 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Summaries of cases that concern more than one category of complaint appear under all relevant category headings School admissions 10 case summaries - 2 NEW Feb-Apr 2008 School exclusions 1 case summary - 1 NEW March 2008 School transport 1 case summary Special educational needs 7 case summaries - 3 NEW Mar-Apr 2008 Student support no recent case summaries Queen Elizabeth’s Grammar School, Faversham (06/A/3575 + 9 others) Maladministration causing injustice The parents of ten children who applied without success for places at Queen Elizabeth’s Grammar School in Faversham were denied the opportunity to have their appeals considered in a fair and sensitive manner. In his report on the investigation of the ten complaints, the Ombudsman said the fault amounted to a serious injustice. All the children’s appeals were reheard, and all were successful. Queen Elizabeth’s Grammar School is a foundation school, and is wholly selective by academic ability. The Governors (as admissions authority) therefore refused the applications of the ten children concerned, as they had all been unsuccessful in selection tests. The School was not full, and the parents took up their right to appeal against the refusal of places. The School Governors (as the admissions authority) engaged Kent County Council to provide the admissions appeal panel and its clerk to consider the appeals. The parents complained about the way their applications for the admission of their children had been considered, and were particularly concerned about the manner in which the panel heard their appeals. The Ombudsman found a number of faults in the way the appeals were handled including:
“This maladministration deprived the complainants of the opportunity to have their appeals considered in a fair and sensitive manner,” said the Ombudsman. “Appellants are entitled, whatever their circumstances and outlook, to have their appeals considered in accordance with the applicable law and Codes of Practice, but this did not happen. The denial of this opportunity amounted, of itself, to a serious injustice, which was largely remedied by the rehearings which the Governors promptly arranged.” Early in the Ombudsman’s investigation, the Governors offered to arrange rehearings of the complainants’ appeals by a fresh panel with different members and a different clerk. The appeals of all ten complainants were upheld. The Ombudsman welcomed the Governors’ decision to arrange rehearings. He asked the Governors to review, in consultation with the Council, their arrangements for the hearing, consideration and clerking of admission appeals, and to provide training that will eliminate the faults identified. The Ombudsman concluded: “I recommend that governors of voluntary aided and foundation schools (who are the admissions authorities for their schools), where they engage a local education authority or another outside agency to provide an appeal panel, a clerking service, or both, should satisfy themselves that the service to be provided will meet their expectations, and also accord with the law and the applicable codes of practice. Governors cannot take it for granted, without proper enquiry, that the appeals service which they commission will be fit for purpose.” 14 May 2007 St Anthony’s Catholic Primary School, Dulwich (06/B/4757 & 5239) Maladministration causing injustice A girl was wrongly refused a place at St Anthony’s Catholic Primary School, Dulwich, because the admissions criteria were not properly applied. The Ombudsman found that an accurate assessment was not made of the parishes the families lived in, and so the prioritisation was not correctly carried out. If this had been done properly, one complainant’s daughter would have been offered a place, but the second complainant’s son would not. The School agreed to offer the girl a place and apologise to the second complainant. ‘Mr Wilson’ and ‘Mr Spencer’ (not their real names) both appealed against the School’s refusal of places for their children to begin in September 2006. The Admissions Appeal Panel upheld the refusals. Mr Wilson and Mr Spencer complained that the Panel failed to consider properly how the Governing Body had applied the admissions criteria in respect of residency and place of worship, and did not give adequate reasons for its decisions. Both complainants felt that their children may have unfairly missed out on a place at the school. The Ombudsman concluded that the admissions criteria were not correctly applied. No accurate assessment was made of the parish of residence of all the applicants, and so the prioritisation in order of the listed parishes was not correctly carried out. The appeal statement contained inaccurate information that misled the complainants, and the Appeal Panel was unable to consider the appeals properly because it did not have all the information. Also, the waiting list was not operated in any discernible order and the Panel’s decision making was not in accordance with the Code of Practice. The Ombudsman concluded that Mr Spencer’s daughter had wrongly lost a place due to these errors. Mr Wilson’s son did not wrongly lose a place, but Mr Wilson had been given incorrect information in the appeal statement, which meant he did not know the true case against him. The School accepted the Ombudsman’s recommendations that it should:
27 June 2007 Northampton School for Boys (06/B/1255, 1891 & 2055) Maladministration causing injustice The admission procedures for Northampton School for Boys were ”fundamentally flawed”. The Ombudsman said the fundamental requirement that school admission policies must be ‘objective’ was overlooked by the appeal panel that considered parents’ appeals against the refusal of places for their sons. The Ombudsman said the School’s use of an application form as part of its admission process must meet the tests set out by Government guidance - in particular, that it is designed and marked in such a way that is lawful, fair and objective. He added “I do not consider that the particular form used by the School for September 2006 admissions was capable of meeting those tests.” ‘Mr and Mrs Davis’, ‘Mrs Ellington’ and ‘Mr and Mrs Chaudhary’ (not their real names) complained about the procedures followed by Northampton School for Boys in considering applications by their sons to join Year 7 of the School from September 2006. They also complained about the conduct of appeals held to consider the refusal of offers of places to their sons. The Ombudsman upheld complaints that the appeal panel that heard their appeals did not follow proper procedures, failing both to ensure that they received copies of all documents relevant to their appeals and to scrutinise the School’s admission policy properly. The Ombudsman went on to consider the problems presented to the appeal panel by the School’s admission procedure, which involved the use of a marked application form. He concludes that this was fundamentally flawed. The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice and recommended that each of the complainants’ sons be offered a place at the School to join from September 2007 onwards. The Ombudsman noted the School’s intention to revise its admission criteria for Year 7 for September 2008 admissions onwards, and recommended that these be subject to consultation with the Department for Education and Skills and that the School takes legal advice prior to publication. 19 July 2007 Bushey Hall School (06/A/14354) and Hertfordshire County Council (06/A/11234) Maladministration causing injustice Hertfordshire County Council should pay £5,500 to a mother whose son, with special educational needs, missed 14 months’ schooling. The Ombudsman found that Bushey Hall School wrongly refused to readmit the boy (following a failed move abroad), even though it was named in his statement of special educational needs; and that the Council failed to pursue his readmission proactively or provide alternative education in the meantime. The Ombudsman said: “This is an extremely serious case of two authorities, through their actions and inactions, washing their hands of responsibility for a child’s education. Both failed Simon [not his real name] at an important time in his development, with potentially serious consequences for his future. Neither the School nor the Council took Simon’s rights and needs to heart.” ‘Ms Hopkins’ complained that Bushey Hall School was at fault in refusing to readmit her son ‘Simon’, who had a statement of special educational needs (SEN) naming the School, after she had removed him to move abroad. She complains that the Council then failed to ensure that the School met its obligation to readmit Simon, to ensure that appropriate alternative educational provision was made while he was out of school and did not properly respond to her letters and other contact. The Ombudsman found that Bushey Hall School was at fault in:
The Ombudsman found that Hertfordshire County Council was at fault in:
The result of the faults was that Simon was out of school and received no education for 14 months. The provision that was then put in place was inadequate and did not meet the requirements of his statement. In recognition of this and the potentially serious consequences for Simon’s future, the Ombudsman recommended that the Council:
The Ombudsman welcomed the fact the Council has altered its procedures following review of this case but recommended also that it consider whether there are any further changes that need to be made in the light of this report. The Ombudsman recommended that the School review its procedures to ensure that, for future years, the decisions it takes comply with the law and Government guidance. 11 September 2007 The Judd School, Tonbridge (06/A/2033 & 3678) and The Skinners’ School, Royal Tunbridge Wells (06/A/4366 & 5627) Maladministration causing injustice Parents’ appeals against the refusal of places for their sons at two Grammar schools were not considered in a fair and impartial manner. The Ombudsman said that most of the main faults were common to all four complaints (the Schools shared a clerking service). He said he “.. cannot be satisfied that the appeals were properly and independently serviced, or that conflicts of interest were properly resolved.” The Ombudsman found these main faults:
There were other faults in the presentation of the Governors’ cases to the Panels, and in the way in which the Panels considered the appeals and reached their decisions on them. The Ombudsman concluded that the maladministration identified caused the complainants avoidable uncertainty and anxiety, as they were deprived, at first, of their entitlement to have their appeals considered in a fair and impartial manner. The Ombudsman recognised that, when members and Clerks of Appeal Panels act properly, their service represents a valuable contribution to the community, and that admissions authorities may encounter difficulty in obtaining suitable people to serve as panellists. After some time, the Governors agreed to accept the Ombudsman’s suggestion that they should offer fresh appeals by a different Panel with a different Clerk. Of the four cases, one reheard appeal was upheld, two were not, and in the fourth case the complainant did not take up the offer of a new appeal. The Governors of both Schools agreed to separate, from 2008 onwards, the functions of the Clerk to the Appeal Panel from those of the Clerk to the Governors. The Ombudsman welcomed this. He also recommended the Governors to:
The Ombudsman stressed that there was no question of any fault by Kent County Council, and none was alleged. The Worshipful Company of Skinners, which is the body that provides the Clerk for both Governing Bodies, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. 31 October 2007 All Saints Benhilton C of E Primary School, Sutton (07/B/4448, 4816, 5311) Maladministration causing injustice Parents attending hearings of their appeals against refusal of places at All Saints Benhilton Church of England Primary School, Sutton, had not received proper written explanations of why their applications had been unsuccessful. The Ombudsman said “this left the complainants at a considerable disadvantage when making their appeals.” He recommended the School to offer the parents new appeals with a fresh panel and clerk. Three parents applied unsuccessfully for places for their sons in the School’s reception year. They complained about the handling of the appeals against the refusal of their applications. The School is voluntary-aided, and the Governing Body is the admission authority. The Ombudsman found that the appeals were not conducted in accordance with the School Admission Appeals Code of Practice. In particular, the School failed to provide written information in advance of the appeal hearings explaining properly why the applications had been unsuccessful. The Ombudsman concluded that this left the complainants at a considerable disadvantage when making their appeals. He also criticised the destruction of records relating to the appeals. The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice and recommended that the School’s Governing Body should:
10 January 2008 King David Primary School, Liverpool (07/C/03519) Maladministration causing injustice The admission criteria at King David Primary School, Liverpool were not “objective, clear and fair”. The Ombudsman said “The School’s admission and appeal arrangements are flawed,” and recommended the School to take action to put things right, and also offer a place to the complainant’s daughter. A parent (called ‘Mr C’ in the report) was refused a place for his daughter at King David Primary School, Liverpool. He complained that the School’s admission criteria did not comply with the School Admissions Code of Practice; and that there were serious flaws in the way that the Appeal Panel heard his appeal against the refusal of a place. Mr C applied under ‘Category 3’ of the School’s admission procedure. In this category, 21 children were allocated places out of 54 applicants, but his daughter was not one of them. The School could not describe fully how it selected the 21 successful children. The Ombudsman found that the School’s admission and appeal arrangements were indeed flawed, and in particular that the admission criteria for ‘Category 3’ applicants were not “objective, clear and fair” as required by the Code. The criteria did not reflect accurately how the decisions were made in practice. This meant that Mr C was disadvantaged in making his initial application because it was not clear enough what the School was looking for. Mr C appealed against the School’s decision. Neither the School, nor Liverpool Local Education Authority (LEA) on the School’s behalf, provided him with specific reasons why his daughter was refused a place, putting him at a disadvantage. He was unable to prepare for his appeal properly because he did not know until the hearing itself that other children in ‘Category 3’ had been given priority over his daughter. There were also faults in the way the appeal was heard. The Appeal Panel:
Had the Appeal Panel considered this appeal properly, it would have had no alternative but to decide the School had not made a clear case for its refusal to admit his daughter. The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice and recommended that the School should:
24 January 2008 Wolverhampton Girls’ High School (07/B/2334) NEW Maladministration causing injustice There were “wide-ranging and serious shortcomings” in the conduct of appeals against the refusal of places at Wolverhampton Girls’ High School (WGHS). The Ombudsman concluded that “…had the many failings not deprived [the complainant’s daughter] of a fair hearing, she would have obtained a place at the School.” WGHS is a selective, all girls secondary school responsible for its own admission arrangements and appeals. ‘Mrs Harper’ (not her real name) was refused a place at the School for her daughter, and she complained about the way her appeal was considered. The significant faults uncovered by the Ombudsman’s investigation were that:
The Ombudsman said that these faults were so serious that: “They indicate a lack of understanding of the basic tenets of the appeal process by the Admissions Authority, the Clerk and the Appeal Panel.” The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice and recommended the Governors to offer Mrs Harper’s daughter a place at the School, and to review the areas of fault identified (where they had not already done so) and ensure that they will not be repeated. 20 February 2008 Chosen Hill School, Gloucester (07/B/4356) NEW Maladministration causing injustice There were serious deficiencies in the conduct of admission appeals for Chosen Hill School, Gloucester. The Ombudsman criticised the failure to provide crucial information to parents, the absence of training for appeal panel members, and that appeals were heard by different panels, with decisions made after each one, instead of after all had been heard. ‘Mrs Parker’ (not her real name) appealed against the refusal of place for her son at the School in September 2007. Chosen Hill School is a foundation school and is responsible for its own admission arrangements and appeals. Mrs Parker considered she had been misled by comments made by the Headteacher at a school open day about the likelihood of gaining a place for her son. The Ombudsman commented: “If similar comments were made to parents, no matter how prefaced, I could see that this could give parents the impression that they were very likely to get a place.” The Ombudsman’s investigation uncovered serious deficiencies in how appeals were conducted, most significantly:
The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice and recommended the Governors to:
16 April 2008 Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (06/C/6190) NEW Maladministration causing injustice For three years, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council failed to provide appropriate educational provision for a boy with special needs. The Ombudsman said that the Council failed to take action to provide appropriate education when the boy, described as “intellectually very bright but has behavioural difficulties”, was allowed to attend school for only one day a week. The boy’s mother (called ‘Ms C’ in the report) could not appeal against her son’s exclusion, because the school had not formally excluded him. Ms C‘s son had a statement of special educational needs. After doing well at a special primary school he moved to his local mainstream secondary school where his behaviour caused problems. In years 8 and 9 he was excluded for fixed periods and from then on the school severely restricted his attendance. A modern apprenticeship course and a work placement both broke down. The Council did nothing although it knew that the boy was only allowed to attend school part-time and that the school felt it could not meet his needs. Although an educational psychologist and a consultant psychiatrist recommended that the boy should be reassessed, the Council refused on grounds that he was then entering year 11. At this point Ms C asked the Council to place her son at a specialist independent school. Initially the Council simply ignored her requests, and then it refused on grounds that the mainstream school could meet his needs. By now the boy was only being allowed into school one day a week. The actions of the school were outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. She noted, however, that by not making the exclusions either formal or permanent the school effectively circumvented:
The Ombudsman found maladministration by the Council for failing to:
The Ombudsman was also concerned that there was no evidence that the Council had considered its general duties under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005. As a result, the boy’s educational needs were not met throughout his last three years at secondary school. He was assessed as being ‘able’ and ‘intellectually bright’ but was deprived of the opportunity to reach his full potential, to be included in his school community, and to make a successful transition to adulthood. His mother suffered frustration and distress in trying to support him whilst he was out of school for long periods and in trying to get the Council to fulfil its duties. The Ombudsman recommended that, to remedy the injustice, the Council should:
27 March 2008 Lancashire County Council (06/C/2934) Maladministration causing injustice Lancashire County Council failed to consider its duty under the Disability Discrimination Act when it refused to provide help with school transport for a child after she developed mobility problems. The Ombudsman said “The Council failed at every stage to consider its powers and duties in relation to ‘Amy’.” [For legal reasons, real names are not used in the report.] Amy’s mother complained about the Council’s refusal to provide help with transport to school for her daughter, who had developed mobility problems during the first term in her GCSE year. After two appeals, the Council did provide transport for the second and third terms. The Ombudsman found that the Council’s procedures for dealing with requests for help with transport were inadequate and that it failed both to apply its own education transport policy properly and to consider its duties to the child under the Disability Discrimination Act. The Council also took too long to deal with Amy’s mother’s complaint about the issue. In accordance with the Ombudsman's recommendations, the Council agreed to:
