CYP issues
For advocates working with children and young people
This is the second issue of CYP issues – a bulletin from the Local Government
Ombudsman (LGO) giving a snapshot of the complaints we look at affecting children
and young people.
By sharing some of the common
issues from our casework (see
the case studies over the next few
pages), we aim to keep children
and young people’s advocacy
organisations informed of our work.
They can then properly signpost
people in need of help in the right
direction.
In addition, we hope that councils,
school appeal panels and other
bodies within our jurisdiction can
learn from our experiences and
convert that into local service
improvement.
The LGO has investigators with
specialist experience in dealing with
complaints made by, or on behalf
of, children and young people.
Amongst other areas, we can look
into complaints about:
˃˃ failure to provide proper support to a young care leaver;
˃˃ lack of consultation when a child is moved from foster placements;
˃˃ delay in assessing a child’s special educational needs;
˃˃ failure to provide the support set out in a statement of special educational needs;
˃˃
the way a council has assessed the needs of a child or young person with disabilities; and
˃˃
delays in offering a school place to a child and failure to offer alternative education in the meantime.
The LGO investigates complaints
from members of the public about
councils, care providers and some
other bodies in England. We provide
a free and impartial service.
Want to find out more?
Visit our website.
If you are interested in someone
from the LGO coming to speak to
your organisation about our work or
write an article for your newsletter,
contact us.
We would like to hear from you.
To discuss whether to make a
complaint on behalf of a young
person, call 0300 061 0614 or visit
www.lgo.org.uk/making-a-complaint.
We can pass your call on to a
specialist investigator if necessary.
For any other queries about this
bulletin, or if you require relevant
information for your website, please
contact [email protected]
Can I find out more about the
case studies?
Yes, for some cases you can. If
we issue a report on a complaint,
that report will be published on our
website. We usually issue a report
if:
˃˃ the body complained about refuses to accept fault (despite clear evidence);
˃˃ the body fails to comply with our recommendations; or
˃˃ we identify a wider public interest issue.
We also publish on our website
all decisions on complaints we
received on or after 1 April 2013.
(All reports and decisions are
anonoymised. We may decide not to
publish a report or decision if there
is a risk that the complainant could
be identified from the facts of the
case.)
So if the case study is published,
click on the case study title to link to
the document.
CYP issues
Case studies
Supporting special needs (SEN) and school transport
The transfer from primary to secondary school
is an important milestone. Children usually want
to take part in the induction day arranged for
July, and parents need to attend information
evenings and buy uniform. So they need to have
their school place sorted out in good time. When
a child has a statement of SEN, the amended
statement – naming their secondary school –
must be issued by mid-February of their last year
at primary school. This is so any dispute about
which school they will attend can be resolved at
tribunal before the start of the new school year.
Ms J’s daughter, Diane, has a statement of
SEN. When the council reviewed this for Diane’s
transfer to secondary school, it named two
schools in part 4. The council named the nearest
mainstream school as well as Ms J’s preferred
school, and said Ms J would have to arrange
Diane’s transport to her preferred school. Ms J
could not do this but the council did not tell Ms J
she could appeal to tribunal about transport. So
instead, at the suggestion of officers, Ms J applied
for help through the council’s school transport
scheme. Ms J has a low income, and Diane’s
medical condition means she cannot physically
walk to any school, but the council turned
down Ms J’s application. The council said there
were several nearer schools which could meet
Diane’s needs, because her statement named a
mainstream secondary school. Ms J disagreed,
and she showed that none of the mainstream
schools (including the one named by the council
in the statement) would take her daughter. The
council said this was an SEN issue which it could
not resolve in a school transport appeal.
We found the council was at fault when it issued
the amended statement. Officers knew that Ms
J could appeal to tribunal to sort out the issue of
Diane’s transport, but they did not tell Ms J this
or make it clear in the covering letter sent with
the statement. Instead, they encouraged her to
follow a process which could not consider all the
issues relevant to Diane’s school transport. That
process did not finish until August. So when the
new term started, Ms J did not know for certain
which school Diane would be attending, or how
Diane would get there. She had to call on friends
and relatives to help her get Diane to and from
school. A child’s transfer to secondary school is
an anxious time for many parents, but it was extra
stressful for Ms J because of the council’s fault.
Diane herself was upset to find she might not
be able to go to the school she had visited and
expected to go to.
