Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman, children & education summaries 11 Oct 2019

All cases can be found at this link 

London Borough of Bexley (19 003 689)
Summary: The Council failed to comply with an Ombudsman recommendation to carry out a new assessment of eligibility in three complaints about home to school transport for children with special educational needs (SEN) and mobility difficulties. We are issuing this report because the Council did not comply with our recommendations. We are concerned that, despite the service improvements the Council says it has made, it repeated the same fault.

London Borough of Bexley (19 004 764)
Summary: The Council failed to comply with an Ombudsman recommendation to carry out a new assessment of eligibility in three complaints about home to school transport for children with special educational needs (SEN) and mobility difficulties. We are issuing this report because the Council did not comply with our recommendations. We are concerned that, despite the service improvements the Council says it has made, it repeated the same fault.

London Borough of Redbridge (18 001 822)
Summary: The Ombudsmen find a Council and CCG failed to work together properly to agree a young person’s Education Health and Care Plan. The young person missed out on support for an assessed health need over a prolonged period. Their parents were able to fund some private support, for which they have been partly reimbursed by the Council. The CCG has agreed to reimburse the outstanding amount. Further, the CCG has agreed to provide a financial remedy to acknowledge the uncertainty about the impact on the young person’s health.

Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (18 001 679)
Summary: there is fault by the Council in relation to the delay in responding to Mr F’s complaint between July and October 2018 and the Council should apologise to Mr F for this. I do not consider there is fault in relation to Mr F’s complaint that the Council discriminated against him on the grounds of his mental ill health.

Essex County Council (19 004 968)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a delay in closing a foster care placement. There is no significant injustice caused to Mrs X requiring a remedy.

Gloucestershire County Council (19 001 191)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms A’s complaint about the actions of the Council between 2016 and 2018 when it received allegations about her husband. This is because he could not say there is any fault with the actions taken by the Council or add to the Council’s responses or make a finding of the kind Ms A wants.

Middlesbrough Borough Council (19 002 381)
Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint about support provided by the Council to Mr J’s family. Support is now being provided by a different service provider and it is unlikely investigation by us would achieve more than this.

London Borough of Bromley (19 002 736)
Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate Mr J’s complaint about the Council’s response to a safeguarding referral. It is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Sunderland City Council (19 002 865)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because Mrs Q has appealed to a Tribunal.

Wolverhampton City Council (18 009 478)
Summary: The Council was at fault for a seven-month delay in arranging a meeting between Mr and Mrs B and their daughter’s independent reviewing officer, and in providing them with photographs of their daughter from before it placed her for adoption. The Council has agreed to arrange the meeting, provide the photographs and apologise to Mr and Mrs B for the delay.

London Borough of Tower Hamlets (18 010 825)
Summary: The Council is currently dealing with Ms X’s complaint at stage 2 of the statutory children’s complaints process. Therefore I have discontinued my investigation into this complaint.

London Borough of Ealing (18 015 562)
Summary: Mr W complained the Council failed to accept an agreement to support him through three years of undergraduate study. The Council was not at fault for saying the agreement it had with Mr W was for him to study a Higher National Diploma rather than a Batchelor of Science degree. But there was no evidence it considered whether supporting Mr W for the final year of study was in Mr W’s best interests. It is asked to do that now.

St Gregory’s RC High School, Warrington (19 005 069)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council on the School’s behalf refused to give her its admissions appeal panel hearing notes. It is reasonable to expect her to make a data protection act request. And complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office if the school fails to comply.

London Borough of Camden (19 002 050)
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about children services involvement with her children moving to another part of the country. This happened in November 2017 and there are no compelling reasons why the late complaint rule should not apply.

Coventry City Council (18 014 987)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to take any action after a social worker held her wrists. She said the case records do not reflect what happened and the Council’s complaint process failed to consider her views. The Council was not at fault.

Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (19 002 329)
Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Ms A’s complaint about her child being adopted against her wishes because it lies outside his jurisdiction. The Ombudsman cannot investigate matters that have been considered and decided in court proceedings. The Ombudsman cannot investigate allegations of criminal activity which Ms A raises as this is a matter for the police.

Halton Borough Council (19 002 743)
Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about the court’s decision to remove her grandchildren from her daughter’s care because it lies outside his jurisdiction. The Ombudsman cannot consider matters that have, or could have, been considered in court proceedings. The law prevents us from doing so.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: