Education

London Borough of Bexley (19 004 765)

Report Upheld School transport 02-Oct-2019

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)

Report Upheld School transport 02-Oct-2019

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 (19 003 689)

Report Upheld School transport 02-Oct-2019

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.

Worcestershire County Council (18 009 584)

Report Upheld Special educational needs 22-Aug-2019

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council's failure to make alternative educational provision for her son, Y, for more than a year when he was out of school. The Council agreed with Y's school's approach in excluding him informally in breach of the School Exclusions Code 2017. It also failed to make educational provision for him for more than a year, or to meet his special educational needs, or to update his Education Health and Care Plan. This meant Y lost out on education he needed. Although delays by the Council in dealing with Mrs X's complaint were only slight, the Council's corporate complaints procedure lacks timescales and has the potential to cause injustice to future complainants by delay.

Dorset County Council (18 016 599)

Report Upheld Special educational needs 15-Aug-2019

Summary: Mr B complains the Council has failed to ensure his son C received the provision detailed in his Education, Health and Care plan. He also complains it failed to arrange suitable alternative provision whilst C was out of mainstream education.

Leeds City Council (18 011 706)

Report Upheld Alternative provision 10-Jul-2019

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide education to her daughter Y when she refused to go to school because of high levels of anxiety.

Oxfordshire County Council (18 009 005)

Report Upheld Alternative provision 02-Jul-2019

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council delayed in providing their child, D, with a suitable education when she was not able to attend school for medical reasons. This caused the family significant distress and D missed out on education for 14 months.

Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (17 016 386)

Report Upheld Special educational needs 28-Jun-2019

Summary: Mrs B complains about the Council's handling of her requests for an Education, Health and Care Plan for her son.

Derbyshire County Council (18 000 932)

Report Upheld Special educational needs 06-Jun-2019

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to provide her son (referred to in this report as Y) with an education for five years because he had regularly not been in school and no alternative provision had been made. She also complained that Y had not received the support set out in his Statement of Special Educational Needs (SEN).

Leicester City Council (18 010 117)

Report Upheld Other 04-Jun-2019

Summary: Miss X complains the Council did not have good reason to ask her to prove the education she was providing for her son, Y was suitable. Although it would in due course have sought to visit anyway, it made its first request based on information that was wrong, and continued to ask for proof even when the actual allegation gave no reason to pursue the matter. This went on for more than six months. The Council threatened to issue a school attendance order against Miss X and maintained its position despite our warnings that its action had no basis. Miss X could have prevented the Council continuing its course by giving it the evidence she showed us. But the Council's actions in asking for proof would still have caused her frustration in having to justify her actions when the basis for its request was the allegation that gave no reason for concern. Its actions have also left Miss X with an understandable loss of trust in the Council.