Lancashire County Council (20 002 848)

Statement Upheld Alternative provision 24-Feb-2021

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her son, F, with suitable education following his permanent exclusion from school in March 2019. She also complained the Council delayed issuing F’s Education, Health and Care Plan and delayed approving his post-16 placement. The Council provided F with suitable alternative provision in line with the law following his exclusion from school. It was at fault for failing to issue F’s Education, Health and Care Plan in line with statutory timescales and for failing to name his post-16 placement before the start of the academic term. The Council agreed to apologise and pay Mrs X £300 to acknowledge F’s loss of educational opportunity between September and November 2020. It also agreed to pay Mrs X £100 to acknowledge the frustration and time and trouble the matter caused her.

West Berkshire Council (20 002 957)

Statement Not upheld School admissions 24-Feb-2021

Summary: Mrs C says the Council is at fault for a failure to enforce its school admissions policy by carrying out checks to ensure children applying for places at a local school were eligible. As a result, Mrs C says she and her child, X, suffered injustice as Mrs C was refused a place at the school despite living in the catchment area. The Council was not at fault. The Council made reasonable checks to ensure applicants met the admissions criteria and the appeal panel applied national and Council policies correctly.

Lancashire County Council (20 005 038)

Statement Upheld Covid-19 24-Feb-2021

Summary: Mr X complains that an appeal panel did not properly consider Ms Y’s appeal for a school place for her child. There was fault in how an appeal panel considered Ms Y’s appeal for a place for her child at a school. As a result, Ms Y cannot be satisfied the hearing was fair which causes uncertainty to her. The Council will remedy this injustice by sending a written apology to Ms Y.

West Berkshire Council (20 006 739)

Statement Not upheld School admissions 24-Feb-2021

Summary: Mrs D says the Council is at fault for a failure to enforce its school admissions policy by carrying out checks to ensure children applying for places at a local school were eligible. As a result, Mrs D says she and her child, Y, suffered injustice as Mrs D was refused a place at the school despite living in the catchment area. The Council was not at fault. The Council made reasonable checks to ensure applicants met the admissions criteria and the appeal panel applied national and Council policies correctly.

London Borough of Enfield (20 011 112)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 24-Feb-2021

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about racist bullying in a school two decades ago. A statutory bar prevents us investigating matters that happen in schools.

Shropshire Council (19 020 440)

Statement Upheld Special educational needs 22-Feb-2021

Summary: Mrs C complained the Council failed to ensure her son, D, received the provision specified in his Education, Health and Care Plan (specifically, speech and language provision). She says that its fault caused D to miss a service he should have had and caused time and trouble to her having to chase the Council to see that the service was provided. She says the Council also delayed issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan for D and delayed finding him a new school. There is evidence of fault and the Council has agreed to apologise and to make appropriate payments.

Cambridgeshire County Council (20 010 977)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries School admissions 22-Feb-2021

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council’s Schools Admissions Appeal Panel failed to provide her child with a place at School Z. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused her to lose out on a school place.

Menorah High School For Girls (20 000 727)

Statement Upheld School admissions 22-Feb-2021

Summary: based on the evidence I have seen, the Governors’ response to Mr P’s complaint may be tainted by the appearance of bias since the investigator and two of the panel members appear to have had links with the school. There are, however, no grounds for the Ombudsman to question the outcome. The school has agreed to review its complaints procedures to avoid the appearance of bias when considering complaints in the future.

Central Bedfordshire Council (19 012 009)

Statement Upheld Special educational needs 22-Feb-2021

Summary: Mrs X complains about the appropriateness of out of school education provided when she removed her child from a school. There was fault by the Council because it did not properly consider its approach to the withdrawal of Mrs X’s son from school. The Council agreed a financial remedy for Mrs X and her son to address the injustice they suffered.

Central Bedfordshire Council (19 012 234)

Statement Not upheld Special educational needs 22-Feb-2021

Summary: Mrs Y complains about the Council’s handling of a safeguarding investigation at her son’s previous school. This investigation was discontinued because no worthwhile outcome is achievable by further investigation.