BACK TO NEWSBelow is a recent update from the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman summarising recent complaints and decisions.
Lancashire County Council (23 011 148)
Summary: There was fault the Council delayed issuing an Education, Health, and Care plan for Mrs X’s son. Those delays caused an injustice to Mrs X because she now has uncertainty about the possibility of her son having missed out on the school experience and education they might have had, if but for delays. The Council have already apologised and during our enquiries, it made a suitable offer of a symbolic payment that will remedy Mrs X’s injustice.
Essex County Council (23 013 824)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her £100 per month for the delay. We consider this an appropriate remedy and further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more.
Bath and North East Somerset Council (23 014 363)
Summary: The Council failed to ensure that Ms X’s daughter received the educational provision set out in her Education Health and Care Plan, or consider whether it had a duty to make alternative provision when she was unable to attend school. It has not issued a new Plan following an emergency review, did not properly consider her request for a personal budget, and did not communicate with Ms X properly. The Council’s shortcomings caused Ms X and her daughter distress, frustration, and uncertainty. It has caused Ms X’s daughter to miss out on educational provision.
Leicestershire County Council (23 013 577)
Summary: Mrs Y complains the Council shared her identity when acting upon concerns she raised about the safety of her grandchildren. We find the Council did not follow its procedures when dealing with the concerns. It should have discussed the concerns with Mrs Y and clarified the extent to which her anonymity could be protected. This caused significant distress which the Council has agreed to provide a remedy for.
Derbyshire County Council (23 015 153)
Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s decision not to investigate her complaint until she shortened the summary of complaint to two pages. We have decided to discontinue our investigation. The Council has agreed to consider Miss X’s complaint and this was her desired outcome for our investigation.
Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (23 016 358)
Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, about assessments made by the Council in response to child protection referrals it received. This is because the complaint is late, there are other agencies better placed to deal with much of its substance, and we cannot achieve most of the outcomes the complainant is seeking.
London Borough of Bromley (23 017 012)
Summary: Miss F complained that the Council failed to provide her family with children’s social care support and had refused to accept her complaint about this. We found fault in the Council’s decision not to investigate and respond to the complaint under the statutory children’s complaints process. The Council has now agreed to do so.
Staffordshire County Council (23 008 035)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council had not secured all the special educational or social care provision in her child, B’s, Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council was at fault, which meant B missed out on provision they were entitled to. This caused Miss X distress, frustration and uncertainty. To remedy their injustice, the Council will apologise and pay Miss X a total of £5000. To prevent similar fault in future, the Council will issue a staff reminder and identify if flaws in its practice led to some of the fault. The Council will also apologise to the people who have been waiting too long for their complaint responses.
Worcestershire County Council (23 009 513)
Summary: Miss B says the Council delayed completing her daughter’s annual review for her education, health and care plan, failed to ensure the alternative provider put in place provision and failed to respond to her communications. The Council delayed completing the annual review, failed to put in place alternative provision following the annual review and failed to respond to some of Miss B’s communications. An apology, payment to Miss B and introduction of a process to manage annual reviews is satisfactory remedy.
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (23 011 298)
Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to comply with statutory timescales during the EHCP process for his son, Y. Mr X also complains about the failure to deliver provision as set out in Y’s EHCP. We have concluded our investigation having made a finding of fault. The Council failed to issue Y’s EHCP within statutory timescales, and failed to deliver all SALT sessions that Y should have received, if not for delay. The Ombudsman is aware of a national shortage of Educational Psychologists that have impacted upon events described in this complaint, and our recommendations have been agreed in line with our standardised approach.
Suffolk County Council (23 012 659)
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of her request for an Education, Health and Care Plan for her son, and about its handling of her subsequent complaint. Mrs X says the Council’s actions caused avoidable stress to her and her son. We found fault by the Council and the Council has agreed to provide Mrs X with an apology and a financial remedy.
London Borough of Sutton (23 012 757)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide alternative educational provision for her child when they were unable to attend school. She complained the Council delayed its decision not to do an education, health and care needs assessment, and complained about delays handling her complaint. Mrs X said there was a huge impact on her child of the missed education, and said it caused unnecessary and avoidable distress and frustration. We find the Council at fault, and this caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X to remedy the injustice caused.
Essex County Council (23 014 631)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to arrange the speech and language therapy set out in her child, Z’s, Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council was at fault. This caused Miss X avoidable frustration and meant Z missed out on provision they needed. To remedy Miss X and Z’s injustice, the Council should apologise and pay Miss X a total of £1650. The Council should also remind its complaints staff that they should consider whether to offer a complainant a remedy when they uphold their complaint.
Essex County Council (23 018 669)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to make alternative education provision for her son while he was unable to attend school. She says the Council’s actions caused avoidable stress and meant her son missed out on his education. We found fault by the Council and the Council has agreed to provide an apology and a financial remedy to Mrs X.
Buckinghamshire Council (23 021 230)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged fault in the content of a draft policy document. This is because the Council has made a reasonable response to the matter our intervention would not lead to a different outcome.
East Sussex County Council (23 021 262)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about inaccurate information being included in Section D of his child’s Education, Health, and Care (EHC) plan. This is because an investigation would not lead to any further findings or outcomes as the Council has appropriately remedied the injustice caused by the fault accepted.
Essex County Council (23 021 379)
Summary: We upheld Miss X’s complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care process regarding her child, Y. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.
Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (24 000 953)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not involving Mr B in the process for his child’s Education Health and Care Plan. This is because an Ombudsman investigation would not lead to a different outcome and there is not enough evidence of fault.
Kent County Council (24 001 100)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education Health and Care Plan process. The complainant has appealed to a tribunal and so the content of the plan is not something we can consider. Any injustice caused by delay in issuing the plan cannot be quantified until the outcome of the appeal is known.
Derbyshire County Council (23 014 508)
Summary: Mr X complained about the way the council dealt with child protection proceedings. We find the Council at fault for failing to provide copies of plans, failing to follow its policy around identification and not advising Mr X of how long he would need to leave the family home. However, we are satisfied with the action the Council has taken to remedy this.
Warwickshire County Council (23 019 862)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B and Mr C’s complaint about the Council allegedly not taking the appropriate action when Mr C’s son sustained two injuries while in the care of his mother and her partner. This is because we could not add anything significant to the investigation the Council has carried out.
