Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about the Council’s involvement in their son’s education and social care, causing his needs to be neglected. From the evidence seen, the Ombudsman does not find fault with the child protection conference nor with the time taken to issue an Education and Health Care plan. The Ombudsman does find fault in how the Council handled the complaint, causing distress and frustration to Mr and Mrs X. The Ombudsman has made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. The complainants, whom I refer to as Mr and Mrs X, complain about the Council’s involvement in their son’s education and social care. They complain about the following:
• The way the Council managed the child protection plan.
1. The chair has disregarded their son’s history, diagnosis and blamed them as parents.
2. The reporting and documenting of child protection conferences has been inaccurate.
3. The decision to take them to court to gain a supervision order.
• The time taken to complete an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan for their son and the content of this plan, and the professional information considered.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated Mr and Mrs X’s concerns about the child protection issues after the Court order. I have also investigated Mr and Mrs X’s concerns about the issuing of the EHC plan.
3. I have set out at the end of this statement the parts of the complaint I have not investigated.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
6. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
7. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
8. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
9. SEND is a tribunal that considers special educational needs. (The Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal (‘SEND’))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. As part of this investigation I considered the complaint made by Mr and Mrs X and information they provided. I made enquiries to the Council and considered the information received. I sent a draft of this decision to Mr and Mrs X and the Council and considered comments received in response.

Back to top

What I found

Child Protection

11. Councils have a duty under the Children Act 1989 to make enquiries where they suspect a child is suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm. If concerns are substantiated the Council may convene a child protection case conference. This is a multi-disciplinary meeting whose attendees decide what action is needed to safeguard the child. The conference may decide to make the child the subject of a child protection plan which details what action is necessary to reduce the risk of harm. Subsequent review child protection case conferences consider progress made and whether the child protection plan should be maintained, amended or discontinued. A core group of key professionals oversees and monitors the plan.
12. Councils usually have a process for dealing with complaints about child protection case conferences under their local child protection/safeguarding procedures. The complaints procedure is for people dissatisfied with the conduct or outcome of a child protection case conference and covers complaints about the way the conference was run, whether a child should have a child protection plan and decisions about the category of harm (physical abuse, neglect, emotional harm or sexual abuse). The decision of the conference cannot be changed using the complaints procedure but the complaints process can decide to, for example, decide that a conference did not follow proper procedures and recommend remedial action or to re-convene a conference to reconsider the decision and this may result in a different decision.
13. The chair of the conference is responsible for the conduct of the conference meeting. The child protection case conference plays an advisory role but the final decision is the responsibility of the council.

EHC plans

14. A child with special educational needs (SEN) may have an EHC plan. The EHC plan sets out the child's educational needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them. The Council is responsible for making sure that arrangements specified in the EHC plan are put in place and reviewed each year.
15. Some children and young people may require an EHC needs assessment for the council to decide whether an EHC plan is necessary. When carrying out an EHC needs assessment, councils must gather advice and information from relevant professionals such as educational psychologists.
16. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice January 2015 (the Code) says the whole process of EHC needs assessment and EHC plan development, from the point when an assessment is requested until the final EHC plan is issued, must take no more than 20 weeks. There are exemptions to this timeframe such as when a school is closed for at least four weeks which could delay it providing information to the Council. Where the Council uses an exemption the child’s parent or the young person should be informed if so that they are aware of, and understand, the reason for any delays in issuing the EHC plan.
17. The Code says the child’s parent or the young person must be given 15 calendar days to consider and provide views on a draft EHC plan and ask for a particular school or other institution to be named in it.
18. Parents have a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal if they disagree with the special educational provision, the school named in their child's plan, or the fact that no school or other provider is named.
19. The Ombudsman cannot look at complaints about what is in the EHC plan but can look at other matters, such as where support set out has not been provided or where there have been delays in the process.

Back to top

What happened

Child protection

20. The Council placed Mr X’s son, Y, onto a child protection plan in 2015, under the categories of physical and emotional neglect. Y lived with his father, Mr X, and his stepmother Mrs X.
21. In 2016 Y had a mental health assessment and was diagnosed with Conduct Disorder. Y continued to remain on a child protection plan following child protection conference reviews in 2016.
22. In June 2017 Y was permanently excluded from school. Y started a placement at a pupil referral unit (PRU) in July 2017. The Council provided a new school place for Y in October 2017.
23. The Council held a child protection conference in December 2017 and decided Y should remain on a child protection plan.
24. In January 2018 Y was permanently excluded from school and started a placement at a PRU.
25. Mr and Mrs X complained to the Council in March 2018 about the way the child protection conference in December 2017 was carried out. They alleged the content of the report did not match up with what happened. The Council passed Mr and Mrs X’s complaint to the chair of the child protection conference to respond to.
26. A further child protection conference was held in September 2018. At this time there were ongoing legal proceedings relating to the Council trying to get a supervision order for Y as the Council had concerns about Y’s care.
27. In October 2018 Mr and Mrs X made a complaint about the child protection conference and the way it was carried out. They raised concerns the minutes were not accurate. They also felt slandered by social services and the chair and said they have been falsely accused of being responsible for Y’s behaviour.
28. On 12 November 2018 the Court granted a supervision order for a period of 6 months, putting Y under the Council’s supervision. Y was to continue to live with Mr and Mrs X during this time.
29. The Council responded to Mr and Mrs X’s complaint on 14 November 2018. The Council asked for specific details of the inaccuracies in the conference notes. The Council told Mr and Mrs X they can raise these concerns as part of the ongoing legal proceedings concerning a supervision order for Y.
30. On 26 November 2018 Mr and Mrs X contacted the Council and said the legal proceedings were concluded before the Council sent its complaint response. They are unhappy with the notes completed by the chair after each meeting and have concerns about how Mrs X is being blamed for Y’s behaviour.
31. A child protection conference took place in February 2019. The minutes show Y was diagnosed with autism since the last child protection conference. The conference decided to remove Y from the child protection plan and place him onto a child in need plan.
32. In March 2019 Mr and Mrs X submit a formal complaint about the last child protection conference. They raise concerns about the information contained in the minutes and the comments by the chair and college Y attends.
33. The Council responded to Mr and Mrs X’s complaint by sending them a matrix document containing the contact they have had with the Council.

Special educational needs

34. In June 2018 Mr and Mrs X requested an EHC plan for Y. The Council responded on 20 June 2018 to say it would carry this out.
35. In late July 2018 the Council wrote to Mrs and Mrs X giving them a timetable of the process involved in issuing an EHC plan. The Council also emailed Mr and Mrs X on 20 July 2018 to set out the list of professionals it was seeking advice from in relation to Y’s EHC plan. The Council also said it was applying a statutory exemption to the 20 week timeframe due to the school holidays.
36. On 7 November 2018 the Council sent Mr and Mrs X a draft EHC plan for Y. Mr and Mrs X met with the Council to discuss amendments to the draft plan before the Council issued the final plan.
37. On 4 December 2018 the Council issued a final EHC plan for Y. The plan was dated 30 November 2018. The Council informed Mr and Mrs X about their right to appeal the EHC plan. Mr and Mrs X said they were not happy with the content of the plan, including the placement named in the report.
38. On 14 January 2019 the Council sent an amended version of the EHC plan to Mr and Mrs X. The Council informed Mr and Mrs X of their right to appeal the plan. Mr and Mrs X had further concerns about the content of the plan.
39. The Council arranged mediation to take place to discuss the concerns in the EHC plan. This meeting took place on 1 March 2019.
40. The Council issued Y’s final EHC plan on 30 April 2019. This named a different school for Y from September 2019 onwards.
41. Mr and Mrs X remained dissatisfied and complained to the Ombudsman. They said they still have concerns about the content of the EHC plan and the child protection process.

