Local Government Ombudsman

> | Accessiblity Options | Text Only | Text Size: A+ A- Reset | Links | Site Map

You are here: Home : : Complaint outcomes : : Education : : Education archive 2006-07 : : Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council (05C00898)

Quality and efficiency

Browser support

Browse aloud

Click here for speech assisted browser support

Downloads

Site tools

Files with this symbol pdf icon are in .pdf format. To view these files you will need the Adobe Acrobat Reader software. It can be downloaded below free of charge. Click To Download

adobe acrobat reader

Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council (05C00898)

Special educational needs        Maladministration causing injustice

27 June 2006

‘Mr Beech’ has a son named ‘Michael’ (not their real names for legal reasons) who has moderate learning difficulties. He complained about the way the Council handled Michael’s statement of special educational needs at a time when he was due to transfer to secondary school.

The advice in the Government’s Code of Practice states that amended statements for children transferring to secondary school should be finalised by 15 February. Michael Beech’s amended final statement was issued on 31 August 2004. Mr and Mrs Beech then appealed to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal as the statement named School B, rather than their preferred choice, School A. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and ordered the Council to amend the statement and to name School A.

If the statement been issued in February 2004, the Tribunal’s findings would have been known in sufficient time for Michael to start at School A at the beginning of the new school year. Instead, his education was limited to home tuition until he started at School A on 21 February 2005.

On 27 May 2004 the Council issued Michael’s final statement naming School A. Following a challenge by School A, it issued a final amended statement on 19 July 2004 naming School B. However a proposed amended statement should have been issued at this time, allowing proper consultation on the choice of school. This mistake caused further delay, as well as frustration and confusion for Mr and Mrs Beech and Michael.

In July 2004 the Council wrote letters implying that Mr and Mrs Beech were now considering other options for Michael’s school, following their agreement to visit School B. None of the evidence suggests that Mr Beech did anything other than reiterate his preference for Michael to attend School A.

At the time of the induction to School A, Council officers did not know the School had decided to challenge the statement.

The Ombudsman finds maladministration causing injustice and recommends that the Council should pay compensation of £1,500 to Michael Beech for the delay in finalising his statement, which in turn led to the prolonged delay before he started his new school. The Council should pay an additional £500 in recognition of the distress and frustration caused by its failure to issue a proposed amended statement in July 2004 and for the way in which it unreasonably misrepresented Mr and Mrs Beech’s views about the suitability of School B.

Date Published: 23/01/09