaint is outside our jurisdiction.

Cambridgeshire County Council (22 015 109)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Special educational needs 26-Mar-2023

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the complainant appealed to a tribunal which places the matter outside our jurisdiction.

Dorset Council (22 007 818)

Statement Upheld Special educational needs 26-Mar-2023

Summary: Miss X complained that the Council failed to provide her son with full-time education when his educational setting could no longer offer him a place. Miss X said this meant her son missed education, and caused financial hardship and unnecessary distress. We find the Council at fault, and this caused injustice. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Miss X to reflect the injustice caused.

Shropshire Council (22 008 609)

Statement Upheld Alternative provision 26-Mar-2023

Summary: Mrs B complained the Council has failed to provide her daughter with any alternative provision since she has been unable to attend school for medical reasons. We find no fault with the Council’s decision not to provide Mrs B’s daughter with alternative provision. However, it was at fault for its communication with Mrs B and its complaints handling. The Council has agreed to our recommendation to apologise to Mrs B for her injustice.

London Borough of Croydon (22 008 928)

Statement Not upheld Alternative provision 26-Mar-2023

Summary: Mrs Y complained the Council failed to provide her son, who was being educated at home, with alternative provision. We have not found fault by the Council regarding its response to Mrs Y’s request it make alternative provision for her son.

Somerset County Council (22 011 904)

Statement Upheld School transport 26-Mar-2023

Summary: Miss X complained the Council will not provide transport for her child to attend their chosen preschool. Miss X says the Council has not considered her child’s needs or the individual circumstances when deciding whether to use its discretionary powers. We found fault with the Council for fettering its discretion by failing to log Miss X’s application. The Council agreed to consider Miss X’s discretionary application for travel assistance. The Council also agreed to updates its policy to amend the wording about the Statutory Guidance.

North Yorkshire County Council (22 016 800)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Special educational needs 26-Mar-2023

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in the complainant’s son’s Education Health and Care Needs Assessment. The complaint is late and there are no grounds to investigate it now.

Kent County Council (22 017 149)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries School admissions 26-Mar-2023

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Hertfordshire County Council (22 010 233)

Statement Upheld Special educational needs 24-Mar-2023

Summary: The complainant (Ms X) said the Council failed to provide education to her son (Y) who was permanently excluded from his school in line with his Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP). She said the Council’s communication with her was unsatisfactory and the Council failed to address her request for Y’s needs re-assessment. We found fault with the Council within all the issues raised in this complaint. We also found fault with the Council for its failure to carry out Annual Reviews of Y’s EHCP. These faults caused Ms X injustice. The Council agreed to apologise, make payments for Ms X, carry out a review of Y’s EHCP and provide us with the details of its monitoring system for Annual Reviews of children who are out of school.

Bristol City Council (22 006 597)

Statement Upheld Special educational needs 24-Mar-2023

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to deliver the provision as set out in her son, Mr D’s, Education, Health, and Care Plan. Ms X also said the Council failed to properly consider her direct payment application and failed to communicate properly with her. The Council was at fault for failing to provide Mr D with his entitled provision. This caused Mr D to miss out on his entitled provision and caused Ms X distress, frustration and put her to the time and trouble of complaining. We also find fault with the Council for failing to adhere to its complaint timetable, however we are satisfied the Council has already remedied any injustice. We do not find fault with how the Council considered Ms X’s application or review for direct payments or how it communicated with her. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused.

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (22 007 670)

Statement Upheld Special educational needs 24-Mar-2023

Summary: We found fault by the Council on Mr M’s complaint about its failure to provide his son with suitable alternative education provision following his permanent exclusion in June 2021. It failed to communicate properly with him, show how it assessed his needs when allocating a placement, consider and assess different options, and review provision. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

London Borough of Ealing (22 013 646)

Statement Upheld School transport 24-Mar-2023

Summary: Ms X says the Council did not properly consider her appeal for school transport assistance. We have found the Council at fault for the way it considered Ms X’s appeal. We have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (22 015 967)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 23-Mar-2023

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s conduct when it investigated non-attendance at school. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

London Borough of Southwark (22 016 010)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Special educational needs 23-Mar-2023

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with concerns that a child is not receiving the provision detailed in their Education Health and Care plan. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Kent County Council (22 015 765)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 23-Mar-2023

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to hold a separate Child Protection Conference for Miss X and her ex-partner. The Council has already accepted it was at fault and agreed separate review meetings. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Surrey County Council (22 010 168)

Statement Upheld Alternative provision 23-Mar-2023

Summary: There was fault by the Council in failing to provide suitable fulltime education when a child was unable to attend school due to medical needs. This caused the child to miss out on education and caused the parent carer unnecessary inconvenience and distress. The Council will apologise and make a payment of £3900 to acknowledge the injustice caused.