20 November 2007 Reading Borough Council (06/A/3735) and New Christ Church Primary School (06/A/11765) Maladministration causing injustice New Christ Church Primary School and Reading Borough Council were both criticised by the Ombudsman for delay in admitting a five-year-old boy with special educational needs to school. The Ombudsman drew attention to the importance of councils and schools working together effectively and following procedures to ensure that children with special educational needs are placed in mainstream schools, where appropriate, without delay. New Christ Church Primary School is a Church of England voluntary aided school, and is its own admissions authority. ‘Ms Milne’ (not her real name) complained that the School failed to deal properly with the admission procedure for her son, ‘John’, who has special educational needs, and took too long to reach a decision. She also complained that Reading Borough Council failed to ensure that the procedure for the admission of a child with a statement of special educational needs was followed correctly. The Ombudsman found that the School delayed unreasonably in considering the Council’s request for a place to be offered to John. The process should have taken 15 days but in fact took three-and-a-half months. The Council failed to explain the proper procedure and time limits. The governors and staff showed that they did not have a clear understanding of the law and procedures for the admission of children with special educational needs. To remedy the injustice, the Ombudsman recommends that the Council and the School each apologise to Ms Milne and pay her £125 in recognition of her time and trouble in dealing with the matter. The Council should ensure that its information to schools about the procedure for admission of statemented children is clear. The School should ensure that staff and governors dealing with admissions are fully aware of the procedure. 3 May 2007 Cornwall County Council (06/B/4337) Maladministration causing injustice Cornwall County Council failed to provide for a boy’s special educational needs after it had already been criticised for the same failures in an earlier Ombudsman’s report. The Ombudsman said “It is particularly disappointing … that the same problems have recurred”. These included failure to provide speech and language therapy, and failure to oversee the boy’s statement of special educational needs. The Council had previously agreed to review the way it carried out its statutory duty in respect of statements of special educational needs, but, said the Ombudsman, “In reality very little seems to have changed.” ‘Mrs Ivy’ (not her real name) complained that, following the Ombudsman’s report on her previous complaint (ref 04/B/07871, issued March 2006), the Council continued to fail to provide for the needs of her son, ‘Oliver’ (not his real name), as set out in his statement of special educational needs. Mrs Ivy contacted the Council in summer 2005 to complain about the continuing failures. The school promised close monitoring of Oliver’s statement, but this did not happen. In November 2005 she withdrew her son from his primary school because it was not making the necessary provision. In January 2006 the Council accepted a duty to provide home tuition because of Oliver’s medical needs, but it did not make speech and language therapy available until January 2007. The Council revised Oliver’s statement in June 2006 and Mrs Ivy appealed against the provision and placement identified by the Council, with the result that Oliver was to be placed in a special school or unit for children with specific language difficulties and communication disorders on the autistic spectrum. The Council had no such provision of its own and was setting up a small unit to deal with Oliver and other children with similar needs. The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice and recommended that the Council should:
18 July 2007 East Sussex County Council (05/A/15425) Maladministration causing injustice East Sussex County Council failed to provide for a boy’s special educational needs for over two years. The Ombudsman found that, between September 2004 and March 2007 the boy received a limited education which did not meet his needs. He said “The Council cannot be held responsible for the entire period. But I am satisfied that, were it not for the faults I have identified, home tuition would have been provided at an appropriate level early in 2005.” He recommended the Council to pay the boy’s mother £7,000 towards her son’s education or training. ‘Ms Benn’ complained about the way the Council dealt with the special educational needs of her son, ‘Anthony’ (not their real names). Anthony left his mainstream secondary school at age 13 in July 2004. Since then the Council had assessed Anthony’s special educational needs but it did not issue a final statement until 9 May 2007. Anthony received home tuition (initially of five hours and eventually of 10 hours weekly). The Council approached a wide range of schools and, from April 2007, Anthony attended a new school on a trial basis. If successful he would be offered a full-time place. The Ombudsman found maladministration by the Council in that:
To remedy the injustice to Ms Benn and Anthony, the Ombudsman recommended that the Council should pay Ms Benn £7,000 to be used for a purpose related to Anthony’s education or training, plus £250 to recognise her time and trouble in pursuing her complaint. 13 August 2007 Bushey Hall School (06/A/14354) and Hertfordshire County Council (06/A/11234) Maladministration causing injustice Hertfordshire County Council should pay £5,500 to a mother whose son, with special educational needs, missed 14 months’ schooling. The Ombudsman found that Bushey Hall School wrongly refused to readmit the boy (following a failed move abroad), even though it was named in his statement of special educational needs; and that the Council failed to pursue his readmission proactively or provide alternative education in the meantime. The Ombudsman said: “This is an extremely serious case of two authorities, through their actions and inactions, washing their hands of responsibility for a child’s education. Both failed Simon [not his real name] at an important time in his development, with potentially serious consequences for his future. Neither the School nor the Council took Simon’s rights and needs to heart.” ‘Ms Hopkins’ complained that Bushey Hall School was at fault in refusing to readmit her son ‘Simon’, who had a statement of special educational needs (SEN) naming the School, after she had removed him to move abroad. She complains that the Council then failed to ensure that the School met its obligation to readmit Simon, to ensure that appropriate alternative educational provision was made while he was out of school and did not properly respond to her letters and other contact. The Ombudsman found that Bushey Hall School was at fault in:
The Ombudsman found that Hertfordshire County Council was at fault in:
The result of the faults was that Simon was out of school and received no education for 14 months. The provision that was then put in place was inadequate and did not meet the requirements of his statement. In recognition of this and the potentially serious consequences for Simon’s future, the Ombudsman recommended that the Council:
The Ombudsman welcomed the fact the Council has altered its procedures following review of this case but recommended also that it consider whether there are any further changes that need to be made in the light of this report. The Ombudsman recommended that the School review its procedures to ensure that, for future years, the decisions it takes comply with the law and Government guidance. 11 September 2007 Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (06/C/6190) NEW Maladministration causing injustice For three years, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council failed to provide appropriate educational provision for a boy with special needs. The Ombudsman said that the Council failed to take action to provide appropriate education when the boy, described as “intellectually very bright but has behavioural difficulties”, was allowed to attend school for only one day a week. The boy’s mother (called ‘Ms C’ in the report) could not appeal against her son’s exclusion, because the school had not formally excluded him. Ms C‘s son had a statement of special educational needs. After doing well at a special primary school he moved to his local mainstream secondary school where his behaviour caused problems. In years 8 and 9 he was excluded for fixed periods and from then on the school severely restricted his attendance. A modern apprenticeship course and a work placement both broke down. The Council did nothing although it knew that the boy was only allowed to attend school part-time and that the school felt it could not meet his needs. Although an educational psychologist and a consultant psychiatrist recommended that the boy should be reassessed, the Council refused on grounds that he was then entering year 11. At this point Ms C asked the Council to place her son at a specialist independent school. Initially the Council simply ignored her requests, and then it refused on grounds that the mainstream school could meet his needs. By now the boy was only being allowed into school one day a week. The actions of the school were outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. She noted, however, that by not making the exclusions either formal or permanent the school effectively circumvented:
The Ombudsman found maladministration by the Council for failing to:
The Ombudsman was also concerned that there was no evidence that the Council had considered its general duties under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005. As a result, the boy’s educational needs were not met throughout his last three years at secondary school. He was assessed as being ‘able’ and ‘intellectually bright’ but was deprived of the opportunity to reach his full potential, to be included in his school community, and to make a successful transition to adulthood. His mother suffered frustration and distress in trying to support him whilst he was out of school for long periods and in trying to get the Council to fulfil its duties. The Ombudsman recommended that, to remedy the injustice, the Council should:
