A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions

Summary: Ms X, Ms Y and Ms Z complained about the Council’s offer of transport support for their children via a personal travel budget (PTB), rather than providing a vehicle, and about the handling of their subsequent transport appeals. They complained the Council’s decision to offer a PTB was impractical and unaffordable for their individual circumstances. Their children all have Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plans and are older than 16.

Summary: Ms X, Ms Y and Ms Z complained about the Council’s offer of transport support for their children via a personal travel budget (PTB), rather than providing a vehicle, and about the handling of their subsequent transport appeals. They complained the Council’s decision to offer a PTB was impractical and unaffordable for their individual circumstances. Their children all have Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plans and are older than 16.

Summary: Ms X, Ms Y and Ms Z complained about the Council’s offer of transport support for their children via a personal travel budget (PTB), rather than providing a vehicle, and about the handling of their subsequent transport appeals. They complained the Council’s decision to offer a PTB was impractical and unaffordable for their individual circumstances. Their children all have Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plans and are older than 16.

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Miss X’s complaint that the Council did not secure the provision in her daughter’s Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council acknowledged its failure and offered a substantial remedy. Further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Ms A complained that the Council has failed to secure the provision in her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. She says her child’s health, education and long term development have been negatively impacted by this. We found the Council at fault. The Council has agreed to apologise and provide a payment to Ms A and to her child in recognition of the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to accept a complaint about alleged bullying of Mrs X’s child. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our further involvement.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the actions of a social worker team in opening a child protection investigation and related actions concerning Miss X. These matters were raised during court proceedings, and the refusal of a judge to consider them does not affect the legal bar that consequently prevents us investigating.

Summary: Mr B complained that the Council failed to properly consider his complaint about children’s services through all three stages of the statutory complaints procedure, provide a remedy for his injustice or put in place any service improvements to prevent problems recurring. We found some fault with the Council’s actions. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice with a payment of £300 and make some service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about missed social care and education provision. It is unlikely our investigation could achieve a significantly different outcome.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council breached his human rights in its assessment of the risk he may pose to his child. Mr X would like Council reports about him changed. We have discontinued the investigation because we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the actions of the Council’s children’s services. Some issues raised happened too long ago and some have previously been considered by the Ombudsman.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to commence care proceedings. The law prevents us from doing so.

Summary: Ms X complained that the Council failed to provide full-time education and special educational provision for her son (Y). She also complained about the Council’s delay in reviewing Y’s Education Health and Care Plan, its failure to re-assess Y’s speech and language needs and to communicate with her. We found fault with the Council. This fault caused injustice to Y and Ms X. The Council has agreed to apologise and make payments to recognise Y’s loss of provision and Ms X’s distress. The Council has also agreed to reimburse Ms X for the cost of a Speech and Language Therapy report.

Summary: On behalf of her daughter, K, Mrs B complained the Council failed to complete an annual review and provide the provision detailed in her daughters Education, Health and Care Plan. We have found the Council at fault for a delay in issuing the final Education, Health and Care Plan and a delay in transferring the Education, Health and Care Plan to a new Council. This caused distress, frustration and uncertainty for K and Mrs B. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to K and Mrs B to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed issuing her child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care Plan. She says this resulted in Y missing out on a suitable education and their special educational needs provision. The Council delayed issuing Y’s Plan and delayed Miss X’s right of appeal to the SEN Tribunal. This was fault. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and make a payment to remedy the impact of its actions.

Summary: Mx G complained the Council failed to issue an education, health and care (EHC) plan after a review, delayed completing a reassessment of her needs, did not secure educational provision in accordance with her existing EHC plan, and failed to honour an agreement to provide a personal budget to fund her provision, meaning her mother, Mrs P, had to do this instead. We consider the Council was at fault on all points of complaint. This caused uncertainty and distress to Mx G and Mrs P, for which the Council has agreed to apologise and offer a financial remedy.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide suitable education for his child, Z, when Z missed significant amounts of education over several years. We have not investigated this complaint. This is because most of the complaint is late and because investigating the other part would not lead to a worthwhile outcome, nor the outcome Mr X is seeking.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to follow procedures when it rejected her school admissions appeal against the decision to place her child (Y) in a school closer to their home. The Council considered Mrs X’s application and appeal in line with the relevant law and policies without fault.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council handled her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. Part of the complaint is late, and there are no good reasons why we should consider it. Additionally, we cannot consider any matter connected to a decision that has been appealed to a tribunal. For the part of Miss X’s complaint we can investigate, the Council have already made an offer of a symbolic remedy, and it is unlikely we would achieve any further outcome.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed carrying out an Education Health and Care needs assessment for a child. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by making a suitable payment to the complainant to remedy the injustice this caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a remedy offered for missed education provision. We are unlikely to achieve significantly more.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council allegedly colluding with a school. The complaint is ancillary to matters we have already considered and declined to investigate in complaint 24 017 444. Investigating this matter would be unlikely to lead to any worthwhile outcome.

Summary: Miss X complained about a lack of social care support for her disabled child, Y. The Council failed to investigate Miss X’s complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. The Council has now started an investigation under the statutory procedure. It agreed to apologise to Miss X and pay her £100 to acknowledge the frustration and time and trouble caused to her.

Summary: Mr X complained that the Council mishandled a child protection investigation. We will discontinue our investigation. This is because the Council has not yet fully responded to his complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s children services complaint as the Council has agreed to a proportionate way to resolve the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to reduce a package of care including direct payments to Mr X to assist with his children’s care needs. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation, and it would not achieve anything worthwhile now.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the assessment of Mr X’s children. This is because the law prevents us from investigating things that have been considered in court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the suspension of the complainant’s son’s school transport. Investigation would not add anything significant to the response the Council has already made, or lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainant’s application and appeal for school transport for her son. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

Summary: There was fault by the Council which delayed amending Y’s Education Health and Care Plan following an annual review meeting. There was also poor communication and delay in complaint handling which caused avoidable distress. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment of £500 and will make the payment of £2475 it already offered to reflect Y’s loss of educational provision.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council had failed to provide education and support for her son (Y) when he could not attend school. We found fault with the Council. This fault caused injustice to Y as he missed out on the support he needed and to Mrs X. The Council agreed to apologise, make payments to recognise Y’s loss of education and Mrs X’s distress and carry out service improvements.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not provide education after her son no longer had a place at the school named on his Education, Health and Care Plan. She also complains than an annual review was delayed. Her child, Y, missed two terms of education. An apology and payment to the family remedies the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consultation into changes to its school admission arrangements. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We have upheld Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in completing her child’s Education, Health and Care needs assessment. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: Miss Y complains about her experiences as a care leaver, particularly around the standard of accommodation provided to her and the Council’s failure to properly consider an allegation she made against a staff member at her placement. Miss Y complained to the Council, but the investigation was not robust and did not offer an appropriate personal remedy. We find fault causing injustice which the Council has agreed to acknowledge with a payment of £3750.

Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council failed to provide any support for her wellbeing when it carried out a parent carer needs assessment. The Council was at fault as it failed to consider Mrs X’s circumstances and fettered its discretion when refusing to provide financial support to meet Mrs X’s eligible outcomes. This fault caused distress and uncertainty to Mrs X. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice to Mrs X by apologising and considering again what support it can offer Mrs X to meet her eligible outcomes as a result of caring for two of her children.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council failed to transfer her child, Y’s, information to a new Authority when she moved area. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an assessment completed by Council. This is because we cannot consider complaints about matters that were or could reasonably have been raised in court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Miss C’s complaint. This is because the matters are not separable from court proceedings.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed considering a complaint at stage two of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint by issuing its stage two response without further delay. It will also apologise and offer to make a payment to the complainant to remedy the time and trouble they have been to.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed considering a complaint at stage two of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now agreed to resolve the complaint by issuing its stage two response without further delay. It will also apologise and offer to make a payment to the complainant to remedy the time and trouble they have been to.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about matters related to the Council’s section 7 court report. We have no jurisdiction to look at matters that form part of court proceedings.

Summary: We cannot investigate most of Miss X’s complaint about her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan because she appealed to a Tribunal. We cannot investigate the remaining matters because they are late.