London Borough of Bromley (22 000 414)

Statement Upheld Special educational needs 23-Mar-2023

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has failed to provide outreach support for her son Y, as specified in his EHCP. We have concluded our investigation having made a finding of fault by the Council. Although the Council did allocate direct payments when there was no agency support in place, we have not been able to substantiate that sufficient support was in place all the time. Further, the Council has not kept clear and accurate records which has contributed to confusion and uncertainty in this complaint. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

Northumberland County Council (22 016 234)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries School transport 23-Mar-2023

Summary: We will not investigate the Council’s alleged removal of a local school from its catchment area by postcode dataset. This is because we would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions. In addition, Mrs X has not suffered a personal injustice due to this matter.

Isle of Wight Council (22 016 361)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Special educational needs 23-Mar-2023

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the evidence an officer gave a Tribunal. We cannot investigate matters which formed part of a Tribunal.

Dorset Council (22 003 137)

Statement Upheld Special educational needs 22-Mar-2023

Summary: Ms B complained the Council did not provide her son with alternative provision when he stopped attending school and delayed issuing his education, health and care plan. Ms B says this led to C being without suitable education provision. The Council was at fault delays securing alternative provision, issuing C’s education and health plan, and securing a suitable education placement. These faults caused C significant injustice as he missed over a year of education. The Council will make a financial payment to remedy this injustice and make service improvements.

Leicester City Council (22 007 433)

Statement Upheld Special educational needs 22-Mar-2023

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed contacting specialist schools and naming a specialist school for Child A in his Education Health and Care Plan. Ms X said this meant Child A did not have an appropriate setting for the start of the new school year. The Council was at fault for delays between February and April 2022 when it was consulting specialist schools. This meant Child A did not have a school place or the provision in their plan between September and mid-October 2022 which was fault. The Council will apologise and pay Ms X £300 to recognise the injustice caused by the lack of provision.

North Somerset Council (21 009 063)

Statement Upheld Special educational needs 22-Mar-2023

Summary: Mr and Mrs Y complain the Council failed to provide suitable educational provision for their son, X. We did not find the Council at fault because Mr and Mrs Y were home educating X. We found the Council failed to correctly carry out an annual review meeting, which caused Mr and Mrs Y an injustice. To remedy this, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr and Mrs Y, make them a payment and carry out a service improvement.

Norfolk County Council (21 009 566)

Statement Upheld Special educational needs 22-Mar-2023

Summary: Mr F complains about the Council’s delay in completing an Education, Health and Care plan for his son. He also complains about a delay finding a special school and poor communications from the Council’s officers. The Ombudsman upholds the complaint. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

Reading Borough Council (22 016 270)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries School transport 22-Mar-2023

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council stopping home to school transport for her daughter. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault with the way the Council considered and made its decision.

Bristol City Council (22 016 420)

Statement Upheld Special educational needs 22-Mar-2023

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about delays in the Education, Health, and Care needs assessment process. She says the Council delayed in issuing her child’s final EHC plan. This is because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome as the Council has already provided an appropriate remedy.

You can access the decisions in full here.

These are the latest forced adoption items that should be right on your radar:

• Victims of forced adoption step up pressure for UK government apology
• Accessing your birth records
• What Happens To Original Birth Certificate After Adoption?

A new judgment outlines a refined test for getting permission to oppose adoption orders, and also requires local authorities to organise transcripts of judgments in placement order proceedings for all the parties to the case, and to pay for the transcripts, whenever a Placement Order or Care Order is made.

The reason for requiring a local authority to get these transcripts and share them with the children, natural families and adoptive families in these cases is, at long last, recognition that childhood is a decades-long process in which orders may need to be revisited, revised, and even set aside.

Ensuring that carers and children have a written record of exactly what was said is crucial.

The new wording for permission to challenge an adoption order is also better. The test is in two parts:

• Has there been a change of circumstances?
• Taking account of all the circumstances and giving paramount consideration to the child’s lifelong welfare, should the court revisit the plan for adoption that it approved when making the placement order?

The Court of Appeal also rejects an earlier judgment which calls for parents to prove that the change in circumstances must be unexpected or unforeseen, which removes an unnecessary burden on families wanting to oppose an adoption order.

This is what the judgment says on this point:

“In the context of [the Children Act 2002] the Act, there is no reason whatever to raise the bar by burdening parents with the additional obligation of showing that the changes they rely upon were unexpected or, put another way, to deprive them of the opportunity to rely on changes that were foreseen or foreseeable.”

The government has also made changes to legal aid, which allow more parents to get legal representation when they challenge placement and adoption orders. Those changes took effect in March, and include new forms of acceptable evidence for victims and survivors of domestic abuse.

Legal aid has also been extended to more people applying for Special Guardianship Orders through the courts.

We also like to make a note of which barristers and solicitors represent natural parents in cases like these, as we know families are always looking for lawyers who will fight their corner. The barristers representing the mother in this case were Rebecca Foulkes and Frankie Shama both at 4PB, instructed by solicitors’ firm Dawson Cornwell.

Many thanks to Tum Mum for alerting us to the judgment.

Useful links:

• Judgment, 18 April, 2023: M (A Child: Leave to Oppose Adoption)
• Means free legal aid features in family rules changes
• Lord Chancellor’s guidance on the new legal aid measures

These are the latest child sexual abuse stories that should be right on your radar:

• Archdiocese of Toronto threatens sexual abuse accuser in legal defence (Canada)
• Secrets in the suitcase that still haunt Anglican church sexual abuse survivor Beth Heinrich (Australia)
• Diocese of Oakland files for bankruptcy after over 330 child sexual abuse lawsuits (US)

Researching Reform believes it is important to raise awareness about child maltreatment by supporting those who have experienced this form of abuse to share their experiences. One of the ways we do this is by showcasing art and literature created by these individuals.

Our image of the month offers a platform for children, women and men who want to express their experiences through artistic mediums, and share those experiences with the outside world. The art is transformed into the website’s page header for a month, and includes an introductory post about the artist, and their creation.

We are very fortunate to be able to feature the work of Paul Brian Tovey, who is currently Researching Reform’s Artist In Residence.

Paul is an adult adoptee whose adoptive parents physically, verbally and sexually abused him in childhood. His work reflects the impact this maltreatment has had on his mental health and his physical health, as a child and as an adult.

Paul now campaigns for adoptees to have the legal right to revert back to their birth identities.

This painting is titled, “The sky of many moons.” It highlights Paul’s feelings about the loss of his natural mother.

Paul shared a poem with Researching Reform about this piece:

1957 May. Backwards Time Diary:

May is a mother bomb on my personal backward time Tarot

It is the place of the last fight on Dad, and mother’s railway arrow

It is the flash sun lights and banging rails as towns and country pass

It is me on my Hobbyhorse of course playing out Adoption’s coming mass

It is the future of that broken child in vast poetries woken at last

It is me waking up from the Court’s black shock and legal anesthetic gas

It is also a place where Paris therapist’s empathies came to lend a hand

It is a restoring of tears and events past a post-traumatic razor land

It is my my father, my mother , my loves and losses taking a stand

It is my howling of hearts and parts and bringing it safely to tales

It is where I hold hands with all persecuted types and Christian’s nails

I will only bring you a child’s truth and live in the personal skin of it

This is my May happy dog, stationary horse , my last bucket kit

This is brokenness for all my kind living on instability blood tipped

A Breakspeare of tears and a hand for loss where tragedy has ripped

These are the latest child welfare items that should be right on your radar:

• Family members taking on vulnerable children to receive better legal support
• Legal aid widened but grandparents ‘will fall through justice gap’
• Government’s family justice system page

Welcome to another, slightly shorter, week.

These are the forced adoption stories that should be right on your radar:

• Abusive orphanages and forced adoption: delving into past child welfare practices that haunt the present
• This Person Wonders What They Owe Their Former Adoptive Mother. The Internet Responds
• Committee Corridor podcast: Forced adoption from the 1940s to 1970s (Spotify)

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.

The latest round of decisions about child welfare complaints submitted by parents shows a sharp rise in the number of concerns about child protection investigations, and the family court process that often accompanies them.

While the ombudsman is typically unable to consider complaints where a court has become involved, and despite Researching Reform explaining in previous posts that the ombudsman is powerless to investigate such complaints, this has not stopped parents and family members from raising their concerns with the ombudsman. The likely reason for this is that desperate families have nowhere else to turn.

Cases featured in this week’s published decisions include allegations of falsified information during child protection proceedings, failures by local authorities to comply with the Children Act, concerns about letterbox contact, children’s social work assessments, so-called evidence given in court, allegations of negligent advice by councils and data breaches, social workers’ actions which were viewed as degrading, and much, much more.

This is an extract from one of the decisions:

“The complainant (Miss X) said the Council failed in its support for her and her children who are in care. She complained about frequent changes of her children’s social workers, unsatisfactory communication and conditions of the contact centre for her meetings with the children. We found fault with the Council for refusing to consider Miss X’s complaint through its children’s statutory complaint procedure. This caused Miss X injustice. The Council agreed to apologise and consider Miss X’s complaint under its children’s statutory complaint procedure. The Council also agreed to provide its staff dealing with the children’s services complaints with a learning bulletin, highlighting Miss X’s experience.”

However, a large portion of the cases featured SEND provision concerns, which has been a running theme throughout the ombudsman’s complaints in recent years.

While the ombudsman acknowledges that many of the child protection complaints have to be dealt with in court, it has not yet addressed the live issue of why families continue to seek the watchdog’s help, both during and after these court proceedings.

The ombudsman therefore, would do well to seek to extend its powers so that it is able to review complaints set within family court proceedings.

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.

• Gloucestershire County Council (22 016 039)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 14-Mar-2023Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to take proper account of the complainant’s circumstances and used false information during child protection action. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome she is seeking.

• North Northamptonshire Council (22 015 067)Statement Upheld Other 14-Mar-2023Summary: We uphold Mrs X’s complaint the Council has failed to comply with the Children Act statutory complaints’ procedure. The Council has now agreed to do so.

• Lancashire County Council (22 007 680)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Looked after children 14-Mar-2023Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint that he has not been allowed contact with his two children since 2014, because it lies outside our jurisdiction. This is because these decisions were made by the courts. We have no discretion to consider it. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to consider his complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.
• Warrington Council (22 015 874)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 13-Mar-2023Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about support and services the Council has provided to the complainant’s son. The complaint is late and there are no grounds for us to consider it now.
• Wakefield City Council (22 015 642)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 13-Mar-2023Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about letterbox contact. This is because the complaint is late and the arrangements complained about were made in court. The matter is therefore outside our jurisdiction.
• Hartlepool Borough Council (22 016 035)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 13-Mar-2023Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker. These matters are not separable from matters Mr X has or had a right to raise during an ongoing court process. We cannot investigate matters that formed part of a court process.
• Suffolk County Council (22 016 087)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 13-Mar-2023Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a children’s social work assessment in 2021. Mr X’s concerns are best considered in the family courts.
• Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (22 014 944)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 13-Mar-2023Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the actions of a social worker. There is no good reason to exercise the discretion available to investigate the matter now.
• Cornwall Council (22 015 640)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Looked after children 10-Mar-2023Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions concerning Mrs X’s family’s data and evidence it provided to or gave in court. The matters complained are not separable from court action.
• Surrey County Council (22 016 012)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 10-Mar-2023Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about bad advice Mr X says the Council gave him. This matter is not separable from matters that formed part of court proceedings.
• Swindon Borough Council (22 016 203)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 10-Mar-2023Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement with Mr X’s children. The law prevents us from investigating matters that are before the courts.
• Derbyshire County Council (22 016 225)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 10-Mar-2023Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in connection with court proceedings, or matters the complainant could reasonably have raised in court, or which are not separable from those matters, because the law says we cannot do so.
• Kent County Council (22 015 227)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 10-Mar-2023Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to accept her complaint because she does not have parental responsibility for the child concerned. Mrs X’s complaint about a data breach is best considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office.
• London Borough of Wandsworth (22 014 929)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Looked after children 10-Mar-2023Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about data sharing. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed.
• London Borough of Lambeth (22 015 286)Statement Upheld Other 10-Mar-2023Summary: The Council failed to complete the actions agreed following an earlier Ombudsman investigation within the agreed timescales. The Council will pay Miss X £150 to recognise the further injustice caused to her.
• Essex County Council (22 006 917)Statement Upheld Disabled children 10-Mar-2023Summary: Ms X complains that the Council failed to carry out a parent carer’s needs assessment properly. We find that the analysis in the assessment was flawed. But as the problem was remedied in a later assessment which came to the same conclusion, we could not say the fault affected the outcome. The Council has agreed to apologise and demonstrate how it has addressed problems with its complaint handling.
• Kingston Upon Hull City Council (22 013 086)Statement Upheld Other 09-Mar-2023Summary: The complainant (Miss X) said the Council failed in its support for her and her children who are in care. She complained about frequent changes of her children’s social workers, unsatisfactory communication and conditions of the contact centre for her meetings with the children. We found fault with the Council for refusing to consider Miss X’s complaint through its children’s statutory complaint procedure. This caused Miss X injustice. The Council agreed to apologise and consider Miss X’s complaint under its children’s statutory complaint procedure. The Council also agreed to provide its staff dealing with the children’s services complaints with a learning bulletin, highlighting Miss X’s experience.
• Staffordshire County Council (22 015 753)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 09-Mar-2023Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the production and accuracy of a social work assessment. This is because our intervention would achieve nothing significant.
• Bracknell Forest Council (22 015 802)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 09-Mar-2023Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s view that the complainant’s contact with his partner’s children should be supervised. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.
• Kent County Council (22 015 811)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 09-Mar-2023Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s safeguarding involvement with his children. The law prevents us from considering matters considered during court proceedings.
• London Borough of Croydon (22 015 833)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Looked after children 09-Mar-2023Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not completing agreed actions after a historic complaint. The matter complained of is late and there is no good reason to investigate it now. Even if that were not the case, the Information Commissioner’s Office would be better placed than us to consider matters of data accuracy and disclosure.
• Buckinghamshire Council (22 015 539)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 09-Mar-2023Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about a court report and what happened in court because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that are being, or have been, considered in court. We have no discretion to do so.
• London Borough of Wandsworth (22 015 595)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 09-Mar-2023Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an investigation carried out by the Council into allegations made by Mrs X’s child Y. This is because we would be unlikely to provide a worthwhile outcome for Mrs X.
• Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (22 015 695)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 08-Mar-2023Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council staff interviewing the complainant at her place of work and causing her to feel distressed and humiliated. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The complaint has been made late to us outside of our usual 12-month time period for accepting complaints. And, I have seen no evidence the complainant could not have complained to us earlier.
• London Borough of Bromley (22 015 708)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 08-Mar-2023Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alleged breach of confidentiality. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed than the Ombudsman to consider the matter.
• Dorset Council (22 015 543)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 08-Mar-2023Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about historic events involving the Council’s children’s services team. It is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response or achieve the outcome the complainant would like.
• Leeds City Council (22 010 011)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 08-Mar-2023Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker in connection with the care of the complainant’s children. This is because those actions concern matters which the Court will decide.
• Bristol City Council (22 012 520)Statement Not upheld Special educational needs 14-Mar-2023Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not apply the correct legal test when it named two schools on an Education, Health and Care plan, with the parental choice named on the basis parents were responsible for transport costs. We have discontinued our investigation. Ms X has used a right of appeal to Tribunal about the same matter therefore the Ombudsman has no discretion to investigate.
• Kent County Council (22 015 528)Statement Closed after initial enquiries School transport 14-Mar-2023Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide Mrs X’s son with free transport to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
• Peterborough City Council (22 008 825)Statement Upheld Special educational needs 14-Mar-2023Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s actions when he asked it to refer his son, D, for an assessment for autism. The Council was not the body responsible for making this decision. However, the Council was at fault because it did not consider a request from Mr X for an Education Health and Care needs assessment for D. This caused avoidable distress to the family, for which the Council agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy. It will also consider Mr X’s request for an Education Health and Care needs assessment for D without delay and issue guidance to its staff.
• Hertfordshire County Council (22 010 303)Statement Upheld Special educational needs 13-Mar-2023Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed in issuing a final Education, Health, and Care Plan for her daughter after an annual review, with further delay by the Council in finalising decisions for an Education Otherwise Than At School package. We have found fault by the Council with its failure to adhere to statutory timescales and deliver provision in line with its legal duty. The Council has agreed to our recommendations for an apology and financial payment to remedy the injustice caused.
• East Riding of Yorkshire Council (22 012 717)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Special educational needs 13-Mar-2023Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about an officer’s actions as they flow from a complaint about education provided in a school.
• Staffordshire County Council (22 015 692)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Special educational needs 13-Mar-2023Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to carry out an assessment of a child’s special educational needs. This is because the complainant has used her right of appeal to a tribunal which places the matter outside of our jurisdiction.
• St Aloysius RC College (22 016 378)Statement Closed after initial enquiries School admissions 13-Mar-2023Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.
• Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (22 004 891)Statement Upheld Special educational needs 13-Mar-2023Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to provide the provision set out in her daughter’s Education, Health and Care plan, failed to provide any education when her daughter was out of school, and ignored her complaints. Mrs X said this caused her stress, and meant her daughter missed out on education. We find the Council at fault for failing to have proper oversight of the alternative provision, but this did not cause injustice. We find the Council at fault for failing to respond to a complaint, and this caused injustice. The Council has apologised and has agreed to make a payment to Mrs X to remedy the injustice caused.
• Suffolk County Council (22 006 583)Statement Upheld Special educational needs 13-Mar-2023Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide her son, Child Y a place at an appropriate school to meet his needs and delayed issuing his amended Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan following an annual review in January 2022. The Council was at fault for the delay in issuing Child Y’s EHC plan following an annual review. The Council will pay Miss X £200 for the uncertainty and frustration caused by the delay. Miss X had a right of appeal to the tribunal over Child Y’s school place. The Council has already apologised to Miss X for poor communication which was appropriate.
• Suffolk County Council (22 009 178)Statement Upheld Special educational needs 13-Mar-2023Summary: Mrs C complained the Council failed to secure a suitable school for her daughter, D, to attend from September 2022, and delayed putting alternative provision in place. She also complained the Council did not issue a final education, health and care plan, frustrating her right of appeal, and its communication was poor. We found the Council at fault for delays finalising D’s education, health, and care plan, and securing alternative provision. Because of the Council’s faults, D missed education and education health and care provision, and Mrs C’s rights of appeal to the SEND tribunal were frustrated.
• Cambridgeshire County Council (22 010 180)Statement Not upheld Special educational needs 13-Mar-2023Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s actions in relation to her son, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. We will end this investigation. Part of the complaint is late, and we cannot investigate the actions of schools or issues that have been considered by a Tribunal. The only part we could investigate relates to how the Council conducted an EHC plan annual review. However, the Council has already upheld this part of Ms X’s complaint and offered an appropriate remedy. There is nothing more that could be achieved by further investigation.
• Hartlepool Borough Council (22 012 514)Statement Not upheld School transport 10-Mar-2023Summary: there is no fault in the Council’s decision to refuse Mr F’s application for school transport. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions made without fault.
• St. Thomas More RC Primary School (22 013 714)Statement Not upheld School admissions 10-Mar-2023Summary: there is no fault in the school’s decision to refuse Mr and Mrs P’s request for deferred entry to reception for their children when they start school in September 2024.