Because of our involvement, the tribunal agreed
to accept a late appeal and list the case for
an early hearing. But in the end the matter did
not go to tribunal. The council provided Diane
with transport to Ms J’s preferred school while
it reviewed her statement, and then made the
arrangement permanent. The council also
apologised to Ms J and Diane, and paid Ms J
£250 to recognise the avoidable uncertainty
and time and trouble caused by the faults we
identified.
CYP issues
Case studies
Transition trauma
John, has special education needs
and had been receiving 32.5 hours
of support a week when he was at
school.
John moved to further education
but the council failed to require his
headteacher to produce a transition
plan for when he started college.
The council also failed to provide
John’s new college with a Learning
Difficulty Assessment before he
started. This meant that the college
was not prepared for John’s needs
when he arrived. Because of the
lack of support, John’s placement
broke down in the first term.
The council is responsible for
managing the transition process.
Councils must produce a written
report known as a Learning
Difficulty Assessment for young
people with special educational
needs who are leaving school who
want to go on to further education.
We recommended that the council:
˃˃ review its practices to make sure children with special educational needs have transition plans;
˃˃
for John’s education to the value of £1,000; and
˃˃
pay Mrs A (John’s mother who complained to us) £500 for the additional stress of having to make arrangements herself with the college to support John following his transfer from school.
review John’s Learning Difficulty Assessment and arrange to support him in further education or training until he is 26 if he chooses to return to college;
˃˃ provide equipment or resources Focus on flexibility
Mrs T has three children. One
child has autism and another has
Asperger's. Both these children
attend a special school. Mrs T
has her own health difficulties.
Mrs T says during the school
holidays it’s difficult to occupy the
children because of their disruptive
behaviour and because one child
refuses to leave the house unless
in a car. Mrs T says she is like a
prisoner in her own home.
The council assessed Mrs T as
needing 12 hours direct payment
support during the holidays to make
sure the children had help with their
socialisation skills and to give Mrs T
some respite.
Mrs T asked the council to use
this money to pay for the cost of
specific activities for the children
and the travel cost for her children
to attend. This would help with their
socialisation skills and Mrs T could
use the same taxi service which
transports her children to school
and who know them well.
The council insisted Mrs T use a
personal assistant to help with the
children. It refused to accept Mrs T’s
proposal because it considered Mrs
T should use her mobility car and
she should pay for the cost of the
activities. Mrs T explained she could
not drive and her husband, who
does drive, works during the week.
As a result of our investigation,
the council agreed to reconsider
because a key part of direct
payments is flexibility and allowing
parents to decide how best to use
the payments. The council therefore
agreed to:
˃˃ Mrs T using the payments in the way she had proposed;
˃˃ backdate the payments to when they had agreed the twelve hours support;
˃˃ make a small payment to Mrs T for her time and trouble; and
˃˃ review these arrangements after three months.
CYP issues
Case studies
No child left behind
Armed forces pupil not ‘excepted’
Ben, age 15 suffers from a chronic
health condition which also affects
him psychologically. He missed a lot
of school.
Mr and Mrs E applied for a reception class place at school L. At the time of
the application Mr E worked in the Armed Forces. The council refused the
school place so Mr and Mrs E appealed to the independent appeal panel.
At the time of the appeal hearing, Mr E had moved into a teaching position
within the Armed Forces.
In September 2011 Ben went back
to school with a reintegration plan
after a stay in hospital. But he could
not cope and stopped attending.
The school did not get in touch
with the council at that stage. In
January 2012 the school offered
Ben a part-time timetable but he still
didn’t manage to attend very much.
At the beginning of April the school
referred Ben to the council for home
tuition. The council refused the
school’s request on the grounds it
was not backed by recent medical
evidence.
The appeal panel stated Mr and Mrs E’s child could not be regarded as an
‘excepted’ pupil because Mr E no longer worked in the Armed Forces. It
dismissed Mr and Mrs E’s appeal. ('Excepted pupils' are not counted when
deciding if a class size has gone over 30 or exceeded the ratio of 30 to one
for pupils age 5,6, and 7.)
The panel’s decision letter did not:
˃˃ summarise the relevant factors which were raised by the parties;
˃˃ outline the factors they considered; and
˃˃ give clear reasons for the decision including how, and why, any issues of fact or law were decided by the panel.
Ben did not go back to school in
September 2012. A consultant wrote
a supporting letter in October but
it was mislaid. It was found on a
council file in January 2013. The
council then agreed to arrange
home tuition for Ben.
Mr and Mrs E felt the panel ignored their reasons why their child should be
an excepted pupil.
The council is responsible for
arranging suitable full-time provision
for children of compulsory school
age who are not able to attend for
health reasons. We found that the
council was partly responsible for
the amount of school which Ben
missed because it should have
acted sooner to make sure that he
had suitable full-time provision: the
council missed an opportunity in
April 2012 to look more closely at
Ben’s needs and how to meet them.
We recommended the council pay
£2,250 for this avoidable delay of
nine months.
The council agreed to a fresh panel hearing and to consider whether it
should change its admission prospectus.
The government wants to lessen the disadvantage to service personnel and
it expects councils to explain how their applications will be treated in their
area. The council’s admission prospectus did not set out how it would
support the government’s aim.
No place like home
Heidi is 13 and a looked after child who lives in a children’s home. The
council placed her there temporarily. After six months she heard that the
council had decided to move her to another placement. She said she was
not consulted about the move. By this time she had made good friends
at the children’s home and wanted to stay. She was also due to have an
operation and would need special care when she came out of hospital.
She was worried about moving to a new placement with people she did
not know at such a difficult time. After Heidi complained to us, the council
confirmed that it would not move her before she had recovered from her
operation. It also agreed to meet her to discuss any move and to explain
the reasons for its decision in writing, whether it decided to move her or
not.
CYP issues
Case studies
Appropriately supporting
independence
Will is a 16 year old child with
learning difficulties. He went to
the police saying he had left his
adoptive carers because they
had physically abused him for
many years and he could not live
with them any longer. The police
referred him to social services.
Social services assessed Will and
agreed he was a child in need
but did not consider whether he
should be accommodated under
Section 20 of the Children Act.
Instead the council’s housing
department helped him find private
rented accommodation. After living
independently for just over a year
the council agreed to accommodate
him and to provide leaving care
services later on.
As a vulnerable 16 year old with
learning difficulties Will struggled
to manage living independently.
He tried to juggle paying rent
and other bills, claiming benefits,
shopping and cooking for himself
and attending his college course but
nearly lost his tenancy and missed a
lot of his college course. The council
recognised that it failed to properly
investigate Will’s claims of physical
abuse when he was younger and to
accommodate him for over a year. It
agreed to pay him £4,500 to reflect
the unnecessary distress these
failings caused him.
Contact:
Sharon Chappell
Assistant Ombudsman
02476 820033
Not waving:drowning
Mrs X and her husband have
three children, two of whom
have disabilities. The family were
struggling to cope (Mrs X told the
council at one point ‘we’re not
waving: we’re drowning’) because
the council failed to re-assess the
needs of her two disabled children
and also failed to provide the home
care it had already assessed they
needed. The council also delayed
in dealing with Mrs X’s complaint.
This delay meant the family lost out
on several hundred hours of badlyneeded help.
We recommended the council
arrange eight sessions of coordinated respite care for the two
children to make up for the hours
missed and to provide respite for the
rest of the family from their caring
duties. We also recommended the
council:
˃˃ apologise for the delay in dealing with the complaint;
˃˃ pay £625 for the delay and the additional workload imposed on the family; and
˃˃ carry out a fresh assessment of the needs of the disabled child still aged under 18.
(This decision will be published in
March. Search for reference
13 000 217 on our website.)
Local Government Ombudsman
PO Box 4771
Coventry
CV4 0EH
Further case studies
This is just a snapshot of
our work with children and
young people. To read more
of our published reports;
please click the links below.
˃˃ Two parents complained about the support the council provides to care for their disabled daughter.
˃˃ Complaint from a father that the council delayed in assessing their disabled son’s needs.
˃˃ Complaint from a lady on behalf of her daughter that the council were consistently failing to provide her with care.
˃˃ Complaint from two parents that the appeal panel failed to follow the correct procedures when it rejected their appeal against the decision to refuse their son a place at their preferred primary school.
˃˃ Complaint from a couple that the council failed to ensure their son, who has Autistic Spectrum Disorder, received the speech and language therapy that was written as an educational need in his Statement of Special Educational Needs for three years.
We also published ‘Family Values’: a
themed report focussing on council
services to family and friends who
care for others’ children.
To subscribe, email:
[email protected]