27 March 2008 Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (07/C/3447) NEW Maladministration causing injustice A boy with special educational needs missed a year’s schooling because Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council wrongly refused to take responsibility for educating him. The Ombudsman said “No reasonable authority would have relied upon such insubstantial information to make decision about a vulnerable child…” and recommended it to agree with the parents and the school on what can be done to help the boy catch up on his missed education, and to pay compensation. The boy’s father (called ‘Mr H’ in the report) won an appeal to a Special Education Needs and Disability Tribunal about the secondary school to be named in his younger son’s statement of special educational needs. Almost immediately afterwards the Council’s Education officers became suspicious that Mr H’s family were not actually living at the property they owned in the Council’s area. The Council refused to take responsibility for the younger son’s education. Mr H provided full information about his circumstances and living arrangements to the Council Tax Service, which accepted that the family were using their Wirral property as their main residence. When the Council’s Legal Department subsequently made enquiries of Mr H, he declined to send it the same information he had already provided, but twice directed it to the Council Tax Section. The Legal Department did not contact the Council Tax Section and the Education Service continued to refuse to take responsibility for the boy’s education. The Council would not accept responsibility for the boy and did not comply with the law until the Ombudsman began her enquiries. As a result, the boy lost almost a year of education at the school specified in his statement of special educational needs, his parents paid for private tuition, and they experienced stress and anxiety in trying to resolve the issue. The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice and recommended the Council to:
10 April 2008 Wiltshire County Council (06/B/6454) NEW Maladministration causing injustice Wiltshire County Council mishandled the social care needs of a family, and failed to provide properly for one of their daughters’ special educational needs. The Ombudsman said “…education and social care professionals did not work together effectively with one another and with the health care professionals involved, to ensure that not only [the girl]’s needs, but those of her parents and siblings were met.” He added “The failures here had significant consequences for the health, happiness and wellbeing of the whole family, as well as for [the girl]’s development at an important stage of her life.” He recommended the Council to pay £10,000 compensation and review its arrangements to avoid any recurrence of these problems. ‘Mr and Mrs Taverner’ (not their real names) have three children. ‘Laura’ is severely autistic with associated communication difficulties and has a statement of special educational needs. At an annual review in June 2005, the professionals present unanimously recommended that she should attend a residential school from the point of transfer to secondary education, due in September 2006, as her needs could not be met locally. At the time, her parents were appealing to the Special Educational Needs Tribunal for that placement. In November 2005 Laura’s social care needs and those of her family were assessed and a recommendation made that Laura’s needs should be met outside the home, in a setting where she would receive 24-hour supervision and care, with an educational programme integrated into her life both at school and outside. Four months later, when the parents enquired why this was not in place, the Council said that the recommendation should have been removed from the draft report before it was issued, but had not been. The Council considered that a support package already in place met Laura’s needs; but did not explain how the need for a 24-hour curriculum could be met without a residential school placement. No clear written policy was in place to support this view. A review of the core assessment was carried out which, while identifying unmet needs for respite care, made no additional provision above what was already in place. Meanwhile Laura, who had transferred to a local secondary day school in September 2006, did not settle and from January 2007 refused to attend school. She remained at home until September 2007, at which point she obtained a place at a residential special school. In the meantime, the Council offered little further support and in particular, no offer of further respite care was made until May 2007. During this period Laura’s health and wellbeing, as well as that of her parents and siblings, suffered significant adverse effects. The Ombudsman considered that the Council’s removal of a recommendation from a core assessment without full and proper consideration of the impact of that amendment, and its failure to ensure that the needs of Laura and her family were adequately met over a period of many months, together with the lack of a clear written policy that the parents could challenge through use of the statutory complaints procedure, was maladministration. But for the maladministration, the needs of Laura and her family would have been met either through a residential school placement or by some alternative form of provision. The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice and recommended that the Council should:
The Ombudsman was pleased to report that Laura was now happily settled at a residential school. 17 April 2008 no recent summaries |