• Manchester City Council (22 015 405)Statement Upheld School transport 10-Mar-2023Summary: There was fault in the way the Council reconsidered a transport application made on the grounds of special educational needs / mobility need following a previous Ombudsman decision. This was a repeat of the previous fault and represents non-compliance with an Ombudsman remedy. The complaint is upheld. The Council will apologise, make a further remedy payment, seek further evidence (including carrying out a face-to-face assessment if necessary) and make a fresh decision.
• London Borough of Lambeth (22 008 234)Statement Upheld Special educational needs 10-Mar-2023Summary: The Council avoidably delayed producing an Education Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) for Mr X’s child, Z. Its communication and complaint handling was also poor in this case. These faults caused frustration and uncertainty to Mr X and Z. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Mr X £300 and carry out several service improvements to recognise the injustice caused.
• Birmingham City Council (22 008 408)Statement Upheld Special educational needs 10-Mar-2023Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide her son, F with Education otherwise than at school (EOTAS) provision in line with his Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan following orders from the SEND tribunal in May 2022 and delayed agreeing a personal budget. The Council was at fault. It did not have a plan to start providing F with EOTAS provision following the tribunal orders and delayed agreeing a personal budget until November 2022. It meant F did not start receiving provision until January 2023. The Council has agreed to backdate F’s personal budget payments to June 2023 and pay Ms X £500 to acknowledge the distress and time and trouble caused.
• Swindon Borough Council (22 008 980)Statement Upheld School transport 10-Mar-2023Summary: the Council was wrong to end Mrs M’s daughter G’s taxis to college at the end of the summer term in 2022. The Council should arrange taxis again and refund the money Mrs M has paid for taxis since the beginning of September.
• Surrey County Council (22 009 496)Statement Upheld Alternative provision 10-Mar-2023Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council failed to provide her son, C, with alternative provision when he was absent from school between December 2021 and June 2022. The Council failed to provide alternative provision. The Council will take action to prevent the fault reoccurring and make payments to recognise the loss of education and financial loss incurred.
• East Riding of Yorkshire Council (22 010 107)Statement Upheld Special educational needs 10-Mar-2023Summary: Mrs M complains her son B did not receive adequate support when he started college in September 2021. There was a delay amending his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan following the annual review in January 2022, and he did not receive any speech and language input for the whole of his first year. I have recommended a remedy for the injustice this caused.
• Cumbria County Council (22 011 736)Statement Not upheld School transport 09-Mar-2023Summary: There was no fault in how the Council made its decision on school transport provision for Miss X’s child. It did so in line with its policy and there is no evidence of fault in how it approached this decision or how it considered Miss X’s appeal.
• Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (22 013 106)Statement Upheld Special educational needs 09-Mar-2023Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed completing an Education Health and Care Plan for his son, Y and was poor in communications, resulting in missed provision and distress. We found the Council at fault. We recommended it pay Mr X £300 for time and trouble; £750 for distress; £2700 for missed provision and act to prevent recurrence.
• Kent County Council (22 006 174)Statement Upheld Special educational needs 09-Mar-2023Summary: Miss Y complained about the way the Council dealt with Z’s special educational needs. She said it failed carry out annual reviews and a phase transfer review. It failed to provide a suitable placement for Z and appropriate support for his transfer to, and at the placement. We have found fault by the Council in failing to properly complete the phase transfer review and carry out annual reviews over a four-year period, causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising to Miss Y and Z, making payments to acknowledge their lost opportunity to have their views and concerns considered, and reflect the uncertainty, worry and upset caused. The Council has also agreed to report back to us about the outcome of the recent annual review meeting and carry out service improvements.
• London Borough of Lambeth (22 013 520)Statement Closed after initial enquiries Special educational needs 08-Mar-2023Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council refused the complainants request for further education for her son who has special educational needs. This is because the decision carried a right of appeal to a tribunal, which was reasonable for the complainant to have used. Furthermore, the complaint is made late, and I see no good reason to exercise discretion and investigate it now.
• North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (22 002 640)Statement Upheld Special educational needs 08-Mar-2023Summary: The Council was at fault for the delay in issuing Mr X’s son’s Education Health and Care Plan. The Council has agreed to remedy Mr X avoidable distress caused by the delay.
• Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (22 002 824)Statement Upheld School admissions 08-Mar-2023Summary: The complainant alleged that the Council failed to act properly when her daughter was out of education. We have found some fault by the Council in that it failed to provide alternative education and it failed to ensure its fair access panel decisions are properly recorded. This has caused an injustice to the complainant and to her daughter. We have recommended actions to remedy this, which the Council has accepted. Therefore, we are closing the complaint.
• East Sussex County Council (22 004 391)Statement Upheld School transport 08-Mar-2023Summary: Ms R complains on behalf of Miss P’s family about the transport offered by the Council for Miss P’s post-16 education. The Council did not consider relevant information about Miss P’s stepfather’s work commitments before deciding he should provide transport. The Appeal Panel’s decision is flawed because the Panel did not follow the Council’s published appeals process.
• Kent County Council (22 009 262)Statement Upheld Alternative provision 08-Mar-2023Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council met her daughter, Z’s, educational and special educational needs. The Council was at fault for delay in carrying out the assessment for Z’s Education, Health and Care plan. This caused Mrs X frustration and meant Z was delayed in receiving provision. The Council was also at fault for failing to properly consider if it should arrange alternative provision when Z was not receiving suitable education. On balance, had it acted without fault, the Council would have put provision in place. Its failure to do so had a negative impact on Z’s development at a critical period in her education. The Council will apologise to Mrs X and Z and pay Mrs X £1700 in recognition of the injustice Z experienced.