A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions

Summary: There is evidence the Council failed to properly consider its section 19 duty to provide Mrs Xs son, Y, with suitable alternative provision when he was unable to attend school due to health needs between May 2022 to December 2022. I have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused by the faults for the Council to consider.

Summary: The complainant, Ms X, complains about how the Council has managed the Education, Health and Care plan process for her son. She said the Council has failed to meet deadlines; her son has been out of education with limited alternative provision in place and said the Councils communication has been poor. We found the Council was at fault. This caused significant distress to Ms X and her son was out of education. To address this injustice the Council has agreed to several recommendations.

Summary: The Council failed to provide the provision set out in MissKs Education Health and Care plan, or take sufficient steps when this meant she could not go to school. The Council also failed to notify her parents that it intended to maintain the plan without amendment, and it took too long to respond to their complaints. The Councils failings meant that Miss K did not have any education for two years and her parents lost the right to appeal the decision not to amend the plan. This caused the family distress and frustration. The Council has agreed my recommendations to remedy the complaint.

Summary: The Council failed to complete an EHC needs assessment within statutory timescales due to a shortage of Educational Psychologists. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment. The Council is already carrying out service improvements to address the shortage of staff and backlog of cases.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Councils involvement in 2018 when safeguarding concerns were raised relating to Mrs Xs children. The time that has passed since events means we could not now carry out a meaningful investigation or come to sound conclusions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Councils social workers alleged mistreatment of Mrs X. This is because the issues raised are inextricably linked to ongoing court proceedings.

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council dealt with his childs, Y, Education Health and Care Plan. Mr X also complained about the Councils poor communication with him and how it dealt with his complaint. There were faults by the Council which caused injustice to Y and Mr X. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council withdrew Child Js school transport arrangements at short notice. She also complained about how the Council made this decision and about how it ensured it met Child Js needs. We have found the Council at fault for its communication and for avoidable delay in trying to secure new transport arrangements. These faults caused Mrs X avoidable uncertainty and distress. We have not found the Council at fault for failing to risk-assess Child Js transport arrangements, or for its approach to training. We have also not found the Council at fault for failing to discharge its duty to arrange school transport for Child J.

Summary: There was fault by the Council. The Council did not provide weekly skills sessions named in an Education, Health and Care plan. The Council also did not provide a member of college staff for speech and language sessions. The Councils agreement to pay to make up for the lost sessions remedies the injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils failure to arrange Education Health and Care Plan provision because it has agreed a proportionate remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils decision to turn down Mrs Xs application for a free school travel pass for her child Y. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with Councils actions.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Councils failure to share a stage two report with her following a childrens statutory complaints procedure investigation and for the failure to carry out the agreed actions from a previous investigation by us. The Council was at fault for the failure to properly consider what aspects of the report could be shared with Mrs X and for the delay in carrying out the recommendations from our previous investigation. It has agreed to apologise and pay Mrs X 500 to acknowledge the distress and frustration caused and to retake the decision on what aspects of the report it can share, considering all relevant factors.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council has been at fault in its actions relating to the care of the complainants children. This is because the complaint concerns matters which have been considered in court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an assessment the Council carried out as ordered by the courts. The law prevents us from investigating the content of court reports.

Summary: Mrs B complained about excessive delay by the Council in issuing a final EHC plan for her son C following a needs assessment and in producing an amended EHC plan following an annual review. It also failed to properly investigate the matter when responding to Mrs Bs complaint. We have found fault causing injustice to Mrs B and C. The Council has agreed to pay Mrs B 500 for herself, and 1250 for the benefit of Cs education, in addition to completing the annual review process. The Council has also agreed to improve its procedures for the future.

Summary: The Council took too long to issue a final Education Health and Care plan. It did not ensure that Miss Bs son could access the educational provision set out in the plan. The Council did not properly consider her request that the funding be made available to him to better deliver the plan while he could not attend school. The Council took too long to deal with MissBs complaint and did not properly address the issues she raised. The Councils shortcomings meant that Miss Bs son missed out on education and caused her distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council offered a means to remedy the impact on the family and it has agreed to my additional recommendations.

Summary: Miss X complained the admission appeal panel failed to properly consider her appeal for a school place for her child, Child Y. We have ended this investigation because there was nothing more we could have achieved by pursuing this further as the Council offered a fresh appeal.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs Xs complaints about the Councils refusal to assess her son for an Education Health and Care Plan and about the content of the final Plan. This is because Mrs X has appealed against the Councils decisions. We will not investigate alleged delay by the Council in reaching its decision not to assess Mrs Xs son as the complaint is late and we consider it would have been reasonable for her to complain to us sooner.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council issued multiple EHC plans that named unsuitable placements and provisions, which meant her child was unable to attend education. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for its delay during the EHC plan process, but this did not cause significant injustice. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council for how it considered its alternative provision duty.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide alternative education to her child, C, when she was unable to attend school due to health reasons. The Council was at fault because it failed to consider its statutory duty to provide alternative education, and this caused uncertainty and distress to Mrs X and to C. To remedy their injustice, the Council will review the education C is receiving, apologise, pay Mrs X 2350 and review the relevant policy and process.

Summary: Mr F complains the Council has failed to provide him with a suitable education or secure his special educational needs provision. There was fault as the Council failed to secure his SEN provision and issue a revised EHC plan on time. This caused Mr F distress. The Council has agreed to apologise and make him a payment to remedy that.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Councils failure to complete an Education, Health and Care Needs assessment for her son within statutory timeframes. We found the Council at fault for delays in the process. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy this injustice.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about what the Council wrote about Mr X in an assessment. This matter is not separable from the court action that decided who was best placed to care for his grandchild.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Councils actions in relation to her childs, Y, Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) and how it managed her complaint. The Council was at fault. It failed to provide some provision as outlined in Ys EHC Plan. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her 900 for some of the provision Y lost and for the frustration and uncertainty it caused to her. The Council was also at fault for poorly communicating with Mrs X in relation to her request for mediation and how it managed her complaint. The Council has already offered Mrs X a personal remedy and has made a service improvement. This was appropriate. The Council will also review with staff its complaints procedure to prevent a recurrence of fault.