Back to top

Was the Council at fault and did this cause any injustice?

Child protection

42. In relation to the child protection issues I have not investigated matters prior to the supervision order or the Council’s decision to apply for this as Mr and Mrs X had the opportunity to raise these as part of the Court proceedings.
43. Mr and Mrs X have raised issues with the child protection conference since the supervision order. They say the chair and school have disregarded Y’s history and blamed them as parents. They also say the minutes of the child protection conferences are not accurate.
44. From the child protection conference notes and documentation since 2018 the Council has considered Y’s views and was aware of his history. I recognise Mr and Mrs X disagree with the comments concerning their behaviours and parenting however I have no evidence to show this is inaccurate or false.
45. I do consider the Council is a fault for how it has handled Mr and Mrs X’s complaint. Given the long history of this case and the number of complaints Mr and Mrs X raised through this process I would have expected the Council to have used its local child protection procedures to deal with Mr and Mrs X’s concerns.
46. In response to enquiries the Council said it decided not to use the local child protection procedures and deal with the matters as formal complaints. The Council confirmed it felt this was best given the communication received from Mr X and that he had raised concerns about the Service Manager. It also felt that bringing all of his concerns into one single document was the best way to respond.
47. From the evidence seen, Mr and Mrs X brought complaints to the Council over a number of years, particularly about the child protection process and were raising similar issues. In relation to Mr and Mrs X’s last complaint about the child protection conferences in 2019, the Council sent them a matrix detailing all their contact with the Council for the past six years. This document did not clearly set out the Council’s position or reasoning and did not tell Mr and Mrs X how they could take things further should they not be satisfied with the response.
48. Had the Council used its procedure to deal with complaints about child protection conferences or at least sought to clarify Mr and Mrs X’s complaints and provide a comprehensive response setting out the Council’s position it may have been able to clearly address Mr and Mrs X’s concerns much earlier. In addition using this procedure would have likely meant the Council could clearly set out its position to Mr and Mrs X, and may have gone someway to preventing the relationship and distrust between Mr and Mrs X and the Council from deteriorating further.

EHC plan

49. From the evidence available Mrs and Mrs X asked the Council to assess Y’s needs in June 2018. The Council agreed to assess Y on 20 June 2018. It took the Council until 4 December 2018 to issue the final EHC plan which is three and a half weeks over the statutory timescale of 20 weeks.
50. The Council has provided evidence it relied upon one of the exemptions in the Code as the assessment took place over the summer holidays and schools were closed for over 4 weeks. The Council also provided evidence it advised Mr and Mrs X of this in an email. Therefore I do not consider the Council at fault.
51. Mr and Mrs X also raised concerns about the content of the plan and the school named. This falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate as Mr and Mrs X had appeal rights to challenge this. The Council informed Mr and Mrs X several times in correspondence of their right to appeal to the Tribunal should they disagree with the content of the plan. I consider it reasonable for Mr and Mrs X to have used these appeal rights.

Recommended action

52. Within one month of my final decision the Council should carry out the following and provide evidence to the Ombudsman it has done so:
• Apologise for the failures in complaint handling and pay Mr and Mrs X £300 for the distress and anxiety this caused. In coming to this figure I have considered the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.

Back to top

Final decision

53. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council which caused injustice. I have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

54. I did not investigate the child protection issues prior to the Court order as Mr and Mrs X could have raised these concerns to the Court at the time.
55. I did not investigate the historic child protection issues dating back to 2015 as these are over 12 months old. I see no reason why Mr and Mrs X could not have brought their concerns to the Ombudsman sooner.
56. I did not investigate the complaint about the content of the EHC plan or the school named as Mr and Mrs X have appeal rights available to them. I am satisfied they could have used their appeal rights.
57. I have included some of these matters in the background section for context.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman